12.07.2015 Views

Seattle University Collaborative Projects - International Academy of ...

Seattle University Collaborative Projects - International Academy of ...

Seattle University Collaborative Projects - International Academy of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ackgrounds. While the traditional structural definition <strong>of</strong> diversity, i.e. diversity by sheernumbers, remains a meaningful basis <strong>of</strong> diversity practice (building critical mass and avertingtokenism), diversity as an issue <strong>of</strong> compelling constitutional interest now mandates substantivecross cultural interactions with measurable benefits for both majority and minority populations. Iwill review the highest court’s mandate, address higher education diversity within the currentsocial climate, and lastly, consider an OD approach to creating solutions for these organizations.Specifically, I will summarize four recent Supreme Court decisions relevant to the interpretation<strong>of</strong> diversity related regulations and explore therapeutic jurisprudence, and its potential forserving as a tool for organizational development consultants.207. TJ and Mental Health LawWith the Best <strong>of</strong> Intentions: Public Health, Therapeutic Jurisprudence andMental Health CourtsChelsea Davis, Columbia <strong>University</strong> (cbd2116@columbia.edu)The political issues surrounding therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) and mental health courts (MHCs),including coerced treatment, social control, and the role <strong>of</strong> psychiatry in courts are hotly debatedin the context <strong>of</strong> today’s justice system, the current state <strong>of</strong> the criminalization <strong>of</strong> mental illness,and the current public mental health system. However, TJ, MHCs, and their critics haveideological progenitors in the mid twentieth century. This paper will discuss in what ways TJ andMHCs represent a break from earlier debates regarding psychiatry, social control, and coercedtreatment in the legal context started by Karl Meninger, Thomas Szasz, Nicholas Kittrie, andJudge Bazelon. TJ and MHCs constitute both continuity and change in criminal justiceparadigms, mental health policy, and the relationship between psychiatry and the law. Thoughthe same problems had by the therapeutic state do not arise in this context as TJ is by no means acall for deference to any public health establishment, today’s ideologies do have reluctant rootsin the rehabilitative ideal. Thus, critiques <strong>of</strong> and advocacy for the therapeutic state find their ownexpression in TJ. Additionally, TJ has integrated aspects <strong>of</strong> public health into its formulation andapplication. Mental health courts are explicitly designed with the aim <strong>of</strong> affecting the root causes<strong>of</strong> the criminalization <strong>of</strong> mental illness and thus seem to share a common purpose with publichealth, which also focuses on distal causes <strong>of</strong> social problems. With this historical perspective inmind, we must ask whether MHCs can be conceptualized as a public health intervention andwhat the answer to this question means for the relationship between TJ, MHCs, and publichealth.Overhauling a State's Mental Health Code: The Texas ExperienceBrian D. Shannon, Texas Tech <strong>University</strong> (brian.shannon@ttu.edu)498

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!