And yeah, I still have nightmares about the cinderblock and plexiglas place that kept me for three years of my teenage life. Never had a prom, never had a graduation, don’t have a real alma mater I can mention anywhere. I have one friend left from those times, and she says she still has bad dreams of it, too.

The fact of the matter is, I was legitimately traumatized by an experience in an institution that was supposed to help me. Were there good people there? Yes. Do I think that anyone working there was inherently evil? No. Eventually, I did get the help I needed, and it came from doctors and other professionals that include individuals who could very well be much like Mike Weber. 

But what I see (and what I suspect Anthony sees as well) when an employee of these institutions comes to the comment section of a post criticizing the state of mental health facilities to defend themselves and their co-workers is someone who is willing to speak up and defend themselves, but not the people (children! mentally ill children!) who they are supposed to care so much about. 

Part of that is absolutely irrational. I don’t know if this individual is the type of person to quickly take away “privileges” like fresh air, or if they are willing to turn a blind eye when someone violates the “no touching rule” to keep back a more genuinely uncontrollable individual who lunged at them.

I asked for help and what I got was a jail, barred windows and all. I was punished for my illness though a point system, very similar to the one described above. I was silenced–any complaints or dissent was an argument against you, particularly if you seemed in any way emotional. 

Comments like cmdcarrot’s are silencing. It is so very troubling to think that someone could read the above essay and not see the issue in telling someone to “get off their high horse” when they criticize a comment, from a biased source, saying that most people in a position of power over marginalized individuals Really Do Care. That could very well be true, but it’s a derailment. Those who are affected by the abusive or uncaring individuals (that the original commenter acknowledges!) don’t need to make a fuss about the decent human beings that were also there. (even though this author does!) 

I can understand the frustration experienced by someone who feels vilified, but I don’t see any benefit in shutting down a discussion of the idea that maybe these dedicated individuals just aren’t doing that great of a job, or that there could still be room for improvement. If you’re really so dedicated, and so passionate about helping people in need, you should be open to criticism that might help you do your job better. You should care about the HUGE TREMENDOUS ABUSES that exist in your industry. You should focus more on the issue than the presentation.

Most people agree with that right up to the point that they find their views being edited out, or some other ‘objectionable’ point of view being promoted.

Almost inevitably when my comments are deleted I’m either fairly grateful to the mods for having deleted a stupid comment or I at least understand why it was deleted.  When the mods express opinions I don’t take that as those opinions being “promoted”, I see it as individuals with opinions expressing those opinions.

To claim otherwise would be to suggest that an off-duty cop, in
uniform, is speaking personally and not invoking police authority unless he specifically says “BTW I’m speaking as a cop.”

This is just stupid.  It’s a problem when cops abuse authority because they’re functionaries of civil government which is supposed to represent and protect all citizens.  What you’re talking about is moderators on a private blog — and since it’s private it’s run however the owners/editors/bloggers/mods want it to be run.  Moderators are part of the community (obviously), they have opinions, and they’re allowed to express those opinions — whether or not you think this is somehow “unjust” (it’s not) those are the house rules.

I get into similar arguments all the time regarding medicine. My wife is a physician, and I get annoyed when people on comment boards go off on doctors as being money grubbing pill pushers, conspiracy theories about doc and pharm companies, blah blah blah. Knowing what she went through (12+ yrs of school/training,  grueling 100 hr weeks in a hospital during residency, crap pay, etc), I do vehemently defend her and her profession.

The problem is for a memoir length piece, it becomes rather easy for someone to figure out who I am. I am an expert in privacy and anonymity. It takes more than just changing everyone’s names to make something like that anonymous – hell, figuring out how to publish my memoir anonymously could be a PhD thesis in itself.

I am seriously considering doing a book once I finish my doctorate. But right now, I don’t know how to move to that point. This piece was edited quite a lot by Rob. I am a skilled scientific writer, but I’d need a great editor or ghostwriter to write a whole book.

I don’t mean to discount you – I appreciate your comments. Trust me – I have thought about all this many times, many nights.

If I knew a way to anonymously write a book, I’d do it. I might wait a few years, but I’d do it.

“I’m sure that any book that expressed  anything about the mental health establishment except a desire to kiss the posterior of every member of my support time would probably be greeted with scorn and derision by a vast majority of “expert” talking heads.”

Well, there you’ve already decided how your book would be received. But it’s not the majority of “expert” talking heads you’re aiming at, is it? It’s the “normals” as they called by others in this comment thread (with quite a bit of derision) who obviously know nothing about your situation, and those possibly in similar situations (or their families) who you might inspire. 

There may well have been teachers and staff at “Northwoods” who tried their best to educate and help the kids despite the constraints of the system (but not too much lest they too be pegged as troublemakers and lose their jobs.)  That in no way excuses the cruelty and waste of human talent inherent in the system itself. 

But I agree with your point. I’m a “maker”. I’m constantly trying new things, and figuring stuff out. Sure, my ADD gives me problems (I don’t have the “H”), but I wouldn’t trade it if it meant I lost the “look at the shiny!” impulse that leads me to learn and discover. There are careers where this is an advantage. If only I could find one…

But yeah. Neurodiversity exists. We need to draw a line between “different” and “more trouble than it’s worth.”

If that’s what it takes to get the help a person needs, then I’m glad he’s getting that help!

The different between creative nonfiction and nonfiction, in my opinion, is a focus on the subjective. There are a lot of things about my experience that are subjective, and can’t be verified by a traditional fact checker.

Maybe Burroughs exaggerated or changed his story. But I could also see where someone, painted in a negative light, would loudly renounce any claim that cannot be proven nor disproven. I could also see a peer group (such a staff at an alternative school, or members of a family), may collectively remember events in a different light. (Similar to the code of silence exhibited in most US police departments – we simply don’t understand what it’s like to be a cop, and anything short of a mass execution should be excused because “you weren’t THERE mannnn”)

Hell, I already saw two people in this comment thread, on a quite counter-culture blog, who walked in, noted their credentials, and proceeded to condescendingly explain that restraining children who are not being violent just doesn’t happen. I’m sure that any book that expressed  anything about the mental health establishment except a desire to kiss the posterior of every member of my support time would probably be greeted with scorn and derision by a vast majority of “expert” talking heads.

My impression is that the quality of special ed instruction varies a lot based on where you are.  There are definitely districts where a lot of teachers are disinterested and unhelpful.  Other districts, like San Francisco in particular, seem to attract highly educated, highly motivated teachers who could have chosen many other professions but choose to work hard for students about whom they really care.  I suspect that you would find the extremes on both ends in specialized institutions, since the institution is somewhat shielded and thus lends itself to developing an insular culture of either extreme dedication (see, e.g. Gallaudet) or extreme cruelty (e.g. Rotenberg).  

This is one reason that specialized institutions should be done away with.  As other commenters here have pointed out, the IDEA requires education in the general population to the greatest extent possible.  Districts flout that requirement constantly, but they are quick to back down if you call them on it.  Kids should be in regular classrooms if at all possible, and otherwise in special day classes in a typical, local school.  Behavior issues are not a reason to shuffle kids off to an institution or to lock them in a closet – they are an indication that the kid needs additional help that they’re not getting.  That help should be provided, again, in the general education population as much as possible.  

Beyond making sure that kids are educated in the least restrictive environment like the law requires, I’m not sure how districts best ensure they are encouraging a culture of bright, dedicated and committed special ed teachers.  But I know it’s possible because I’ve seen it.  It sounds like Mike is from one of the good districts.

This “associative memory” is exactly what I have — it’s like every topic is a Wikipedia page where every word is a link to another page and I can cascade through ALL of them at the same time while the topic’s on.

You’re not broken. You’re just a rainforest in a world full of deserts.

Let’s pour her juicebox down her sweatshirt, that’ll get a laugh from the rest of our buddies, right?!!!

I find it somewhat ironic that in a thread about poor treatment of people with communication issues, there is poor treatment of people who communicate here for the first-time.