The Whole Story

The Whole Story

Prejudiced People Hire Prejudiced People
To Solve Consumers’ Prejudice Problem

A letter to consumers from Dr. Jean M. Bradt:

A couple of years ago, in order to fight the prejudice that we consumers face, a US government agency known as SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) formed the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS). CMHS did not directly attack the prejudice; rather, following time-worn bureaucratic procedures, CMHS formed another group, ADS (Addressing Discrimination and Stigma). ADS then contracted with the Gallup Organization to form the Elimination of Barriers Initiative (EBI) which, finally, initiated the government’s fight against the prejudice.

The Gallup Organization proceeded as follows:

1. They invited corporations to submit bids to “develop educational resource materials”, among other activities*, to fight the stigma. They called for bids among agencies who were known for their public relations/education accomplishments.

2. Vanguard Communications was given the contract. Vanguard employees don’t face the stigma on a regular basis, either (probably) because they are not consumers or (unlikely) because they are not telling anyone that they are. Vanguard Communications is the EBI; they are the only ones working on the EBI project.

3. ADS employees, who are consumers facing the stigma, according to one ADS employee, “had a hand in what EBI brought up in the beginning.”

4. In January, 2003, EBI brought consumers from eight pilot states to their office and told them their initial ideas. The consumers accepted most of the ideas. EBI threw out what few ideas were not accepted. By the way many, if not all, of these consumers were government officials.

5. The EBI non-consumers are now on their own. They are beginning to create written anti-stigma materials to solve our prejudice problem for us. According to Phillip Raskin, one of Vanguard’s (EBI’s) directors, they have come up with some ideas.

6. The ADS announced the EBI program in an article in a spring, 2003, memorandum that said, “CMHS seeks to ensure that the EBI’s messages and public education materials reflect input from as many voices in the mental health community as possible.” The memo puzzled me; I had been calling CMHS/ADS since the ADS’s inception, offering my feedback. I called them again. I was told that the ADS director had not had the time to read my website and the hardcopy materials I had sent her seven months before.

7. By now, EBI had been formed, and so I turned my attention from ADS to EBI. On Oct. 7, 2003 , I called Mr. Raskin and offered my expertise as a consumer who has been (effectively? see this site) fighting the prejudice for three years. Mr. Raskin said that he would consult his superiors at CHMS and “see what [ideas] I’m allowed to share with you.” (They wouldn’t want to tell consumers too much about how they plan to solve our problem for us!)

8. Mr. Raskin clearly detailed the many opportunities he had given to consumers to give him “their input.” I experienced an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach.

When a dog attacks you, your best bet is to have a fresh, juicy bone handy. You throw the bone to the dog, and the simple creature immediately forgets you and goes after it. Whew! You’re safe.

I had told Mr. Raskin of my right as a consumer to handle my own prejudice problem or, at least (since the government had already awarded Vanguard the contract and begun paying them large sums of money) to work with him as his equal. He had expressed no interest in my suggestions. I had pushed my point. He had informed me that he had already asked for and received the feedback of many consumers. Whew! He was safe.

There is a big difference between (1) polling hundreds of consumers for their input and (2) finding consumers who are anti-stigma experts and asking, and respecting, their opinions. Polling involves:

a. phrasing your questions the way you want to phrase them, based on your own assumptions

b. interpreting the answers the way you want to interpret them

c. clustering the answers into conceptual groups that fit your assumptions

5. basing your decisions on the results of all this processing.

Consumers at ADS generated some of the original assumptions, then dropped out of the picture. The EBI non-consumers are now processing the poll data.

I wasn’t assertive enough with Mr. Raskin. We consumers not only have the right to work with him on an equal basis to solve our stigma problem. We have a right to lead the project. I’m sure that Mr. Raskin knows things about public relations/education that I don’t know. But fighting the prejudice also takes special gifts that only consumers have. Vanguard can’t do it alone. Vanguard doesn’t have the right to try to do it alone.

Here’s some real consumer input. I’ve been told what’s best for me and excluded from decision-makers’ circles ever since I came out as a consumer. Non-consumers, this is prejudice. You haven’t been there. Because you haven’t been there, you can’t head up a campaign to fight it. Maybe you can help with the campaign, but you can’t lead it.

If you, my readers, don’t agree with me, I wish you peace and joy. If you do, will you please send an email to President Bush and ask him to honor our right to solve our own prejudice problem?

George W. Bush president@whitehouse.gov
Paolo DelVecchio pdelvecc@samhsa.gov (a CMHS official)

When you email important people, your best bet is to send short emails. Their secretaries open the emails and read only enough of them to put them into their appropriate categories. Then they tell their bosses, “You got ___ many emails about this issue and ___ many emails about that issue.” So think quantity, not quality.

Here are some emails that I sent to Mr. Bush. You have my permission to copy any or all of them:

Dear Mr. President:
SAMHSA has hired Vanguard Communications, i.e., PR people who are not mentally ill, to fight the prejudice against us. Fighting the stigma is not some routine PR job and, besides, we mental-health consumers can speak for ourselves. Please rectify the situation by hiring consumers to do this job. For background information on this issue, see www.willigocrazy.org.

Dear Mr. President:
SAMHSA has hired Vanguard Communications (non-consumers) to fight the prejudice against consumers (the mentally ill). The Vanguard employees received consumer feedback, but many of the consumers were government officials. Government officials are not often the brunt of prejudice, or they would not have been hired by the government. Please hire the people who experience the prejudice every day: consumers. We are the experts on prejudice. To learn more about this, see www.willigocrazy.org.

Dear Mr. President:
SAMHSA has hired Vanguard Communications to write anti-stigma materials on behalf of mental-health consumers. We consumers are intelligent, creative, and excellent writers. Rather than hiring Vanguard people, who are not consumers, please hire us. We can solve our own problems. For details about this issue, see www.willigocrazy.org.

Dear Mr. President:
SAMHSA has hired Vanguard Communications to write anti-stigma materials on behalf of mental-health consumers. Please let us consumers take care of our own business. For additional information about this issue, see www.willigocrazy.org.

I sent similar emails to my state and local senators and representatives.

Optional Reading

This section is optional because we consumers would retain the right to ask — no, insist — that we be the ones who are paid to solve our own prejudice problem even if we couldn’t do it as well as non-consumers. But, the fact is, we can do it much better.

EBI has used/will use the following approaches in order to deal with the general public’s prejudicial attitudes toward us*:

1. EBI began the anti-stigma project by using a Gallup poll to find out how much the public knows about recovery, mental illness, and mental-health consumers. That is, they started out with an assumption — that lack of education is at the base of the prejudice — then found out what people don’t know, and now are setting out to fill the educational gap.

2. EBI’s purpose is educational (disseminating information). We have all seen this before — flyers and signs that say, in effect, “This is what mental illness is like, so don’t be prejudiced.” Although this approach has been in use for a long time, there is no evidence that it is effective.

3. The educational approach may even be counter-productive. Non-consumers may perceive this approach as “preaching” and immediately become defensive, as in, “I’m not one of those awful prejudiced people.” Defensiveness can increase prejudice.

4. EBI plans to emphasize the fact that consumers recover from mental illness. They assume that the belief “once mentally ill, always mentally ill” is what’s at the base of prejudice. Is it? I’ve been the brunt of years of prejudice, and I think that fear (Will I go crazy?) is at the base of the prejudice. Who’s the expert here?

5. EBI’s approach is based on the assumption that prejudice is a matter of what you know, as in, “Now that I know more about mental illness, I see that my prejudice is wrong, so I’ll just stop it.” Is it that simple, that easy? Or is prejudice a matter of feelings? Can learning something new — anything new — change the deeply ingrained complex of feelings that makes up prejudice against consumers?

6. EBI assumes that non-consumer PR experts are the best candidates to attack this outrageously difficult task. Who are the real experts on the stigma? Hint: look for people who are the brunt of the prejudice, are very creative (see Sick of the Sick Label), and who can think outside the box because we have been outside the box all our lives.

In effect, the kind, well-paid, EBI writers are saying, “Sit back and relax, consumers, while we solve your prejudice problem for you. We know best.”

Pop Quiz

1. True or False: Dr. Bradt [pronounced BROT] thinks that consumers are the only ones who can effectively fight the prejudice, because they are not prejudiced.

2. True or False: Dr. Bradt wants to be a leader in the writing of anti-stigma materials.

3. True or False: Dr. Bradt wants to single-handedly take over the job of fighting the stigma.

Answers:

1. False. Consumers can be prejudiced against other consumers and even against themselves (see Are You Prejudiced Against Yourself?). What are the real qualifications for fighting the prejudice? The answer: you can’t effectively fight it until you have seen and accepted the evil in your own heart.

2. True. I was born with that potential, and it’s time to claim my birthright.

3. Definitely False. Please, if you're a consumer, join Any Dream Will Do, Inc., or become an Any Dream Will Do, Inc. consultant. I need your help.

*The EBI’s other projects include creating employers’ guides, high-school-related education, etc.. I don’t feel qualified to discuss any project except the one that disseminates information to the general public.

Home Page