People

Editorial introductions

Contributors

About Our Authors

Notes on Contributors

In May 1949, Herman A. Barnett III, a 23-year-old Black veteran, applied to The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston. His application occurred in the wake of Black student protests against the segregationist policies of The University of Texas and of judicial victories by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to eradicate racial inequalities in state-financed graduate and professional education. Barnett’s application prompted the state to fund a medical school at the Texas State University for Negroes, the only time a state ever attempted to thwart desegregation by financing a separate Black medical school. Barnett was clearly qualified for admission to UTMB, and if the school rejected him, he had agreed to be a plaintiff in an NAACP lawsuit. Legal action was not necessary, however. In August 1949 Barnett was accepted into UTMB, thereby becoming the second African American person to desegregate a Southern medical school. Barnett was technically admitted on a contract basis as a student at the Texas State University for Negroes in Houston and was to have transferred there later. The Black medical school was never built and Barnett graduated from UTMB in 1953. This review analyzes the role that Barnett and Black civil rights activists played in the history of medical education in the US and the dismantlement of racially exclusionary policies in medical schools.

Pimp My Spec!

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Professional NewsFull AccessLiability Issues Shape Colleges' Response to Suicide AttemptsMark MoranMark MoranPublished Online:2 Jun 2006https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.41.11.0001Rachel Glick, M.D., and David Fassler, M.D., are co-chairs of APA's Task Force on College Mental Health."Life sucks and I want to kill my.... " That was the slightly ambiguous message a college student left on the blackboard of a classroom at a midsize, private university in New Jersey.An alarmed professor who saw the message alerted the university's director of psychological services, who was able to track down and confront the student about the statement on the blackboard.In this case, it turned out to be a bit of youthful, exhibitionist anger—not true suicidal intent, said Franca Mancini, Ph.D., director of counseling and psychological counseling at Monmouth University in West Long Branch, N.J.In other instances, however, ominous behavior and outright suicidal actions by students at the campus have been the signal for a campuswide interdisciplinary intervention team to go into action."We try to spread a net around the student without becoming a therapeutic community," Mancini told Psychiatric News." We have a lot of collaboration among the different offices and departments on campus, especially with residential life and student services. We also have a line of communication with faculty. We try to cover the campus and let people know to inform us about suicidal behavior or intent."Students who are deemed to be truly suicidal are taken to the psychiatric screening center at the local hospital. After appropriate assessment, they may be hospitalized by the treating professionals there or discharged if there is no imminent risk."Either way, we inform them that if they are residents [in campus housing], they are not going to return to residency until they receive clearance from the hospital," Mancini said. "They must bring discharge plans and also agree to the recommended follow-up care."Nonresident students who are transported to the hospital go through a similar "clearance" procedure through her office, she said."Those nonresidents who go to the hospital for an emergency psychiatric screening are informed of our services through the emergency psychiatric service staff," Mancini said. "Many choose to be referred back to the university counseling center, and in fact the hospital will call to schedule an appointment while the student is still there. They share the discharge recommendations, and we work on a treatment plan if it is appropriate for the student to be seen through our counseling services."Almost always, students accept the conditions, and almost always they come back to school if they are willing to comply with the recommended treatment."We've never had to forcibly take someone to the hospital," she said. "And we have not reached a point where we have had to say a student can't come back to school."Issues of Confidentiality, Liability RaisedThe system at Monmouth University is typical of the kind of zero-tolerance response a number of colleges and universities are adopting to cope with student suicide threats or attempts and other forms of self-harm. It is a phenomenon that engages a host of thorny issues involving the safety and care of the student, protection of other students and the integrity of the educational environment, confidentiality of medical and psychiatric records, and the school's liability.In April a suit against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was settled out of court regarding the April 2000 suicide of Elizabeth Shin, a student there. The student's family agreed not to proceed with the suit against four MIT psychiatrists; another suit—this one against the university— had been dismissed in June 2005.As part of the settlement, the amount of the payment must be kept confidential at the request of the Shin family, according to a university statement.Also recently at George Washington University, Jordan Nott, a former student there, filed suit against the school when it dismissed him after he sought hospitalization for depression and suicidal thoughtsSchools Not Therapeutic CommunitiesIn general, psychiatric leaders—as well as university administrators and campus mental health professionals—agreed that proper treatment on campus of severely depressed or suicidal students is ideal and that dismissal from school is to be avoided, certainly if the student is seeking treatment."Students should not be suspended or forced to withdraw from school for seeking psychiatric services or other mental health-related treatment," said David Fassler, M.D., co-chair of APA's Task Force on College Mental Health. "Such policies are clearly discriminatory. They also discourage students from asking for help."Yet as Mancini suggested, schools cannot allow themselves to become" therapeutic communities," and administrators do have a responsibility to the larger student body and the university community."I would have grave concerns if there really was a case of a student who asked for help but who was not disruptive and was then put on mandatory leave without due process," said Rachel Glick, M.D., co-chair with Fassler of the APA task force. "It's clear that universities can take disciplinary action when behaviors are disruptive, but they can't take action when the person is ill and the behavior is not disruptive—that's protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act."But Glick said college and university administrators feel a need to protect themselves and the learning community they are shepherding from what might be disruptive behavior."Those of us who are clinicians may not consider a suicide attempt disruptive, but if it happens in a dorm and there is blood all over a bathroom floor, it's disruptive to some degree," she said.University of Illinois Models PreventionThough suicides among young people in college often make headlines, a number of studies have established that the rate of suicide is lower than that of young adults in the general population, according to Paul Joffe, Ph.D., director of the suicide prevention team at the University of Illinois.For instance, a study reported in the fall 1997 Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, found that the overall student suicide rate of 7.5/100,000 in the "Big Ten" schools was one-half of the computed national suicide rate (15.0/100,000) for a matched sample by age, gender, and race. (The Big Ten are the University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University, Purdue University, University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, University of Iowa, Ohio State University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Pennsylvania State University).But even if suicide is not more likely to occur on a college campus than anywhere else, it does seem to be an ideal place to try to prevent it. Approximately 1,100 young adults kill themselves in the nation's colleges and universities every year, according to Joffe.Joffe said that prior to 1984, the University of Illinois had a policy of" invite and encourage" regarding reports of suicidal behavior." We would contact a student who was reported and tell that student we'd like for him or her to come in to the counseling center," he said." What we found was an enormous amount of resistance along the lines of `Who are you to call me in?'"We were faced with a practical and ethical conundrum," he said. "Resistance to treatment could lead to fatalities, but what about the right of students to make their own choices? But then we began to think about whether someone who was ready to make a choice to kill themselves over a romantic disappointment would rationally make a choice to seek mental health treatment."So in fall 1984, the university instituted a formal program requiring any student who threatened or attempted suicide to attend four sessions of professional assessment. The consequences for failing to comply with the program included mandatory withdrawal from the university.Since then, reports on 2,017 suicide incidents have been submitted to the university suicide prevention team. The rate of suicide decreased from 6.91 per 100,000 enrolled students during the eight years before the program started to 3.78 in the 21 years since then.This represents a reduction in suicides of 45.3 percent at the university, while suicide rates were stable both nationally and among peer institutions within the Big Ten, Joffe said.Since the program's inception at the University of Illinois, it has become a model for more than a few institutions across the country. Some of these include Case Western Reserve University, University of South Dakota, the University of Puget Sound, and the University of Washington, Seattle."Our approach to suicidal students is very proactive and is about retaining students, not dismissing them, so they can stay in school and finish their degree," said Houston Dougharty, associate dean for student services at the University of Puget Sound. "We have taken the Joffe model from the University of Illinois and adapted it in several ways to meet the needs of a small liberal arts college."Members of the student affairs staff at the university are required to complete a Suicide Incident Report (SIR) when they learn that a student has commented about suicide, has made suicide threats, has attempted suicide, or has engaged in intentional self-harming behaviors.The data from a completed SIR are evaluated by the Suicide Prevention Team, a committee composed of two staff members and one faculty member. If this committee determines there is sound basis for concern about a student's suicidal or self-harming behaviors, the committee may require the student to participate in four sessions of psychological assessment with a member of the campus counseling staff or with a provider off campus. As at the University of Illinois, the program has demonstrated success."We have been overwhelmed by the receptivity of students to mandated assessment," Dougharty told Psychiatric News. "Typically, they are relieved that they can do something about it. Not only do we want students to stay alive and healthy, but we want them to finish their degree." ▪ ISSUES NewArchived

List of Contributors. Introduction: William Barney (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Part I: Politics and Public Life:. 1. Early National Politics and Power: 1800-1824: Robert M. S. McDonald (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). 2. The Jacksonian Era: 1825-1860: Jonathon Atkins (Berry College). 3. The Sectionalization of Politics: 1845-1860: John Ashworth (University of Hull). 4. Civil War and Reconstruction: Vernon Burton (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). 5. The Guilded Age: 1878-1900: Robert W. Cherney (San Francisco State) and William Barney (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). 6. American Law in the Nineteenth Century: John E. Semonche (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Part II: Foreign Relations:. 7. American Expansion: 1800-1867: John M. Belohlavek (University of South Florida). 8. The Global Emergence of the United States: 1867-1900: Eric Rauchway (University of Nevada at Reno). Part III: The Economy and Class Formations:. 9. The Emergence of a Market Economy before 1860: Stanley L. Engerman (University of Rochester) and Robert E. Gallman (University of North Carolina). 10. Industrialization and the Rise of Corporations: 1860-1900: David B. Sicilia (University of Maryland at College Park). 11. Immigration: Nora Faires (University of Michigan). 12. Urbanization: Timothy J. Gilfoyle (Loyola University of Chicago). 13. The Development of the Working Classes: Kevin Kenny (University of Texas at Austin). 14. The Evolution of the Middle Class: Cindy S. Aron (University of Virginia). Part IV: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender:. 15. African Americans: Donald R. Wright (SUNY, College at Cortland). 16. Native-American History: Michael D. Green (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and Theda Perdue (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). 17. Gender and the Changing Roles of Women: Laura F. Edwards (University of California at Los Angeles). Part V: Regional Perspectives:. 18. The South: From Old to New: Stephen W. Berry (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). 19. The Middle West: Andrew R.L. Cayton (Miami University). 20. The Regional West: Molly P. Rozum (University of North Carolina). Part VI: Culture and Ideas:. 21. The Communications Revolution and Popular Culture: David Hochfelder (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). 22. Interpreting American Religion: Catherine A. Brekus (University of Chicago). 23. Science and Technology: Alan I. Marcus (Iowa State University). 24. A History/Historiography of Representations of America: Barbara Groseclose (Ohio State University). Index.

New Directions for Institutional ResearchVolume 1974, Issue 1 p. 67-80 Article Evaluation of performance within institutions H. Bradley Sagen, H. Bradley Sagen Professor of higher education at the University of Iowa and former assistant director of institutional research at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. An educational psychologist by training, he has served as associate director of the Iowa Cooperative Study of Post-High School Education and from 1964 to 1971 as executive director of the Committee on Liberal Arts Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. He is the co-author with Fred F. Harcleroad and C. Theodore Molen of The Developing State Colleges and Universities (American College Testing Progam, 1969)Search for more papers by this author H. Bradley Sagen, H. Bradley Sagen Professor of higher education at the University of Iowa and former assistant director of institutional research at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. An educational psychologist by training, he has served as associate director of the Iowa Cooperative Study of Post-High School Education and from 1964 to 1971 as executive director of the Committee on Liberal Arts Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. He is the co-author with Fred F. Harcleroad and C. Theodore Molen of The Developing State Colleges and Universities (American College Testing Progam, 1969)Search for more papers by this author First published: 1974 https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.37019740107Citations: 1 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume1974, Issue11974Pages 67-80 RelatedInformation

Authors

Journal-related Activities and Other Special Activities at the 2011 American Society of Anesthesiologists Annual Meeting

Part I: Introduction:. On Language, Change, and Language Change -- Or, Of History, Linguistics, and Historical Linguistics: Richard D. Janda & Brian D. Joseph, both The Ohio State University. Part II: Methods for Studying Language Change: . 1. The Comparative Method: Robert L. Rankin, University of Kansas. 2. On the Limits of the Comparative Method: S.P. Harrison, University of Western Australia. 3. Internal Reconstruction: Don Ringe, University of Pennsylvania. 4. How to Show Languages are Related: Methods for Distant Genetic Relationship: Lyle Campbell, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. 5. Diversity and Stability in Language: Johanna Nichols, University of California, Berkeley. Part III: Phonological Change:. 6. The Phonological Basis of Sound Change: Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University. 7. Neogrammarian Sound Change: Mark Hale, Concordia University. 8. Variationist Approaches to Phonological Change: Gregory R. Guy, York University. 9. Phonologization as the Start of Dephoneticization -- Or, On Sound--Change and its Aftermath: Of Extension, Generalization, Lexicalization, and Morphologization: Richard D. Janda, The Ohio State University. Part IV: Morphological and Lexical Change: . 10. Analogy: The Warp and Woof of Cognition: Raimo Anttila, University of California, Los Angeles. 11. Analogical Change: Hans Henrich Hock, University of Illinois, Urbana--Champaign. 12. Naturalness and Morphological Change: Wolfgang U. Dressler, Vienna University. 13. Morphologization from Syntax: Brian D. Joseph, The Ohio State University. Part V: Syntactic Change: . 14. Grammatical Approaches to Syntactic Change: David Lightfoot, Georgetown University. 15. Variationist Approaches to Syntactic Change: Susan Pintzuk, University of York. 16. Cross--linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change: Alice C. Harris, Vanderbilt University. 17. Functional Perspectives on Syntactic Change: Marianne Mithun, University of California, Santa Barbara. Part VI: Pragmatico--Semantic Change:. 18. Grammaticalization: Bernd Heine, University of Cologne. 19. Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency: Joan Bybee, University of New Mexico. 20. Constructions in Grammaticalization: Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Stanford University. 21. An Approach to Semantic Change: Benjamin W. Fortson, IV. Part VII: Explaining Linguistic Change:. 22. Phonetics and Historical Phonology: John J. Ohala, University of California, Berkeley. 23. Contact as a Source of Language Change: Sarah Grey Thomason, University of Pittsburgh. 24. Dialectology and Linguistic Diffusion: Walt Wolfram & Natalie Schilling--Estes, North Carolina State University and Georgetown University. 25. Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Linguistic Change: Jean Aitchison, University of Oxford. Bibliography. Subject Index. Name Index. Language Index.

Focus on Authors

"Turner, Eustace Ebenezer, (22 May 1893–8 Sept. 1966), Research Director, Biorex Laboratories, Ltd, since 1960; Head of Dept of Chemistry at Bedford College, 1946–60, and Professor of Chemistry in the University of London, 1944–60, Professor Emeritus, 1960; Fellow of Queen Mary College" published on by Oxford University Press.

On LHRT’s Seventy-Fifth Anniversary