As a person with several relatives with severe mental illness, and an intimate knowledge of "advocates" for the mentally ill, I would like to say that the comment below is dangerous to the conversation about mental illness:

"My words about mentally people are intended to dissuade others from becoming paranoid and over-reacting to mentally ill people, most of whom are grappling with a disease the best way they can. It would be a shame if mental illness regained its former degree of stigma."

The problem in our society is not so much that people with severe mental illness are stigmatized, but that severe mental illness is UNRECOGNIZED and routinely brushed off as "odd" or "strange" behavior, even by the person's own family.

We know far more about Type II diabetes, colon cancer, obesity, prostate cancer and breast cancer than we do mental illness. Should reporters tone down their stories about how obesity is a direct cause of Type II diabetes, heart attacks, stroke, etc., for fear that obese people will be stigmatized? And should we tone down articles linking diets high in saturated fat to heart attacks because we'll stigmatize meat-eaters? We all need information to make informed decisions.

Mental illness was stigmatized in the past because it was CLOSETED. It was not talked about. When a topic is freely discussed and understood, the stigma dissipates.

The more information we can provide to the public about the reality of mental illness, the better off we'll be. When parents notice their 18-year-old son developing bizarre behavior, staying up all night, forgoing showers, looking glassy-eyed, maybe they'll take him for a psychiatric evaluation, rather than booting him out of the house, which is what John Hinckley's parents did. They knew nothing about the signs of mental illness. Whether John Hinckley would or wouldn't have been "stigmatized" isn't the point.

One of my relatives committed suicide many months after he displayed bizarre behavior in his workplace. Had these co-workers taken this bizarre behavior seriously, he might be alive today.

So perhaps you can understand my dislike of the soft-pedaling of mental illness. If it prevents someone from doing a job in the workplace or poses a threat to others, do we allow this person to continue on so we don't "stigmatize" them?

Some of my relatives are crazy, but that doesn't mean I want an employee with serious mental illness on my team at work.

I've seen workplaces where a mentally ill employee comes in every day and does nothing, except express his or her paranoia to colleagues, and everyone is too afraid to act, fearing that the ill person must stay at the job because of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

When I go out in public with my schizophrenic sister, most people are gentle and kind when they see she's a bit off and says strange things. Do her actions stigmatize all mentally ill people? Who knows and who cares. The more my sister goes out in public and shows the world what mental illness looks like, the better off she'll be and we'll all be.

And the more that people know that psychotic people can and will pick up guns and kill themselves and other people, the more vigilant colleagues, teachers, students and parents will be about getting help for those with mental illnesses.

Check out this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html

No one "has" to let anyone into or remain at a private university or into or remain in any class at a private university. Cho was allowed to stay at Virginia Tech only because his parents were paying customers. People knew he was a serious, potential threat and potentially dangerous. Read about Nikki Giovanni's class. Had they reported him to the real police, not the campus police, he would have had a paper trail indicating mental instability and perhaps he couldn't have bought a gun. And the school spokesman said yesterday, in so many words: "he was a loner; we haven't been able to find much information about him." Shameful.