I agree with most of the argument in the topic message, but I would like to point out that many college students finance their own education. The argument still applies insofar as parents often act as cosigners to the loans that permit this financing, but if we are looking to encourage individualism at a university, we should treat the students as though they are financing themselves. This does not really sweep the rug out beneath arguments in favor of having the university behave in loco parentis-- the university must keep an eye towards its alumni who subsidize the education of the student.
At Cornell's medical service center, named Gannett, the waiting rooms are strewn with magazines of cultural/ethnic identity, in an effort to make minorities like myself feel more accepted. Psychological services are overbearing, but lackluster all at once. I've heard reports of poorly trained mental health professionals simply asking the same questions over throughout the course of an appointment with no real headway. There is a service called EARS which one can call if distressed, but the student-listeners are often poorly trained. Email is monitored for phrases such as "jump off the bridge," usually to the end of sending the "offending" student a concerned email. And let's not forget that Residence Hall Directors as well as RAs do more work on multicultural programs than counselling students. To this end, multiculturalist programs are an attempt on behalf of the university to put all sadness- or anxiety-inducing behavior to rout, and protect the mental well-being of minority students, or the community as a whole. It is for this reason that speech codes such as those found on
http://www.speechcodes.org are enacted-- to "protect" the poor, innocent ears of students against something that might actually offend their sensibilities and lead them to jump off a high ledge in a library, such as NYU.
I argue that while it would be better for schools to advertise their restrictive or suspicious mental monitoring methods (such as the well-being test you mention), it would simply be better if the school didn't employ them at all. While a fairly staunch social conservative, we have to accept individual responsibility on behalf of the student to seek out solutions to problems, and for parents to be in touch with their student often enough to know the student's well-being. Resident Advisors have a responsibility to keep tabs on their residents, but as fellow students, they cannot be expected to force their neighbors to fully disclose their mental health status.
The reason for my antipathy for these mental monitoring methods is that there is very little transparency as to how these results are handled, or how the exam is set up. The exam might seek out "problem points" in students such as racist undertones, or offensive thoughts. Seeking out these "poor attitudes" can easily be justified under the mission of protecting the mental well-being of the community.
Finally, one also wonders how effective this method of data-collecting is. Often, symptoms of suicide surface later in the college career. What about these cases? If the questionaire is administered only upon admission, it refuses to acknowledge how much one can change in a year.
A way to minimize the chances of suicide and to open up opportunities for students to feel more comfortable being expressive of their well-being and participating in the university is to reduce the transactional nature of higher education. If the university centers its campus culture on studying for exams, culture will reflect stress. If the university centers its campus culture on multiculturals, culture will exude politics. If the university centers its campus culture on intellectual pursuits themselves, the arts, and faculty interaction, the university will fulfill it's original mission. In a community where weekly debate-discussions are common, popular lectures are free and open, faculty dinners are required, you just might see a change in pace for the university, and more importantly, for the scholar.
