Kanye West’s supporters can’t use his mental health issues as a cover for his racist rants

He was probably referring to DEFCON 3 (a United States Army Defense Alert). But don’t be alarmed. Owens says it’s a “defense alert, not attack,” so the tweet shouldn’t offend anyone. Phew.

The consequences have been alternately tragic and hilarious. Ye’s billionaire status was downgraded to billionaire after several corporate partnerships boycotted him, including fashion house Balenciaga, Gap and Adidas. His Instagram and Twitter accounts were restricted (“The Jewish media blocked me!”). Investment bank JPMorgan Chase told him his business was no longer welcome. Several criticized his (without a doubt) antisemitic tweet of his. Others, however, defended him, and it wasn’t just famous friends of his: Many fans followed a familiar script, saying his 2016 diagnosis of bipolar disorder means he’s not always in control of his words and needs to apologize for it. .

Sorry no.

Giving Ye a free ride for her comments implies that bigotry is a natural byproduct of mental illness. Yes, according to the American Psychological Association, bipolar disorder makes one prone to “extremes of happiness, energy, and clarity to sadness, fatigue, and confusion.” But many in the world suffer from the ailment and do so without racist outbursts. One can empathize with a person with a mental disorder without excusing their harmful actions, especially when the person in question has Ye’s influence and reach. And there are positions of power with much more stature than a pop culture icon.

A year after Donald Trump became president of the United States in 2016, speculation began about his mental fitness to lead the country. It got to the point that Trump agreed to a psychiatric evaluation in 2018, which found that he did not have dementia. But mental health experts were absent from the conversation that had been largely led by journalists and unqualified experts. Why? Because a 1964 ethical guideline prohibited psychiatrists from making public evaluations of public figures they hadn’t personally examined. Dr. Bandy Lee, a forensic psychiatrist who edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (2017), a collection of 27 essays by mental health experts evaluating Trump’s public behaviors, said such a “gag rule” is “alarming.” about the president of a country. He added that journalists would downplay Trump’s behaviors as deviations from normal if they are not allowed to speak with experts who can point to psychological signs that are a danger to national and international security. “We are not interested in making a diagnosis,” he said, “A diagnosis has nothing to do with [signs of danger].”

Of course, political office and the arts are not the only settings where the discussion of mental illness needs more nuance. Tech moguls like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos affect large sections of our media landscape. The first has sold coronavirus misinformation, gambled with the stock market, and opposed unionization. The latter has the resources to fly into space, but not to allow its employees regular bathroom breaks. Critics often add terms like “narcissistic,” “sociopathic,” and “psychopath” to these men’s names as they criticize their exploitative labor practices. But these terms are not neutral adjectives: they mean psychiatric disorders that must be diagnosed or evaluated by professionals. For unskilled journalists and the general public, making such claims when they can be limited to attacking the sufficiently troubling business practices of these billionaires cheapens the conversation about mental health for all who suffer from mental illness, most of whom will never have the resources. to combat the resulting stigma. from a Ye fan who says death threats to Jews are just a side effect of bipolar disorder.

[email protected]