In an op-ed last week, Stanford Daily deputy editor Brendan O’Byrne ’14 criticized Stanford’s response to student suicide, writing, “The University’s failure to foster a campus dialogue about mental health or illness is appalling.” In addition, an ongoing series in The Daily explores the University’s response in more detail, identifying places for improvement. While the Editorial Board agrees that more campus conversation about mental health is needed, we question whether it is appropriate to center the dialogue around a tragic event.

It is certainly true that Stanford’s campus culture is resistant to discussion of mental health issues. Part of this, we believe, is due to the way Stanford students like to think of themselves – laid back, happy and in control. We often joke about how superior our culture is in comparison to those unnamed “East Coast schools,” which some students see as bastions of unhappiness. Yet in defining ourselves according to this binary, we also preclude a meaningful conversation about what it means to feel unhappy and alone on a campus where everyone else seems to thrive.

It is imperative that Stanford foster more discussion on mental health defined broadly, yet many of the op-eds that have emerged in the wake of recent student deaths have made that claim without detailing how the University should go about doing so. Is better resident assistant training the appropriate response? Should more workshops take place at New Student Orientation (NSO) that direct students toward mental health resources on campus? Should all freshmen have one required meeting with a CAPS counselor in addition to their academic advisor? Focusing on tangible improvements, rather than levying broad claims against the administration, is a more feasible route toward changing something as immense as campus culture.

Furthermore, O’Byrne’s editorial ignores the fact that suicides occur in unique contexts, and that the responses of administrators at Harvard and Yale were dictated by different circumstances than those at Stanford. He neglects to mention the fact that Sam Wopat’s death occurred over spring break, a rather difficult time to foster a campus dialogue given that most students are not on campus. In addition, he makes the implicit claim that sending out a campus-wide email is a necessary response, but the Editorial Board questions whether or not this is true. On a campus as large as Stanford’s, campus-wide emails tend to foster more speculation and gossip than they do meaningful dialogue (witness, for example, students’ immature responses to virtually every email about a residential break-in). Publicizing a tragic event is not the same as creating meaningful conversation. By framing the administration’s response in such an antagonistic way (“nothing can excuse a weeklong silence”), O’Byrne also fails to take into account the formidable constraints that administrators faced, including confidentiality, family wishes, and a desire to allow Wopat’s friends a space to grieve free from scrutiny.

Suicide is undoubtedly one of the most difficult issues to discuss on this campus, and there are very real cultural and structural barriers in place that prevent dialogue from taking place. The Editorial Board encourages those who are frustrated by the University’s response to take into consideration the limitations administrators face, rather than portray them as insensitive, callous or indifferent. By beginning a conversation on mental health with the administration instead of in opposition to them, we as a Stanford community can create the kind of change that will help prevent future tragedies and reduce the stigma of mental health on campus.