To the Editor:
Re “Are We Being Too Mindful?” (Science Times, May 7):
As someone who has worked in higher education mental health promotion and suicide prevention for more than 30 years, I was pleased to read this article, which discussed the potential drawbacks of too much focus on mindfulness and universal mental health training in schools.
It appears that too much focus on feelings without further information about how to handle difficult feelings, and lots of information about symptoms of mental illness without context, might not be helpful to many, and may harm some children.
In speaking to teachers and parents about youth mental health, I often suggest a simple thought experiment. While being aware of your child’s emotional state is important, imagine a parent who asks their child every 10 minutes how they are feeling and if they are OK. It is not hard to imagine that very soon the child would become convinced that something must be terribly wrong.
This problem has potentially more dire consequences when we consider suicide prevention training. There is good evidence that when children believe suicide to be more common, they are more likely themselves to engage in suicidal behaviors. Training that doesn’t provide clear context and pathways to help might actually increase risk for youth.
We must continue to learn and educate about mental health, but we must also carefully evaluate our efforts and be open to the need to revise and refine approaches.
Victor Schwartz
New York
The writer, a psychiatrist, is the senior associate dean for wellness and student life at the CUNY School of Medicine.
To the Editor:
I am a physician who has taught mindfulness at a leading academic medical center in New York City for the past 18 years. I have witnessed the benefits of mindfulness for patients, medical and law students, and health care professionals too numerous to count.
In my personal life I have seen simple mindfulness practices quiet rowdy classrooms, calm emotions on the brink of uncontrol, and improve academic and test performance. Thousands of mainstream scientific articles over the past 40 years, of increasing quality over time, have shown the efficacy of mindfulness for many medical and psychological conditions, including depression and anxiety.
The two studies cited in “Are We Being Too Mindful?” raise more questions than they answer. Many other studies have demonstrated the benefits of mindfulness in educational settings, leading to improved academic performance and emotion control. More and better studies are needed.
The potential of mindfulness practice to enhance students’ well-being is too great to ignore, as a general wellness intervention or as an adjunct to mental health treatment.
Patricia A. Bloom
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
The writer is a consultant in geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
To the Editor:
Your article cites research findings that among young people mindfulness training did not have the expected positive effect on mental health. In some cases it even led to poorer emotional adjustment.
These results were based on a large study of mindfulness training in British classrooms. You report, “Researchers in the study speculated that the training programs ‘bring awareness to upsetting thoughts,’ encouraging students to sit with darker feelings, but without providing solutions.”
The intent to provide preventive tools to improve mental health is an excellent idea. However, I believe that these programs may not have provided one additional essential ingredient: a trained professional with whom students could talk about their newly identified feelings and concerns, leading to better solutions.
The availability of professionally trained counselors and psychotherapists could have brought about the hoped-for improvement in mental health. Mindfulness training programs can help young people to get more in touch with potential mental health problems. The inclusion of well-trained counselors and psychotherapists in these programs could lead to better mental health.
Stephan J. Levitan
New York
The writer is a clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Teaching About Hate
To the Editor:
Re “Public School Chiefs Parry Antisemitism Claims” (front page, May 9):
David Banks, the New York City schools chancellor, got it right when he testified at the congressional hearing on antisemitism in K-12 schools: “We cannot simply discipline our way out of this problem. The true antidote to ignorance and bias is to teach.”
We are at a fraught time in history when we are witnessing a rise in antisemitism, extremism and polarization. Teachers need our support and must be provided with quality professional development that guides them on how to teach their students that democracy is fragile, that history and facts matter, and that every individual has a responsibility to stand up to hate and protect civil society.
Deborah M. Lauter
New York
The writer is the executive director of The Olga Lengyel Institute for Holocaust Studies and Human Rights (TOLI).
Israel and Hamas: Let the I.C.C. Decide
To the Editor:
You have reported that the International Criminal Court may be preparing arrest warrants for both senior Israeli officials and Hamas leaders (“Israelis Bracing for Arrest Warrants From Hague,” front page, April 29).
I say the United States should not oppose the warrants being served. If, as many people believe, Israel was justified by self-defense in the actions it has taken, let it prove it in court. Let the Hamas leaders defend their actions. Let an impartial court make determinations on guilt or innocence.
It was very disturbing that 12 Republican senators threatened the I.C.C. with sanctions if it proceeds with war crime charges. Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader, faced a great deal of criticism for suggesting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needed to be replaced.
An I.C.C. proceeding takes the U.S. out of the equation. It forestalls charges of favoritism for one side or the other. It absolves President Biden from making such determinations and places that responsibility where it should be — an international court.
Kathi Sweetman
Rochester, N.Y.
Nonpartisan House Speakers
To the Editor:
Re “Johnson Is Speaker of the Whole House, at Least for Now” (news article, May 10):
In many legislatures around the world, including the mother of Parliaments in the United Kingdom, speakers upon their election are obligated to remain entirely nonpartisan and neutral. U.K. speakers even resign from their political party.
The United States abandoned a similar tradition more than 200 years ago during the speakership of Henry Clay. But the retention of Speaker Mike Johnson with both Republican and Democratic support is an opportunity at least to revive the idea that institutionally responsible speakers should try to balance their role as partisan leader with their duty to look out for the good order and interests of the entire House.
If nothing else, that would be one small way to tone down our increasingly, disastrously polarized political culture.
Perry Dane
Camden, N.J.
The writer is a professor at Rutgers Law School.
