434 The Professional Counselor | Volume 13, Issue 4 Alternatively, even inadvertently, counselors working in these systems may impede the well-being of Black youth by becoming complicit in these systems and endorsing the pathologization of Black youth and the criminalization of their cannabis use. For instance, counselors may have inherent biases about Black youth, their community, and why they use cannabis. Furthermore, counselors may have views about substance use that prejudice their thinking and approach to working with this population. Even when counselors can bracket their biases (Kocet & Herlihy, 2014), they may fail to address the structural barriers or systems that maintain a posture of criminalizing and dehumanizing Black youth. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to describe the ecological context of Black youth, particularly in low-SES communities; their reasons for using cannabis; and the response of the school and criminal justice systems to this use. This article also discusses how counselors working in these systems or with Black school-aged youth can be efficacious advocates, promote healthy coping habits, and address systemic barriers that are harmful to Black youth’s mental health. To illustrate these issues, I will begin by sharing an anecdote of one of my experiences as an early-career mental health counselor who was part of a multidisciplinary team primarily working with school-aged youth. I hope that this article will make counselors more aware of their biases, particularly regarding cannabis use among Black youth, and that they will work to minimize bias and meet this population’s needs effectively. Personal Anecdote Very early in my career as a mental health counselor, I had an epiphany about the profession and my unwitting complicity in pathologizing and criminalizing Black youth who used cannabis. I was part of an interagency collaborative team that included the public school system, a community mental health organization, a case management team, and the JJS. Our goal was to help so-called troubled teens make better choices and graduate from high school. Referrals to our team usually came from high school teachers, administrators, or the JJS. All the referred youth were enrolled in a public school system. We covered several counties whose demographics included mostly White, Black, and a few Hispanic students. I was in the position for about 6 months when I noticed a behavior pattern. I must say before I describe this behavior that I had developed relationships with this interdisciplinary team, and they were good people who meant well. However, the approach the team took, including myself, with the White students was different than that used with the Black students. Most of the time, the youth were referred for the same reasons: They were caught smoking, possessing, or being under the influence of cannabis on school grounds. I remember the case of two youths specifically, whom I will refer to as Diondre and Johnny. Johnny was a White teen who lived in a town not too far from Diondre. This town is predominantly White, and Johnny’s family would be considered upper middle class. Diondre came from the other side of town, an area that is predominantly Black, which was considered “the ghetto.” Diondre’s family was considered working class. As the team simultaneously worked with these two youths, a pattern emerged. The approach with Johnny was very restorative, and there was an inherent belief that Johnny was not “this kind of person,” that he was just going through a tough phase, and that we needed to help him bounce back. Team members would say of Johnny, “He’s a good kid,” “You know, ‘boys will be boys,’” and, “He’s just experimenting. . . . When I was his age, I did too. I just didn’t get caught.” Coming out of those meetings, Johnny might have thought of himself: “I’m a good kid. I’m just having a bad day, and this is not really me. I have worth, and people believe that I will eventually turn things around.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1