A lot of his opinion also boiled down to believing that Schulz’s knowledge of the human condition gave him an insight that didn’t require him to have first hand knowledge of Depression or any other neurological issues. He acknowledged Schulz was neurotic (he was essentially agoraphobic in his later years), but seemed to have a view of mental illness that lacked nuance and was, in my opinion, harmful.

Hijacking his panel to challenge his understanding of mental illness didn’t seem productive, though. I still wonder if I made the right decision by backing down.