A student account of sexual assault and mental health services at Rice (article)

[psych_2]

<p>It’s actually federal civil rights ruling. Let me see if I can find the associated rulings…</p>

<p>ETA: Here is a brief overview: <a href=“http://www.magnapubs.com/blog/student-life/Legal-Changes-Affect-Involuntary/[/url]”>http://www.magnapubs.com/blog/student-life/Legal-Changes-Affect-Involuntary/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

What legal changes have affected how U.S. higher education institutions can work with suicidal students?</p>

<p>Van Brunt: The big change occurred with the Office for Civil Rights updating its language to now exclude “harm to self” as a viable reason to separate a student from a college or university. This change now restricts colleges and universities from using a forced medical separation for an involuntary medical leave unless there is a clear identification of harm to others, such as a student being psychotic and threatening others on campus.

</p>

<p>Also, from a White Paper on the decisions (with case law examples–the Mount Holyoke example is a particularly good read, as it demonstrates how a code of conduct can legally and ethically be used to force a withdrawal due to disruption, but that the college probably needs to demonstrate the use of other, less severe actions first):</p>

<p><a href=“http://nabita.org/documents/2012NCHERMWHITEPAPERTHEDIRECTTHREATSTANDARDFINAL_000.pdf[/url]”>http://nabita.org/documents/2012NCHERMWHITEPAPERTHEDIRECTTHREATSTANDARDFINAL_000.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Self-harm: This issue is the bigger challenge to administrators because of the significant
implications of these decisions and the changes to the regulations. Does the government intend
that students who have attempted suicide and/or are engaging in suicidal ideation at a very high
level are to be automatically retained despite the fact that the institution lacks the capacity for
treatment?

</p>