<p>“would they expel a student who had lymphoma just because there is a chance that they might succumb while at school, assuming the condition was manageable enough to attend classes?”</p>
<p>No, because schools never get sued as a result of a student dying of lymphoma on campus. Everyone understands that it isn’t a college’s job to prevent or cure lymphoma, and that it would be a waste of time to try. But for some reason, we think it ought to be their job to do that for mental illness.</p>
<p>If a student was dying of lymphoma while on campus, the school would certainly talk with the student about the appropriateness of being on campus. When any health issue reaches a crisis point or a period of intensity, there is a question about whether the student should remain. With chronic, fluctuating illnesses this becomes more complicated: there is no clear-cut recovery and accommodations are made for the fluctuations, unless a flare truly makes attendance impossible.</p>
<p>This thread was not originally about mental illness or depression, it was about suicidality. Colleges don’t bar students from campus simply because they have a psychiatric disorder: that would mean missing out on the gifts such students often bring, and would be illegal. But if a student might kill him or herself, that is most certainly a legitimate reason to require treatment and require certain conditions be met before returning. It may feel like a punishment, but it’s not.</p>
<p>Only if he/she poses a danger to him/herself or others and they leave room to allow the student to return if he/she is no longer poses that danger. This should all be done on a case-by-case basis and only as a last resort.</p>
<p>This shouldn’t be an effective expulsion as doing so will discourage students from coming forward and seeking help they may need. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oldfort,</p>
<p>Has your Co-op board discussed ADA implications with their attorney? </p>
<p>Am curious as from what I understand about ADA law from reading a bit about it and regarding Co-ops/condos…from a conversation I had with an attorney friend on this very issue*, kicking someone out by openly citing his/her mentally illness is ill-advised due to potential violation of the ADA. He did say, however, that co-op/condo/landlords can cite actual behavioral or other violations of co-op/condo/apartment policies as a reason to evict so long as mental illness isn’t cited or brought up. </p>
<ul>
<li>Around a decade ago, a Co-op next door to my parents evicted someone for behaviors violating co-op bylaws regarding disturbances, noise, and other matters. They did it by only citing those violations and not bringing the former co-op owner’s mental illness in the eviction documents even though that was the underlying cause of the violations. I ended up hearing about it while visiting parents from a neighbor who was involved on that building’s board.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Well, in the original link, this wasn’t as drastic as expulsion. They suggested a leave. And it was his third suicide attempt, not a visit to the health center for some support. All very different than predicting a depressed kid(or all depressed kids) will be intimidated to the point of hiding it and suffering further. </p>
<p>I know this issue goes further than one link. And that depressed kids can’t be expected to think perfectly clearly. But I’d hope the relationship with parents is good enough that he/she would talk to them and they’d have some rational ideas or response. I know many can’t. But we should look at individual situations before concluding.</p>
<p>The comparison to physical illness is different when the topic is a suicide attempt. Yes, the college is responsible for understanding and accommodations for the disabled. But the cancer patient who wants to normalize his or her life on campus, as best he can, isn’t taking steps to end his life. </p>
<p>As for the co-op situation, I’m sure we only know that tip of the story and that among the poster’s neighbors/board are regulation-savvy folks who handled this as best they could, consulted their own bylaws and the proper resources. </p>
<p>The other reason colleges aren’t going to be held responsible for physical health issues, aside from our different treatment of physical and mental health, is that it would be a lot harder to claim that the college environment played a role in a student’s death. It is going to be hard to draw a connection between attending school and a student’ dying of cancer. In the case of suicide, there are any number of potential triggers that one might be more likely to encounter in a high-stress academic environment than at home with one’s family. As someone who teaches undergraduates, I really don’t want to be worrying that giving a kid a “B +” might cause intense feelings of despair. And, of course, physically sick students aren’t using an oncologist through campus health, and are many times more likely to have parents helping with decisions, making it harder to then blame a third party for, say, a decision to stay on campus, or not pursue a certain treatment. </p>