America, it seems, is bent on blaming everyone but the perpetrator for the crimes they commit. Yes, we will put them in prison, but we frequently view them as yet another victim of circumstances, not fully culpable for their crimes. We look to the people and institutions around them, looking to assign blame and to find someone who somehow should have been able to peer into the future to see what was to happen. This sort of thought process directs policy and has victims of its own.
Jill Manges, who suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of severe sexual abuse and forced prostitution, was forced to choose between expulsion and a medical withdrawal after an episode in her French history class. She chose the latter and is not even allowed to set foot on campus for one year.
Michelle Pomerleau overdosed on prescription drugs, a situation her counselor says has now been corrected with her new medication. While she was still in the hospital, however, she received a letter.
“I am concerned for your well-being, Michelle, but your behavior is impacting other students in a negative manner,” wrote a school vice president in a letter delivered while Pomerleau was still in the hospital. Chicago Tribune
Jordan Nott, who was forced to leave George Washington University after seeking help from the counseling center for depression.
Nicole D’Antonio, who sought treatment from the Eastern Illinois University’s counseling center for bulimia in 2004 and ended up on medical leave instead:
“I was told that I was too much of a liability,” she explained. She returned to Charleston the next semester, after participating in an eating disorders program. But when she relapsed a month later and confided in a counselor, she was asked to leave campus again, she said. Chicago Tribune
Washington-based Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, an organization which represents such cases, reports that they used to get about one call per month. Now it is once per week. The turning point appears to have been 2002, when Elizabeth Shin committed suicide by setting herself on fire in her dorm. The case was eventually settled out of court, with MIT paying the family a whopping $27.65 million. When it looked like the case was going to go to trial, an amicus brief describes the effects of such suits,
In 2006, when it appeared likely the case would go to trial, AACRAO joined the American Council on Education and six other professional organizations in filing a friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) brief. The brief, filed by Boston law firm Hogan & Hartson, argued in essence that, in its ruling allowing the case to go forward, “the Superior Court found that non-clinician university employees are obliged to prevent a student’s suicide based on a ‘special relationship’ purportedly created by the ‘foreseeability’ of the student’s act. As explained in the accompanying brief, this holding has engendered the opposite of its intended effect. By imposing a legal duty on non-clinician university personnel to detect and prevent student suicides, it has fostered perverse incentives for members of campus communities to disengage from troubled students’ lives….” AACRAO
Although the case did not go to trial, the fact that a judge allowed the suit to go forward has universities worried about what kind of liability they may have should something happen. So they have “disengaged from troubled students’ lives,” sending those who seek help or have visible signs of mental illness away. I cannot help but wonder if a federal law designed to protect students from such treatment may actually be making it more difficult for school officials to weigh individual circumstances.
Federal law permits a school to remove a mentally ill student for disruptive behavior, but only if the institution would act against other students for similar conduct, according to the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. Chicago Tribune
To protect themselves from law suits, university officials are being forced to distance themselves from any student who has displayed evidence of mental illness, resulting in the expulsion of those who seek help and fear in those who have not.
Right now, at least, universities must rely on behavior and the type of help sought by students. What, do you suppose, might happen if TeenScreen becomes more widely available and accepted as a means of detecting mental illness in adolescents?
[tags]education, mental illness, teenscreen, suicide university, college, higher ed[/tags]
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
There is a psychiatric / pharmaceutical plan to “suicide screen” every
child in the United States before they graduate from high school.
Evidence exists that shows massive pharmaceutical backing that will
result in even more overdrugging of kids with psychiatric drugs .
Can you take a moment to view this very short video? Click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY
And then sign and forward this petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html to your associates
and everyone you know? It already has over 24,200 signatures.
It’s simply a race to inform enough parents so something can be done
about this.
A friend of ours made a suicide attempt at college in the early 90’s. The college kicked her out of the dormitories. Mind you, this was a small-town college, with not a lot of housing options off campus. Fortunately, my (future) husband’s family took her in long enough for her to get back on her feet again.
That is so sad, Barb, but I am glad she was able to find someone to take her in. I don’t see how these policies really help anyone. Especially when they include even those who merely ask for help, as appears to be the case for at least two of the students cited in these articles.
I am feeling a bit cranky, so I will point out… that it isn’t just about financial risk. It is hard for me to wrap my mind around the large settlement Ms. Shin’s parents recieved.
But, secular humanists have never embraced the mentally ill. Weren’t early psychometric tests designed by scientists who embraced eugenics and wanted to quantify who had the best genetics so we could breed a better human? Even today, isn’t mental illness treated as a disease that needs treated rather than a person who needs to be understood?
Okay, I am not unbiased. Nor am I unaffected. When I brought Marissa home to school, it took me a long time to embrace “educating” her rather than just training her in ADL’s. The purpose of education is to develop citizens, yes. To train her obedient service to her Creator, yes. But, isn’t it also because it enriches our life’s?
What a tremendous opportunity to get up on a soapbox. Thanks!
Julie, I keep your soapbox tucked right under the header here for easy access. : )
Here are a few related thoughts:
http://principleddiscovery.com/2006/07/11/the-darwinian-roots-of-standardized-testing/
It is about standardized testing and eugenics, but this is the origins of all psychometric testing, if I understand this correctly. They began with looking at intelligence, and through flawed research discovered what they set out to discover.
Applied to “mental illness,” a subject poorly understood, it is ridiculous to think that we can look at a standardized test and determine from it that someone needs help or is not fit for college work.
But, psychometric testing does try to quantify things like anxiety, depression, affect and thought disorders…
My second thought is, “Are the universities within their right?” I think you know that the proverbial last straw in bringing Marissa home was that she had a rage in her English class; her behavior forced the evacuation of an entire class. Since she had a valid IEP at the time of the incident and she was in a public school, she could not be expelled.
I struggled with how to respond. I know that all students deserve a safe environment. Marissa’s IEP had not been followed that day. She was supposed to have a full-time paraprofessional who’s sole job was to help keep Marissa stay organized and act as her “external brain.” This had deteriorated into having someone show up and walk Marissa between classes. Marissa was supposed to be able to go to a quiet room when she was “overwhelmed” and her English teacher refused to let her go.
The school’s solution was to move Marissa to a locked class with children with diagnosed behavioral disorders. I didn’t think that was a safe place for a person with a developmental disability. Good role models make a huge difference in the outcome of children with FASD. Besides, having a “normal,” behaviorally challenged child manipulate, abuse and target Marissa was a real risk.
But, what has kept blasting my brain is, “Do I want to live in a society where the public school has a big enough budget to provide a perfect environment to meet the needs of every student?” I mean if I paid less taxes, could you imagine the support I could “purchase” for my daughter? The truth is I would rather keep more of my own income and meet the needs of my own family.
I can already hear people arguing, “What about the kids whose parents can’t afford to help their kids. Kids will be left behind.” Well, my daughter has been “left behind” by arbitrary cut offs based on psychometric testing for her entire life. When she is an adult, despite research indicating that a mere 18% of people with FAS ever attain independence, Marissa will be cut off from services because of her IQ. In order to qualify for services Marissa’s IQ would need to be
In order to qualify for services Marissa’s IQ would need to be less than 70. Marissa’s Full Scale IQ is 88. Her relatively strong verbal skills mask her deficits. Her Performance IQ is less than the 9th percentile.
It is a tricky situation…but the school needs to have the flexibility to work with individual situations and not be held responsible for an individuals actions.
There are certainly instances where something needs to be done, and the entire university system cannot mold itself to suit its members. But these students were reportedly doing well. The problem was with their illness alone. A student who goes to a counseling center for depression or eating disorder is doing the right thing. They shouldn’t fear being expelled.
I think the public school should have been more responsible in your child’s case. I remember attending IEP meetings, and they were tough. We were supposed to be careful about what kinds of things we said the child needed, because it then becomes law. And not every thing asked for is really possible in a general education setting.
I don’t know any good solutions to that. Other than that good parents are needed to “fight the system” to get what is best for their children. Or to find alternatives.
On the flip side, a comparison of two experiences:
In high school, I took one of these in a psychology course. It was just for class, but I scored highly for several risk factors…basically because I am Type A through and through. Where there is no stress, I tend to create it or lapse into boredom and irritability. The test didn’t seem to like that. I thought it was funny then, but now I’m glad it was just a class exercise and not for anything else.
Later, I would work with an adolescent who would molest a young child. I can’t give details for obvious reasons, but the youth passed the psychological test, making it difficult to get more treatment or a classification that would have moved the youth to a more restrictive level of care. A little too much trust was put in that test.
It doesn’t account for two factors:
People who are not worried about consequences or who are seeking help will be honest and may even report things more strongly than they really are.
People who are worried or do not want help can lie.
To answer your question about what could happen if TeenScreen becomes widely accepted as an identifier of mental illness - given the known consequences of Higher Education going hands off, as you just reported, I would expect that many individuals will be denied a higher education. All based on a possible future risk. Sounds vaguely familiar. For example, the countless Japanese-American citizens post WWII who were interned, and those who were in college - most were forced to leave.
And I forgot to mention that since the fast growing atheist segment of our culture views religion and those who adhere to it, especially Christians, as “delusional,” then certainly I would be barred from college.
In order to qualify for services Marissa’s IQ would need to be less than 70…
I had a young man like that in my class…except without any behavior issues or other diagnoses. His IQ was 70. There was nothing anyone could do…state mandates required me to teach him to grade level. No services, no realistic assessment regarding what he was capable of and needed to achieve.
So he wasted his time copying letters, repeating their sounds only to forget them the second he was finished. He will be completely lost because he doesn’t qualify for anything, yet cannot keep up with a normal classroom environment.
Jennifer, you are absolutely right.
I think it must be too late for me to comment here. My eyes are reading your comments, but my brain is hearing Charlie Brown’s teacher. I’ll save my minor in psychology for in the morning. Good night.
Hmm…at least I’m not Charlie Brown, I guess. I shall await your stunning insight with great anticipation.
St. Norbert would not take action against students who quietly battle their own demons, said Jay Fostner, a vice president at the school. But it would move against students who repeatedly pull classmates or faculty into their suffering.
How noble of these school administrators. Even as they ignore the classmates who are pulled into the binge drinking, et al consequences of the embedded campus life. But there are those campus town businesses that sell intoxicants to underage kids with a conveniently turned head from many.
But Pomerleau said her grades were good and she had been commended by the college for performing community service. Her suicide attempt in September followed a change in medication, which, according to her doctor, has since been corrected.
And the doctor’s punishment?! One has to wonder if she was given off-label drugs that caused her suicidal tendencies. Incredible that her trust in the doctor’s prescription wisdom changed her life around physically and in real location and plans.
Wish this was uncommon in what happens to these kids, but it’s not. What Amy said in the first comment is true. It’s not about the kids, that’s for certain.
I am reading a book now- “Success Without College” by Linda Lee (and I highly recommend it) and one major repeated complaint of college professors is that kids view college as a ’sow yer wild oats’ time of their lives- kind of an interlude before adulthood where they get to pretend they are children for a few more years before they ‘get serious’ about life.
IMO this contributes to the unbalanced atmosphere at institutions of higher learning- these are legal adults being treated as if they are minor children. Colleges and universities should have policies in place to deal with destructive and illegal behaviors, and these policies should be swiftly enforced. But they can’t seem to differentiate between someone having a few difficulties, and those who are truly troubled. It’s more zero tolerance nonsense, where all problems are treated the same, regardless of the circumstances.
Anecdote: Although I was considered a ‘good kid’, I had a bad temper as a child- in high school I stomped out of class and threw my books off a balcony after a disagreement with a teacher. I was not disciplined, as I went straight to the principal and said “Uncle Jerry, I just did a bad thing”. I apologized to the teacher I nearly killed (my algebra book missed Mr. Reed by inches) and life went on. My past history of good grades and decent behavior was taken into consideration, although I believe they should have punished me. I wonder what would happen to me in today’s school environment!
Let’s keep those expectations low, shall we, Dana?:)
Certainly, Universities have an obligation to keep all students safe. If a student is regarded to be a threat to other students or themselves, then by all means they should be removed from campus (hopefully to a setting that they can receive mental health).
However, by removing students at the first sign of mental illness, or threatening them with dismissal, they are putting themselves on shaky legal ground. Also, they should be concerned about the issue of patient confidentiality between University counselors and students. They may be walking a fine line there.
Of course, since the Universities are in a darned-if-you-do, darned-if-you-don’t position, they may have just decided to err on the side of doing. Given the sited legal cases, I can’t really blame them.
Although, as Susan said, they don’t get as worked up about the binge drinking that is so prevalent on campuses. If they’re that worried about minimizing liability, you would think that would be more of an issue.
The psychology of University asministrators is a case study in itself. More caffeine is needed before broaching that topic.
I told you, Dana, low expectations.
Hey, I’m all for dismissing students who actually pose a threat, especially to others. There is more to the first case as she was tremendously more disruptive than merely walking out. A fit of screaming lasted several minutes and stopped several classes. But even her professor tried to lobby on her behalf. I think she may be right in her comparison to someone with epilepsy.
But seeking help for bulimia? Depression? How is this more disruptive and dangerous than binge drinking? Hazing? Staying up all night for three days running, subsisting on coffee and chocolate bars? (That was my college “experience!”)
Universities have a responsibility to act on things which have happened and turn threats over to the proper authorities. But to try to guess who is going to snap? There shouldn’t be a liability issue here unless the student clearly threatens someone and the university fails to do anything.