In March 2006, George Washington University student Jordan Nott checked himself into a hospital, saying he felt depressed and was contemplating suicide.
Shortly after university administrators found out, he was barred from returning to campus and asked to withdraw from school.
The university contends he had violated the school’s code of student conduct by exhibiting “endangering behavior” that put himself and the rest of the college community at risk.
“It was like a stab in the back,” Nott told The Washington Post. He thought administrators were telling him, “We’re going to wipe our hands clean of you.”
Soon after, Nott took action and sued the university under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits discrimination based on a disability.
If Nott had not checked himself — voluntarily — into the hospital, he would have been able to return to school without incident.
His proactive approach to getting help should have been commended by GW; instead it was punished.
Months later, the lawsuit has been settled, but the question remains as to whether the reaction from GW administrators was appropriate.
If Nott had been allowed to stay and attempted to take his own life, legal precedent suggests the university would not be found responsible.
When Massachusetts Institute of Technology student Elizabeth Shin committed suicide in her dorm in 2000, Shin’s parents attempted to sue MIT.
And while a “Massachusetts state court judge dismissed the institution itself as a defendant,” administrators and psychiatrists who knew Shin’s condition and did not do enough to protect her were still liable, according to an American Association of Collegiate Registrars transcript.
In Nott’s case, he had taken steps to protect himself and if the university had supported that, they would likely not have been found liable. So the line is blurred between how responsible – if at all – the university was for his actions.
During Nott’s greatest time of need, the university chose to turn its back on him with an abstract interpretation of the school’s code of conduct, instead of pointing him to resources to aid his recovery,
University administrators’ decision to threaten to expel Nott probably had less to do with actual danger and more to do with image.
And a student suicide would create bad press for the university.
Making a student leave school when they are clearly depressed and need support that puts him or her in even more danger.
No student who feels alone and depressed would want to be further alienated by an uncaring university administration.
Since Shin’s death in 2000, MIT has revised its policy concerning mental health.
Now the university strives to help its students in times of crises. According to 2001 MIT press release, “MIT now provides more campus-based therapy and allows students to obtain walk-in mental health care even for nonemergencies. Depression screening and suicide prevention programs have been initiated for both undergraduate and graduate students.”
This latest settlement should be a wake- up call for universities that suicide, or even its contemplation, is a symptom of an illness, not an action that warrants judicial action.