1) It has been stated in a 2008 Georgia case that “Generally, suicide is an unforeseeable intervening cause of death which absolves the tortfeasor of liability.” This applies to most people unless there is a custodial or malpractice situation.
How do you think this would apply to a university setting in which there were students
2) In an Iowa case in 2000, this case stated that there was not a reasonably foreseeable event that would justify creating a duty to prevent suicide or notify Mahoney’s parents of any pending danger.
What constitutes a time that you would notify parents of an event that their child may be suicidal or may do harm to self or others?
3) State laws require “direct threat” assessment before otherwise qualified students with mental disabilities can be involuntarily removed from school.
The "Key Quotation" from this report helps to underscore the critical nature of this decision. When such a substantial percentage of “non-attempters” of suicide report that wanting to finish college was critical to their remaining alive, we need to pay strong attention, and to develop situational responses which can serve to allow potentially suicidal students the support to continue attending classes as much as possible. However, we also need the skills and tools to be able to discern more effectively (if this is possible) when suicidal ideations are a reality and when a student is capable of effectively controlling these emotions and actions. On the flip side, and not discussed in this article or the text chapter, is when potentially suicidal individuals also become an endangerment to others.
Universities, with residential settings, may be vastly different from community colleges which typically don't have responsibilities for residential students (other than college athletes). However, the institutional dialogue of whether and when to notify parents or other family members (spouses or even children) should be conducted in advance of an emergency situation so that faculty, staff, and administrators are prepared and have a plan of action. The ongoing discussion regarding FERPA is especially pertinent since we often hesitate (and rightly so) to divulge personal information regarding the student; the very personal nature of suicidal thoughts makes us even more aware of confidentiality, at the same time as we are aware of the need to assist the student. The outcome of suicides and killings at other institutions always brings up discussion of our own processes, which should serve to help us actively evaluate whether we do have solid and effective systems in place for identifying and helping a student (or staff/faculty) in danger. I found the “duty of care” issue to be valuable and at the same time somewhat confusing. From a “Student Development” perspective, it would seem to me that each of us at our institutions has a “duty of care” when working with a student who expresses thoughts of suicide. While I understand the concept of “duty of care” I think I need a more thorough definition of the legal aspects of this concept.
What constitutes a time when I would feel that we should notify parents? It would depend significantly upon a variety of concerns, such as the circumstances (i.e.; is the student in his/her bedroom, having taken a bottle of pills, and are the parents also at home?) and our “comfort level” with the student’s assurances that he/she would seek treatment and would not harm him/herself. I would consult with other college administrators, including our Vice President of Student Development and our college attorney before notifying the parents. On the other hand, I have called the sheriff’s department for a “wellness check” on several occasions when situations warranted (in one instance, the student had left a suicide note on campus), but have not spoken directly with the student’s family.
I think with the rash of suicides at Cornell this past year (6 in a 6 month period), higher education is going to see new interpretations of policies (and even FERPA) similar to changes in campus safety/security issues following Virginia Tech. We continue to live in a litigious society and while "generally, suicide is an unforesseable intervening cause of death which absolves the tortfeasor of liability" does Cornell have an obligation to install barriers on their pedestrian briges (an arguement that has been going on for years) to at least deter individuals from jumping? http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/05/07/after-30-years-cornell-continues-debate-over-suicide-barriers
I agree with Donna B. that there is a greater "duty of care" for traditional, residential campuses - and at times, family may be the part of the suicidal students issues. The primary goal should be to get the student the necessary support that is needed.
I agree with you, Ken...in reading some of these articles and case studies, I think that the concern for the student's wellbeing sometimes may have been overlooked because of the student's "out of control" behavior, as in the case of a student who acts irrationally or angrily, or because of concern for protecting the student's confidentiality. Certainly, the increase in litigation should cause us all to be cautious, but we also should be caring, compassionate professionals who feel a sense of duty to protect (as in the Cornell example. While erecting protective barriers to the building would be expensive, and students bent on harming themselves undoubtedly would seek another place from which to jump, it doesn't make sense to me that an institution would not have immediately made changes to attempt to preclude this from happening at a known suicide location.
Donna, I like the perspective of being compassionate professionals who feel a sense of duty to protect. I think that this is of utmost importance in our line of work because it gives us greater potential to help save a life. However, I also think that we sometimes must think first with our heads then our hearts in order to make the best decisions for everyone involved. In the case of a student who I think is suicidal, I think that I just might be more willing to risk the assumption of liability in an attempt to save their life. (I, of course, say this as a novice and I understand that such a response may be overly optimistic.)
With regard to number #2, I unfortunately don’t think there is a right a wrong answer but I’m going to offer a practical application of how I’d approach the situation. I do believe that an internal notification should be sent to each faculty or staff member that interacts with the potentially suicidal student on a regular basis. Additionally, I would create an internal notification system that is based on a number of levels that indicate intensity of endangerment for a potentially suicidal student. Each level would include a sample description of “red flags” that faculty or staff would recognize as irregular behavior. The student’s parents would be notified based on the level of intensity and the signs that suggest the student is in danger of hurting him/herself or others.
This conversation brings to light many points. Cornell and their suicide rate, liability/responsibility, FERPA. I would ask (because I too am young) if it would be a violation of FERPA or other acts to notify faculty that a member of their class is suicidal.
To continue this discussion, ethically if you tell a faculty member that a student is suicidal would it not tamper/interfere with how that faculty evaluates/grades the student? Is that fair to the others in the class.
For example, when teaching high school, I had a student who needed my class to graduate and he was failing. He stated that he was suicidal to the principal. The principal said told me that the student would pass regardless and that he was working with a counselor. This student earned a 48 in my class and passed with a 70.
Was that ethically fair to the other students who did the work? As bad as it sounds, I wasn't convinced he was suicidal and thought he may be doing this to graduate. Does anyone have thoughts about how this situation could play out at the college level?
Perhaps issuing an Incomplete would have been a more appropriate way to deal with a student whose psychological health was dependent upon a grade. Accommodations (like extra time until he can successfully complete therapy) are a much better way to handle that situation. What they asked you to do was wrong. Period.
Given the statistics about actual suicide attempts and completions mentioned in the report, it's difficult to determine how much we should "panic" about behaviors one person may deem dangerous. On the other hand, it seems that the repercussions of not communicating might be more severe than those resulting from fear of privacy issues. I think we'd be okay by FERPA, as long as those being informed of the behavior had a "legitimate educational interest". Besides, the consequences of violating FERPA (which are soft) seem well worth the risk when a person's life is in danger.
A more proactive approach would be to train faculty, staff, and even peer groups to recognize suicidal behavior and intervene (like the Air Force program). It's effective and seems like a worthwhile effort.
We cannot hide behind FERPA when the situation is an endangerment to the student. From Chapter 3, "FERPA contains an exception for emergencies, including those involving health and safety." A threat to one's life is definitely an emergency.
I'm curious: Can the university call law enforcement officials as a way to get a student Baker Acted? Has anyone had experience with this on their campuses?
Unfortunately, yes to your Baker Act question - although a licensed mental health professional may also have a student involuntarily hospitalized. Since, however, transportation to the facility is typically an issue it is easier to have the Baker Act initiated by law enforcement as they will transport (or make arrangements) to transport. We also have a Clearence Protocol (outlined in aonther post due to character length) that has been extremely effective in making sure that (1) a student is ready to return and (2) the university can support their needs:
Any student who has been transported to the hospital (for any reason regardless of severity), and/or placed on a medical interim suspension or an involuntary medical withdrawal will need to complete the following clearance procedures before being allowed to return to the University. The following steps are designed to ensure that a health emergency no longer exists and a treatment plan for continuing good health and safety is in place. Note: Depending on the situation, students may complete these procedures on different timelines. Some students may complete these steps within hours/days of the incident or medical interim suspension notice while others may wait several months before pursuing a return to the University.
1. The student must be assessed by an appropriate outside professional, whose opinions will be advisory to the University. The professional, who is selected by the student, must be a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist if evaluating mental health concerns, and must be a licensed physician if the evaluation is regarding other medical concerns. Further, all providers must be unrelated to the student and must have specialty/credentials appropriate for the condition of concern (e.g., an eating disorder or substance abuse specialist). To make an accurate assessment, before conducting the evaluation the provider must be given information related to the precipitating events that led to the leave. This typically would involve the student signing a release allowing the University (e.g., the Health & Wellness Center, Counseling Services Office, or Assistant Vice President for Student Services) to share information regarding relevant incidents or concerns, and if applicable, recent hospital records. The student will be responsible for any cost incurred by the evaluation.
2. The outside mental health or medical professional, with the student’s written permission, must provide directly to the University an assessment of current functioning of the student and provide written recommendations regarding: a) given the precipitating events, the student’s readiness to return to the academic and co-curricular demands of University life; b) the student’s readiness to live in the on-campus residential community; c) ongoing treatment or testing needs; d) any conditions or restrictions that the University should impose; and e) the student’s readiness to return to competitive sports, if the student is a collegiate athlete. Note: The University team physician, in consultation with the Saint Leo University Director of the Health & Wellness Center and/or Counseling Services Office, will ultimately make the decision regarding athletic involvement but will consider this outside evaluation in making such a determination.
3. After the evaluation results and treatment documentation have been provided, the student must meet with a SHC representative (typically the Assistant Vice President for Student Services or directors of the Counseling Services Office or Health & Wellness Center). The evaluation and the student’s own perception regarding readiness to return, needs, and plans for treatment will be discussed. Additionally, the representative will consider how the outside evaluator’s recommendations fit with the realities of student life at Saint Leo University and services that are available on campus or in the community.
4. The SHC will meet and consider a number of factors about the student’s ability to return to Saint Leo University. These factors include the outside evaluator’s recommendation and the results of the student’s meeting with the SHC representative to inform its re-entry decision. Students will receive written notification of the SHC’s decision about clearance return to the University.
Steve, No, I don't think it was ethical for the principal to ask you to pass the student and it really put you in a tough situation. I agree with Jennifer's comment on an incomplete perhaps being the best scenario - which also probably works better in a higher ed environment vs. if he were a senior expecting to graduate high school.
Jennifer, I agree that since FERPA has much less bite it is best to face the risks and possibly get someone the help they need. I also liked Edna's idea of internal warning systems. I think something like that would be great, especially if everyone received proper training and handled it with the utmost in confidentiality. I guess the biggest concern I would have is that care would need to be taken so that the potentially suicidal student didn't overhear any conversations of the sort taking place which may actually result in further instability by the student.
Steve, I think the direct threat assessment is important so that those with either beliefs and values that offend, or mental health issues that are generally not a threat, are not unfairly dismissed from seeking higher education. Also, there is a certain amount of contract law in place in that the student has invested in their education to some degree and so to take that away would require a fair assessment of the situation.
In response to your second set of questions, as a faculty member, I would definitely want to know if one of my students was suicidal! I don't believe that it would be a violation of FERPA or any other acts for administration (or whoever) to notify me. Listen, I feel responsible for the safety of my students and if one of them is about to "go off the deep end," I need to have some idea of how I would handle the situation to help ensure the safety of other students.
For me personally (and I believe that it was highly unethical for you to be asked to pass the student regardless), the grade that a student EARNS is the grade that is recorded. In my classes, all students start the semester with 0 points and whatever they EARN is what they have EARNED. We all have "stuff" (maybe not to the extent of suicide) going on in our lives and we have to manage appropriately. Just because a student is suicidal in NO WAY means that they get "preferential" treatment in my classes. It is not fair to the other students in the class. You could very well be correct - he may have simply been trying to pass your class. That is why all institutions should have access to people (doctors, psychologists, etc.) that specialize with students who are emotionally unstable.
Quite frankly - if my dean instructed me to give leniency to a student in this situation (I don't think that she ever would!), I would refuse and talk to her direct report - even though it might not make me "popular" with her for the time being.
At PHCC, from what I have seen, we have great options for students. Students have access to professionals that can help them and as long as we keep everyone in the "know" that needs to be in the "know", unfortunate situations will be avoided!
Ken- thanks for your policy. Does this policy differ because your a private institution?
Jennifer- I agree training of the faculty,staff, and students are needed. I often wonder why the HR is the only place doing development (mostly of staff) I wonder if Student Affairs had thought about faculty/staff development? I feel this may be a way to bridge a gap between the academic and student side of things-
Bombaugh- thanks for the provocative questions about FERPA
Cynthia- I agree about the "direct threat" I had not thought about beliefs before. Can you elaborate?
Misty- I am sure I was in a unique situation. PHCC is a community college, with how many students? I would wonder if being in the "know" is easier there.
I believe Higher Education Administrators are given the tenuous duty of balancing the interests of safety and privacy for individual students. While the FERPA promulgates institutions to ask for written consent before disclosing a student's personal information, it also creates an avenue for colleges and universities to establish strategies to maintain campus safety. Understanding and embracing the law empowers administrators to act decisively and promptly when issues arise. A critical, yet silent, component of the law is prevention. It is highly incumbent upon universities/colleges to initiate proactive strategies to address suicidal and homicidal ideations. This includes universities adopting an ecological approach to student care and safety. Student care encompasses addressing any disturbance in bodily systems (i.e., not receiving adequate rest), cognitive and emotional challenges (i.e., troublesome thoughts/feelings of depression) and possible disruption of a student’s social environment (i.e., leaving a small town to attend a big university). The university’s counseling center (and I believe USF models this philosophy) has a duty to assist students in recognizing stressors and developing appropriate counseling skills. If all three of these components aren’t addressed in student care, then unfortunately, campus crises and student suicide will remain. The appropriate university professionals (Psychologists, Psychiatrists, LCSWs and LMHC) must also train faculty and staff regarding symptomology and make valiant attempts to eradicate stigmas associated with mental health. I do not believe faculty and staff should become pseudo-psychologists as issuing a five Axis diagnosis takes years and years of training, but teaching and caring for students extends beyond the classroom environment. It takes a “team” approach, including parental involvement, to ensure a student’s academic and psychological success.
Both public and private institutions can have clearance policies. Obviously, as a private institution there is somewhat more flexibility on restrictions. How about the following line (from our Code of Conduct, as well as printed in every Catalogue) - "Saint Leo University maintains the right to dismiss or suspend any student for reasons that the administration deems to be in the best interest of the University." While it does not mean that I can dismiss a student "just because", it is about as close as an institution can get...It could be that the student doesn't follow our Core Values or Mission, could be a health/safety issue, etc. - but there is a process/procedure in place that minimizes the liability to the institution while maintaining a sense of community.
As a guidance counselor and college counselor, I must chime in on this issue...its interesting the different perspectives here...in my training I am nearly "brainwashed" to follow very specific procedures anytime a student makes some sort of threat of harm to themselves even if I suspect it is not a serious threat. Contacting parents, documenting, implementing intervention strategies are something that come automatically to me in these cases after years of training in this field...I would always err on the side of caution in cases like these...the clause in every confidentiality rule is that you can breach it anytime you suspect possible harm to self or harm to others.
1) It has been stated in a 2008 Georgia case that “Generally, suicide is an unforeseeable intervening cause of death which absolves the tortfeasor of liability.” This applies to most people unless there is a custodial or malpractice situation.
ReplyDeleteHow do you think this would apply to a university setting in which there were students
2) In an Iowa case in 2000, this case stated that there was not a reasonably foreseeable event that would justify creating a duty to prevent suicide or notify Mahoney’s parents of any pending danger.
What constitutes a time that you would notify parents of an event that their child may be suicidal or may do harm to self or others?
3) State laws require “direct threat” assessment before otherwise qualified students with mental disabilities can be involuntarily removed from school.
Why would this be an ethical decision?
The "Key Quotation" from this report helps to underscore the critical nature of this decision. When such a substantial percentage of “non-attempters” of suicide report that wanting to finish college was critical to their remaining alive, we need to pay strong attention, and to develop situational responses which can serve to allow potentially suicidal students the support to continue attending classes as much as possible. However, we also need the skills and tools to be able to discern more effectively (if this is possible) when suicidal ideations are a reality and when a student is capable of effectively controlling these emotions and actions. On the flip side, and not discussed in this article or the text chapter, is when potentially suicidal individuals also become an endangerment to others.
ReplyDeleteUniversities, with residential settings, may be vastly different from community colleges which typically don't have responsibilities for residential students (other than college athletes). However, the institutional dialogue of whether and when to notify parents or other family members (spouses or even children) should be conducted in advance of an emergency situation so that faculty, staff, and administrators are prepared and have a plan of action. The ongoing discussion regarding FERPA is especially pertinent since we often hesitate (and rightly so) to divulge personal information regarding the student; the very personal nature of suicidal thoughts makes us even more aware of confidentiality, at the same time as we are aware of the need to assist the student. The outcome of suicides and killings at other institutions always brings up discussion of our own processes, which should serve to help us actively evaluate whether we do have solid and effective systems in place for identifying and helping a student (or staff/faculty) in danger.
I found the “duty of care” issue to be valuable and at the same time somewhat confusing. From a “Student Development” perspective, it would seem to me that each of us at our institutions has a “duty of care” when working with a student who expresses thoughts of suicide. While I understand the concept of “duty of care” I think I need a more thorough definition of the legal aspects of this concept.
What constitutes a time when I would feel that we should notify parents? It would depend significantly upon a variety of concerns, such as the circumstances (i.e.; is the student in his/her bedroom, having taken a bottle of pills, and are the parents also at home?) and our “comfort level” with the student’s assurances that he/she would seek treatment and would not harm him/herself. I would consult with other college administrators, including our Vice President of Student Development and our college attorney before notifying the parents. On the other hand, I have called the sheriff’s department for a “wellness check” on several occasions when situations warranted (in one instance, the student had left a suicide note on campus), but have not spoken directly with the student’s family.
I think with the rash of suicides at Cornell this past year (6 in a 6 month period), higher education is going to see new interpretations of policies (and even FERPA) similar to changes in campus safety/security issues following Virginia Tech. We continue to live in a litigious society and while "generally, suicide is an unforesseable intervening cause of death which absolves the tortfeasor of liability" does Cornell have an obligation to install barriers on their pedestrian briges (an arguement that has been going on for years) to at least deter individuals from jumping? http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/05/07/after-30-years-cornell-continues-debate-over-suicide-barriers
ReplyDeleteI agree with Donna B. that there is a greater "duty of care" for traditional, residential campuses - and at times, family may be the part of the suicidal students issues. The primary goal should be to get the student the necessary support that is needed.
I agree with you, Ken...in reading some of these articles and case studies, I think that the concern for the student's wellbeing sometimes may have been overlooked because of the student's "out of control" behavior, as in the case of a student who acts irrationally or angrily, or because of concern for protecting the student's confidentiality. Certainly, the increase in litigation should cause us all to be cautious, but we also should be caring, compassionate professionals who feel a sense of duty to protect (as in the Cornell example. While erecting protective barriers to the building would be expensive, and students bent on harming themselves undoubtedly would seek another place from which to jump, it doesn't make sense to me that an institution would not have immediately made changes to attempt to preclude this from happening at a known suicide location.
ReplyDeleteDonna, I like the perspective of being compassionate professionals who feel a sense of duty to protect. I think that this is of utmost importance in our line of work because it gives us greater potential to help save a life. However, I also think that we sometimes must think first with our heads then our hearts in order to make the best decisions for everyone involved. In the case of a student who I think is suicidal, I think that I just might be more willing to risk the assumption of liability in an attempt to save their life. (I, of course, say this as a novice and I understand that such a response may be overly optimistic.)
ReplyDeleteWith regard to number #2, I unfortunately don’t think there is a right a wrong answer but I’m going to offer a practical application of how I’d approach the situation. I do believe that an internal notification should be sent to each faculty or staff member that interacts with the potentially suicidal student on a regular basis. Additionally, I would create an internal notification system that is based on a number of levels that indicate intensity of endangerment for a potentially suicidal student. Each level would include a sample description of “red flags” that faculty or staff would recognize as irregular behavior. The student’s parents would be notified based on the level of intensity and the signs that suggest the student is in danger of hurting him/herself or others.
This conversation brings to light many points. Cornell and their suicide rate, liability/responsibility, FERPA. I would ask (because I too am young) if it would be a violation of FERPA or other acts to notify faculty that a member of their class is suicidal.
ReplyDeleteTo continue this discussion, ethically if you tell a faculty member that a student is suicidal would it not tamper/interfere with how that faculty evaluates/grades the student? Is that fair to the others in the class.
For example, when teaching high school, I had a student who needed my class to graduate and he was failing. He stated that he was suicidal to the principal. The principal said told me that the student would pass regardless and that he was working with a counselor. This student earned a 48 in my class and passed with a 70.
Was that ethically fair to the other students who did the work? As bad as it sounds, I wasn't convinced he was suicidal and thought he may be doing this to graduate. Does anyone have thoughts about how this situation could play out at the college level?
Perhaps issuing an Incomplete would have been a more appropriate way to deal with a student whose psychological health was dependent upon a grade. Accommodations (like extra time until he can successfully complete therapy) are a much better way to handle that situation. What they asked you to do was wrong. Period.
ReplyDeleteGiven the statistics about actual suicide attempts and completions mentioned in the report, it's difficult to determine how much we should "panic" about behaviors one person may deem dangerous. On the other hand, it seems that the repercussions of not communicating might be more severe than those resulting from fear of privacy issues. I think we'd be okay by FERPA, as long as those being informed of the behavior had a "legitimate educational interest". Besides, the consequences of violating FERPA (which are soft) seem well worth the risk when a person's life is in danger.
A more proactive approach would be to train faculty, staff, and even peer groups to recognize suicidal behavior and intervene (like the Air Force program). It's effective and seems like a worthwhile effort.
We cannot hide behind FERPA when the situation is an endangerment to the student. From Chapter 3, "FERPA contains an exception for emergencies, including those involving health and safety." A threat to one's life is definitely an emergency.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious: Can the university call law enforcement officials as a way to get a student Baker Acted? Has anyone had experience with this on their campuses?
Unfortunately, yes to your Baker Act question - although a licensed mental health professional may also have a student involuntarily hospitalized. Since, however, transportation to the facility is typically an issue it is easier to have the Baker Act initiated by law enforcement as they will transport (or make arrangements) to transport. We also have a Clearence Protocol (outlined in aonther post due to character length) that has been extremely effective in making sure that (1) a student is ready to return and (2) the university can support their needs:
ReplyDeleteSaint Leo University Clearance Procedures:
ReplyDeleteAny student who has been transported to the hospital (for any reason regardless of severity), and/or placed on a medical interim suspension or an involuntary medical withdrawal will need to complete the following clearance procedures before being allowed to return to the University. The following steps are designed to ensure that a health emergency no longer exists and a treatment plan for continuing good health and safety is in place. Note: Depending on the situation, students may complete these procedures on different timelines. Some students may complete these steps within hours/days of the incident or medical interim suspension notice while others may wait several months before pursuing a return to the University.
1. The student must be assessed by an appropriate outside professional, whose opinions will be advisory to the University. The professional, who is selected by the student, must be a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist if evaluating mental health concerns, and must be a licensed physician if the evaluation is regarding other medical concerns. Further, all providers must be unrelated to the student and must have specialty/credentials appropriate for the condition of concern (e.g., an eating disorder or substance abuse specialist). To make an accurate assessment, before conducting the evaluation the provider must be given information related to the precipitating events that led to the leave.
This typically would involve the student signing a release allowing the University (e.g., the Health & Wellness Center, Counseling Services Office, or Assistant Vice President for Student Services) to share information regarding relevant incidents or concerns, and if applicable, recent hospital records. The student will be responsible for any cost incurred by the evaluation.
2. The outside mental health or medical professional, with the student’s written permission, must provide directly to the University an assessment of current functioning of the student and provide written recommendations regarding:
a) given the precipitating events, the student’s readiness to return to the academic and co-curricular demands of University life;
b) the student’s readiness to live in the on-campus residential community;
c) ongoing treatment or testing needs;
d) any conditions or restrictions that the University should impose; and
e) the student’s readiness to return to competitive sports, if the student is a collegiate athlete. Note: The University team physician, in consultation with the Saint Leo University Director of the Health & Wellness Center and/or Counseling Services Office, will ultimately make the decision regarding athletic involvement but will consider this outside evaluation in making such a determination.
3. After the evaluation results and treatment documentation have been provided, the student must meet with a SHC representative (typically the Assistant Vice President for Student Services or directors of the Counseling Services Office or Health & Wellness Center). The evaluation and the student’s own perception regarding readiness to return, needs, and plans for treatment will be discussed. Additionally, the representative will consider how the outside evaluator’s recommendations fit with the realities of student life at Saint Leo University and services that are available on campus or in the community.
4. The SHC will meet and consider a number of factors about the student’s ability to return to Saint Leo University. These factors include the outside evaluator’s recommendation and the results of the student’s meeting with the SHC representative to inform its re-entry decision. Students will receive written notification of the SHC’s decision about clearance return to the University.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think it was ethical for the principal to ask you to pass the student and it really put you in a tough situation. I agree with Jennifer's comment on an incomplete perhaps being the best scenario - which also probably works better in a higher ed environment vs. if he were a senior expecting to graduate high school.
Jennifer,
I agree that since FERPA has much less bite it is best to face the risks and possibly get someone the help they need. I also liked Edna's idea of internal warning systems. I think something like that would be great, especially if everyone received proper training and handled it with the utmost in confidentiality. I guess the biggest concern I would have is that care would need to be taken so that the potentially suicidal student didn't overhear any conversations of the sort taking place which may actually result in further instability by the student.
Steve,
I think the direct threat assessment is important so that those with either beliefs and values that offend, or mental health issues that are generally not a threat, are not unfairly dismissed from seeking higher education. Also, there is a certain amount of contract law in place in that the student has invested in their education to some degree and so to take that away would require a fair assessment of the situation.
Stephen -
ReplyDeleteIn response to your second set of questions, as a faculty member, I would definitely want to know if one of my students was suicidal! I don't believe that it would be a violation of FERPA or any other acts for administration (or whoever) to notify me. Listen, I feel responsible for the safety of my students and if one of them is about to "go off the deep end," I need to have some idea of how I would handle the situation to help ensure the safety of other students.
For me personally (and I believe that it was highly unethical for you to be asked to pass the student regardless), the grade that a student EARNS is the grade that is recorded. In my classes, all students start the semester with 0 points and whatever they EARN is what they have EARNED. We all have "stuff" (maybe not to the extent of suicide) going on in our lives and we have to manage appropriately. Just because a student is suicidal in NO WAY means that they get "preferential" treatment in my classes. It is not fair to the other students in the class. You could very well be correct - he may have simply been trying to pass your class. That is why all institutions should have access to people (doctors, psychologists, etc.) that specialize with students who are emotionally unstable.
Quite frankly - if my dean instructed me to give leniency to a student in this situation (I don't think that she ever would!), I would refuse and talk to her direct report - even though it might not make me "popular" with her for the time being.
At PHCC, from what I have seen, we have great options for students. Students have access to professionals that can help them and as long as we keep everyone in the "know" that needs to be in the "know", unfortunate situations will be avoided!
Ken- thanks for your policy. Does this policy differ because your a private institution?
ReplyDeleteJennifer- I agree training of the faculty,staff, and students are needed. I often wonder why the HR is the only place doing development (mostly of staff) I wonder if Student Affairs had thought about faculty/staff development? I feel this may be a way to bridge a gap between the academic and student side of things-
Bombaugh- thanks for the provocative questions about FERPA
Cynthia- I agree about the "direct threat" I had not thought about beliefs before. Can you elaborate?
Misty- I am sure I was in a unique situation. PHCC is a community college, with how many students? I would wonder if being in the "know" is easier there.
I believe Higher Education Administrators are given the tenuous duty of balancing the interests of safety and privacy for individual students. While the FERPA promulgates institutions to ask for written consent before disclosing a student's personal information, it also creates an avenue for colleges and universities to establish strategies to maintain campus safety. Understanding and embracing the law empowers administrators to act decisively and promptly when issues arise. A critical, yet silent, component of the law is prevention. It is highly incumbent upon universities/colleges to initiate proactive strategies to address suicidal and homicidal ideations. This includes universities adopting an ecological approach to student care and safety. Student care encompasses addressing any disturbance in bodily systems (i.e., not receiving adequate rest), cognitive and emotional challenges (i.e., troublesome thoughts/feelings of depression) and possible disruption of a student’s social environment (i.e., leaving a small town to attend a big university). The university’s counseling center (and I believe USF models this philosophy) has a duty to assist students in recognizing stressors and developing appropriate counseling skills. If all three of these components aren’t addressed in student care, then unfortunately, campus crises and student suicide will remain. The appropriate university professionals (Psychologists, Psychiatrists, LCSWs and LMHC) must also train faculty and staff regarding symptomology and make valiant attempts to eradicate stigmas associated with mental health. I do not believe faculty and staff should become pseudo-psychologists as issuing a five Axis diagnosis takes years and years of training, but teaching and caring for students extends beyond the classroom environment. It takes a “team” approach, including parental involvement, to ensure a student’s academic and psychological success.
ReplyDeleteBoth public and private institutions can have clearance policies. Obviously, as a private institution there is somewhat more flexibility on restrictions. How about the following line (from our Code of Conduct, as well as printed in every Catalogue) - "Saint Leo University maintains the right to dismiss or suspend any student for reasons that the administration deems to be in the best interest of the University." While it does not mean that I can dismiss a student "just because", it is about as close as an institution can get...It could be that the student doesn't follow our Core Values or Mission, could be a health/safety issue, etc. - but there is a process/procedure in place that minimizes the liability to the institution while maintaining a sense of community.
ReplyDeleteAs a guidance counselor and college counselor, I must chime in on this issue...its interesting the different perspectives here...in my training I am nearly "brainwashed" to follow very specific procedures anytime a student makes some sort of threat of harm to themselves even if I suspect it is not a serious threat. Contacting parents, documenting, implementing intervention strategies are something that come automatically to me in these cases after years of training in this field...I would always err on the side of caution in cases like these...the clause in every confidentiality rule is that you can breach it anytime you suspect possible harm to self or harm to others.
ReplyDelete