Although America is called the Great Melting Pot, discrimination is always close at hand. Post-9/11, Americans slipped into a state of fear that called for a radical change in our security policies. It was common for people to discriminate against those of the Muslim faith because of this heightened paranoia. Post-2007's Virginia Tech Massacre, Colleges are now dealing with a similar state of fear affecting college students and their families across America. In this instance, students are being discrimated against for their mental state.
The article I read in Time Magazine discussed the specific case of Anne Giedinghagen, a Junior at Cornell University with a history of depression and anorexia. After word got out that she had been dealing with some level of suicidal thoughts, Cornell gave Giedinghagen an ultimatum - get healthy or go home.
It is obvious that in light of the VT massacre, colleges are taking more careful measures when addressing students with problems. Cho Seung-Hui, the VT shooter, had a history of intense anger and instability, writing "very graphic" and "extremely disturbing" plays and poems, according to his former classmate Ian MacFarlane. If the new expulsion policy had been implemented earlier, Seung-Hui is someone who most likely would have benefited from this policy. Even if he didn't seek treatment, he would have been forced from the campus, saving the 27 lives that were lost that day, including perhaps his own.
The policy seems logical, when looking at someone like Seung-Hui, but Giedinghagen and other students with less of an intent to hurt others as an intent to hurt themselves, are a slightly separate case.
I can't help feeling that Giedinghagen's case is more personal than Seung-Hui's was. Seung-Hui fostered a deep hatred toward the world, and showed little sign of insecurity or self-loathing. This is most likely why his intense writing and/or antisocial behavior went unaddressed. When dealing with students who find fault only in themselves, I would have to think that therapy would be the better option.
It would seem to me that Cornell's decision had little to do with the actual student, and more to do with how its policy would come across. With it, the university is sending a "no mental people" message, and with it gives that same reputation to the school, which can be comforting to prospective students and much moreso to their parents. Also, it is important to note that there have been recent court rulings leaving universities partly responsibly for the suicides that happen on their campus. I can't help but think that Cornell may have had that fact in mind when pressuring Giedinghagen to leave their premisis.
Still, for those students unsure of what they are feeling, the policy sends a "hide your problems" message, something that any therapist would agree is dangerous. Isn't it the golden rule to open up about your problems in order to help solve them? Take Seung-Hui for example: the kid barely talked to anyone, wrote unnerving poetry as the only outlet for his frustration, and ended up pulling a gun on 30 people and then himself.
In Giedinghagen's case, she eventually left the school and entered into a psychiatric program. There had been no calls from Cornell, five weeks into the proram. Seems as though they really care about how she is doing, hmm?
This new trend in the world of academia has created yet another area of discrimination. Not only can prospective college students be discriminated against due to their gender, race, sexual orientation, or income level, but now schools seem to be "watching out for" those with mental/emotional problems.
This would be acceptable if it were coming from a place of concern, but there is doubt there. It is a fine line between caring for the student and caring for the reputation of the school.
Sometimes people with problems remain in denial until the very last, so this issue really isn't black and white. That is why I believe there shouldn't be a protocol for this type of thing. The universities are going to be criticized either way: they help the student, they are discriminating; they do not help the student, they are ignoring. I think the real issue is the word "help." Colleges, students, and their families need to decide what exactly they want/need/expect when dealing with students who may be thinking or behaving in an unhealthy manner. Drug addiction, suicidal thoughts, depression, anorexia, bulimia, social anxiety, what-have-you - every case is different, and so every case should be dealt with accordingly. Maybe there needs to be a person hired to deal specifically with such cases - a go-between for the school, the student, and the family. Our economy could use the help with job creation now, anyway.
