6 ms·

I don't see how W&M did anything wrong here. It is very common for students to take time off because of mental health issues. Especially if he was at risk of co

by lasdfas 11y ago

I don't see how W&M did anything wrong here. It is very common for students to take time off because of mental health issues. Especially if he was at risk of committing suicide. I know several students at my college who were forced to take time off and it ultimately helped them. They didn't have to worry about the stress of school. The school didn't call to see how he was doing? I have never heard any school doing that. He was only out of school for less than 2 months. The last suggestion that he killed himself because he was not readmitted in a timely matter. Remember, de was admitted less than a month later. This wasn't some year long process. It is a very sad story and the sister is looking for someone to blame, but I see the school did nothing wrong here. The implication that you shouldn't seek college counseling for fear of taking time off is very dangerous. It is important for people to seek counseling as soon as they feel they need it.

onion2k 11y ago
The reaction of the college was all about covering themselves rather than helping a student. Banning someone from the college grounds is not helping them take time off - it's making sure nothing happens that you might be held responsible for. Legally and technically they might not have done anything "wrong", but morally and socially they couldn't have been farther from doing the right thing.
- loopbit 11y ago
  For me, that final letter shows how little they care about their students and how all that process was about covering their asses.
- lasdfas 11y ago
  If the student is at risk of suicide, there are times when they need to seek professional help away from school. He could be a danger to himself or others. I think you are making it black and white. "If the student wants to stay at school, let them." It is not as simple as that. Think about it from the other perspective. If he killed himself at school and they knew he had serious mental health issues, people would be way more up and arms. "The school did nothing!"
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - scott_s 11y ago
    There is a wide gulf between, "We think it's best for you to take a leave of absence from school" and "Banned from campus". There is a difference between working with a student, and exiling them.
    - talmand 11y ago
      While true, we unfortunately live in a world where you will likely be damned no matter what choice you make.
detaro 11y ago
There is a difference between allowing someone time off and what I would describe as "create a lot of fuss to make sure if something happens it is as far as possible from the school". Surely forbidding someone from his known environment (which might be harmful to him, but also provide support, and I have a feeling they didn't have time to figure that out exactly) isn't the perfect first response.
UK-AL 11y ago
Lets be honest, this was just a way to avoid any legal responsibilities, or any other mess coming from it happening on/in the college.
- talmand 11y ago
  Is that wrong?
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    Hurting someone so that legal responsibility is washed from your hands? Yes, that is wrong.
    - talmand 11y ago
      So, taking precautions to remove the college from a situation that could be detrimental to the college as a whole is wrong? Let's say they stepped up and went beyond their responsibilities to help, let's say it failed, let's say the family sues the school since they accepted responsibility. How exactly does that help the rest of the student body and the accepted responsibilities, such as educating, the school has towards them? This is not the simple black and white situation many feel it should be.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        >So, taking precautions to remove the college from a situation that could be detrimental to the college as a whole is wrong? Such precautions are neither inherently wrong nor right. But if they have a strong side effect of hurting the student, without protecting the college from anything real, they are wrong. >Let's say they stepped up and went beyond their responsibilities to help Beyond? I strongly disagree that it's beyond their responsibilities to refrain from banning a student in good standing from campus. >How exactly does that help the rest of the student body I can make the same argument about every group. Now nobody will help. We're definitely not better of in that world. NIMBY is a bad motivator.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by lasdfas 11y ago

onion2k 11y ago

The reaction of the college was all about covering themselves rather than helping a student. Banning someone from the college grounds is not helping them take time off - it's making sure nothing happens that you might be held responsible for. Legally and technically they might not have done anything "wrong", but morally and socially they couldn't have been farther from doing the right thing.

loopbit 11y ago
For me, that final letter shows how little they care about their students and how all that process was about covering their asses.
lasdfas 11y ago
If the student is at risk of suicide, there are times when they need to seek professional help away from school. He could be a danger to himself or others. I think you are making it black and white. "If the student wants to stay at school, let them." It is not as simple as that. Think about it from the other perspective. If he killed himself at school and they knew he had serious mental health issues, people would be way more up and arms. "The school did nothing!"
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- scott_s 11y ago
  There is a wide gulf between, "We think it's best for you to take a leave of absence from school" and "Banned from campus". There is a difference between working with a student, and exiling them.
  - talmand 11y ago
    While true, we unfortunately live in a world where you will likely be damned no matter what choice you make.

detaro 11y ago

There is a difference between allowing someone time off and what I would describe as "create a lot of fuss to make sure if something happens it is as far as possible from the school". Surely forbidding someone from his known environment (which might be harmful to him, but also provide support, and I have a feeling they didn't have time to figure that out exactly) isn't the perfect first response.

UK-AL 11y ago

Lets be honest, this was just a way to avoid any legal responsibilities, or any other mess coming from it happening on/in the college.

talmand 11y ago
Is that wrong?
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Hurting someone so that legal responsibility is washed from your hands? Yes, that is wrong.
  - talmand 11y ago
    So, taking precautions to remove the college from a situation that could be detrimental to the college as a whole is wrong? Let's say they stepped up and went beyond their responsibilities to help, let's say it failed, let's say the family sues the school since they accepted responsibility. How exactly does that help the rest of the student body and the accepted responsibilities, such as educating, the school has towards them? This is not the simple black and white situation many feel it should be.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      >So, taking precautions to remove the college from a situation that could be detrimental to the college as a whole is wrong? Such precautions are neither inherently wrong nor right. But if they have a strong side effect of hurting the student, without protecting the college from anything real, they are wrong. >Let's say they stepped up and went beyond their responsibilities to help Beyond? I strongly disagree that it's beyond their responsibilities to refrain from banning a student in good standing from campus. >How exactly does that help the rest of the student body I can make the same argument about every group. Now nobody will help. We're definitely not better of in that world. NIMBY is a bad motivator.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]