Last month, The Daily Princetonian published University documents from a pending lawsuit against the University for its forced “voluntary” withdrawal of a student with mental health issues. And there was little to no student reaction. Unfortunately, by now it isn’t astounding to me that Princeton students are largely ignoring important, student-related issues in their regular conversations. But even so, it is strange to see how little student attention has been given to the ongoing lawsuit against the University regarding discrimination due to mental health concerns given that students have already identified this as a critical concern.
Given how salient an issue mental health has been on campus and nationally in recent months, I figured that this would be an issue about which people are passionate and engaged. Last March, when the student filed this lawsuit alleging discrimination by the University on the basis of mental illness,another student wrote an op-ed criticizing the University’s policy that requires students to waive confidentiality in order to be readmitted after leaving for mental health reasons. In fact, there were numerous 'Prince' columns on the University’s flawed policies. There was enough discussion that even the administration was prompted to do something —they hosted town halls on mental health around campus.Yet despite the recent news coverage of the developments of the lawsuit against the University, there seems to be little discussion, either inside or outside the 'Prince,' other than about whether the student filing the lawsuit should be allowed to remain anonymous. (That story did result in a number of student comments, mainly in favor of the student plaintiff remaining anonymous. There have been no response opinion columns on the lawsuit this semester, however.) There has been nearly no attention regarding the student’s initial decision to represent himself or the publication of the documents the University sent to the student.
The publication of similar documents last spring created such a stir —why didn’t these? These documents appear to demonstrate that the University has a “one-size-fits-all” policy regarding required withdrawals for mental health issues, draconian rules for lack of contact with the University while on leave and a broad-brush requirement for the waiving of confidentiality in regards to mental health records for reinstatement to the University. I’d love be able to suggest that perhaps the reason we aren’t paying more attention to this is because we are too busy talking about other critical issues, like the changes to the sexual misconduct policy, but I, unfortunately, know better than that.
Perhaps it’s the reality that a ruling in this lawsuit in the student’s favor has the potential to create drastic changes. Writing in the 'Prince' is a great form of activism and has the potential to spark conversation among students and administrators, like what happened last spring. However, it doesn’t really have the potential to spark major policy changes that the University might oppose due to rational self-interest. Winning a discrimination lawsuit does.
Regrettably, students here just don’t want to align themselves with a radical overhaul of University policy —not until after it wins at least. People are not willing to put their heads on the line, even if in a supportive role. The University has a reputation for adhering to the norm; students generally do not create waves in social and cultural standards. Those who do choose to take action tend to be ridiculed. So, really, this apathy should not be all that surprising. In fact, it was the same way in the 1980s when Sally Frank sued Ivy Club and Tiger Innfor refusing to admit women. She faced ridicule from her peers for doing something that could —and eventually did —make a difference.
Now, of course, Sally Frank is treated as a hero by most of our generation —someone to admire and respect. And perhaps the same will occur with this student and this case if the student were to win and the University’s mental health policies were adapted to better serve students. Perhaps this case will even lead to a new standard policy nationally.
I, for one, hope that the student wins and that the University overhauls its mental health policies. We should be voicing our support for the student for speaking out and trying to create change, but no matter how one views the case and the issue, it’s imperative that students at least realize that this is potentially a huge game changer and that it deserves their attention and consideration. Hopefully, the upcoming Undergraduate Student Government referendum to urge the administration to publish the detailed and official policies for undergraduate withdrawal and readmission for mental health reasons will pass, rekindling the mental health reform efforts around campus. And, hopefully, the administration will see this as a mandate and that publishing this information will lead to further engagement and change.
Marni Morse is a sophomore from Washington, D.C. She can be reached at mlmorse@princeton.edu.
Read More
An open letter to President Eisgruber and VP Calhoun concerning minoritized student safety
Patrick Jaojoco, Brandi Bushman, and Humza Gondal"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
On the occupation of Clio Hall and the treatment of Graduate School staff
Cole M. Crittenden“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
Regulations on ‘disruption’ restrict dialogue at Princeton. Let’s change the standard.
Rishi Khanna“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
