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.

For me, that final letter shows how little they care about their students and how all that process was about covering their asses.

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!"

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.

While true, we unfortunately live in a world where you will likely be damned no matter what choice you make.

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.

Is that wrong?

Hurting someone so that legal responsibility is washed from your hands? Yes, that is wrong.

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.

>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.

So, taking the precautions is neutral until a student is harmed by them and then it becomes wrong? Seems to me they would have to take precautions for the precautions then. You are also assuming it was known beforehand that the precautions may cause harm to the student in question. Students have been banned from universities before.

I agree banning a student can be heavy-handed unless he was deemed a danger to other students or maybe other things warranted such a response. But I would imagine a university has the right to remove anyone from campus and ask that they not return.

I disagree, there will almost always be someone offering to help, it's human nature. But why is it the university's responsibility to help in a case where they choose not to do so? Just because one group decides to help in certain situations doesn't mean everyone else has to help. If the university decides they don't want to help in these situations then they have that right. Some people may not like that. Some people think it makes for a better world to force others to do things they don't want to do. Force them because it's been predetermined it's for the greater good, but I see that as going too far and a huge potential for abuse.

> So, taking the precautions is neutral until a student is harmed by them and then it becomes wrong?

No, I'll try to be clearer. The very idea of precautions is neutral. Specific precautions are good or bad based on whether they are likely to harm the student and/or prevent harm.

> I would imagine a university has the right to remove anyone from campus and ask that they not return.

Once someone has started a degree program at a university, I would very much hope that cause is required to remove them.

> But why is it the university's responsibility to help in a case where they choose not to do so?

They don't have to 'help', per se, but I expect them to not hinder. They are already giving away counseling, all they have to do is not interfere. Keep to the existing agreement. (Without using any "cancel at any time" loopholes they put into their contract of adhesion.)

By banning people with suicidal ideation the college is making suicide more, not less, likely.

People who are banished are cut off from social support structures and have a lot of time available to dwell on their situation which involves increased costs and delayed graduation. That increases their risk of attempted or completed suicide. Other students see the distruption and are reluctant to seek help, and that again increases their risk.

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.