Editor’s Note: According to Dean of Students Marlys Edwards, the school informs only those members of the community whom they believe need to know about a particular student taking a leave of absence. The school does not think that it is in the best interest of the student involved for too many members of the campus to know the specifics of the incident prompting the leave. These policies are essential to protect the student’s privacy and their reintegration to campus life when they return. As The Phillipian recently reported, this past Winter Term was marked by a dramatic increase in disciplinary responses. While the school’s DC policy is under constant scrutiny, and expulsions and withdrawals are, in all but the rarest cases, warranted, the topic of medical leaves of absences (from overdoses, attempted suicides, etc.) is seldom considered. In light of the recent examination of the school’s discipline procedures, the time has arrived to discuss and alter the current leave of absence and health and well being policy. This article discusses both the way the current policies work and the ways in which they should be altered for the benefit of all those people who are involved. When an extraordinary case of a student’s personal health, such as an attempted suicide or overdose, comes to the attention of the administration, those charged with maintaining the well-being of the students make decisions immediately. Under the current system, each situation is handled differently, but each with the same degree of extreme caution. First, when a faculty member has been notified of an emergency situation regarding a student’s health, the student response team, which consists of the student’s house counselor, Ms. Edwards, Dr. Keller, Dr. Alvosetti (of Graham House), and Dr. Curtis, is informed of the incident. The responsibility of the student response team is to analyze the details of the specific situation, considering the circumstances, in order to make the best decision in a short amount of time. Many of the decisions they are tasked with making involve determining who should be told and what actions should be taken. As these situations are usually quite delicate, the four members of the student response team are professionals, and their ability to make the correct decision is imperative to students health and welfare. In most situations, only the student’s house counselors and family members are immediately notified about the incident. If the response team requires the student to take a leave of absence, the student’s coaches and teachers are notified of their absence, but no other details are released. Sometimes, close friends or dorm peers are contacted by Graham House and told the details of the situation. In some cases, the student can choose who is told. Under this system, the school discloses very little to the rest of the student body, and usually only to those who are very closely connected to the person or situation in question. The school tries to make decisions in the best interest of the student and his or her parents. By not divulging specific information to classmates, which could potentially violate the student’s right to privacy; the school tries to maintain a welcoming atmosphere if and when the student decides to return to campus. By only releasing scant details, the school seeks to suppress ostracization of a student upon his or her return. The administration worries that the student will be put under a school-wide microscope if too many people are told. The above policies, as comprehensive as they may be, do contain some pivotal flaws. The health and well being policy should include a blanket procedure where, regardless of the circumstances, every house counselor on campus is told about the situation in order to best avoid uncomfortable experiences like the one described above. Another area of the policy that requires revision is the school’s response to issues of privacy versus the welfare of the school. It is not rare to hear chatter around campus that the school should hone in moe on dealing with students’ reactions and feelings in addition to the technical legalities of the counseli and leave of absence process. Ms. Edwards was stressed that every student involved in these types of situations is given ample counseling and support. She also commented that students who leave are given as much privacy as necessary, a policy designed to help achieve normalization upon the student’s return. Still, chances are, the gossip about the incident will paint the picture of an event that is more dramatized than what actually happened. Because of this the school would be better off having the student return to a school where people are supportive about their well-being rather than a place where their name is associated with rumors and ‘what not to do’ stories. It is here that we, the authors of this article, in addition to the administration, seem to run into trouble when solving this problem. How much information should be kept private? What policy should be adapted to best suit the needs of all involved? While the administration seeks to keep as much information private as possible, we would encourage a policy in which students who are in the same class or dorm, or on the same sports team as the student in question, be discretely notified of the situation. This policy, we feel, not only allows the student to return to a friendlier environment, but also informs people who are concerned about someone’s well-being. Another benefit of this policy is that it sidesteps any legal issues that could arise and also downplays the magnitude of the situation. Remember that people fear what they don’t know, and especially at Andover knowledge is key.
