No equality without standard policy

It’s important to understand something about mental illness, which Duke’s medical leave policy attempts to comprehend but ultimately is impossible to quantify. There is no definitive time it takes for someone to address and treat their mental illness. Some individuals will be severely affected for the rest of their lives, others will be able to manage their illness after a few months. Mental illness is a deeply personal and unique struggle and for that reason there is no one-size fits all treatment or time period.

It is for that reason that so many students fought against Duke’s previous mandatory two-semesters-off policy for students taking medical leave. Even with such pushback, this policy still unfortunately remains in place, though a mandatory two semesters off have now become an expected.

Duke has these policies for a reason. After all, it is the university’s hope that these semesters allow individuals to receive proper treatment, to prepare them to re-enter the often harsh academic and social environment at Duke, to ensure that individuals do not worsen their mental illness by returning to Duke prematurely. It makes sense from administration’s perspective; yet it fails to account for an individual’s narrative. It is because this policy fails to tailor to an individual and their respective treatment that we must continue to question and rework this policy.

Any student who cannot come back or has to go through two semesters of medical leave despite recommendations from their health professionals is a “victim” of this policy.

However, there is a difference between these students and the case of Jack Donahue, which he made public through an online petition with over 1,200 supporters.

If his very-public fight was about the expected number of semesters one might need to take off and about tailoring mental illness to individual cases, it would be one I could get behind.

There is a dangerous precedent in conflating the fight for proper understanding of mental illness with the violation of university policy. The progress of his treatment is not the reason he is being denied readmission, rather his actions as an individual and student on medical leave.

After all, in the case of Jack Donahue, there are two categories of understanding that must be distinguished. In one case, as he mentions, there is his fight to return to campus after two months of medical leave, and before the expected “leave for two semesters.” Given recommendations from his health professionals and that he describes home as his “site of trauma,” this decision might make the most sense.

In the other case, as he also mentions, there is the fact that Donahue violated university policy for medical-leave students by coming back on campus, as well as university policy for enrolled students by getting EMSed for underage consumption, while technically on medical leave. Even if he failed to internalize information the day he left Duke, not only is such information usually mailed to students on medical leave, according to several sources, but also it is available in multiple places online. It is for this violation that he ultimately is denied readmission, and for this reason why Donahue’s case cannot be the case for changing the flawed two-semesters-off policy.

More important than distinguishing these categories, however, is the impact this individual has on some individuals who have taken or are taking medical leave. Already these individuals feel stigmatized by this petition, because it devalues their experiences and struggles. It suggests that despite taking two semesters off, taking classes, working a job for three months—whatever it may be—other students’ experiences are less valuable.

After all, Donahue’s situation doesn’t stand alone. He is now part of a community of Duke students who have taken medical leave, many of whom have returned after adhering to the policy. By attempting to make his case more urgent than these students through a public petition, by using the power of the student body’s passion to bypass others, Donahue is indirectly suggesting that his experience deserves more immediate attention, despite his violations.

It is in this respect that this petition serves as a dangerous precedent in regards to the administrative side of Duke’s medical leave policy. Duke’s medical leave policy creates a standard for ensuring systematic treatment of individuals with mental illness, while maintaining itself as a working academic institution. Its policy also allows for transparency and modification of those standards for students despite its flaws.

If Donahue were to be treated differently from these set standards in spite of his violations, then it suggests that his case is somehow more deserving of attention than those of other medical-leave students. The danger of making a special case of Donahue’s situation is that it opens up the potential for unequal treatment of different students, based on such subjective reasons as the willingness to publicize his mental illness.

With no standard policy, there can be no equality. Without a standard policy, subjective bias and unequal treatment of individuals could quickly become normalized within the process of taking medical leave.

The administration needs to take a serious look at its standard for medical policy and provide reform for all students with mental illness. Mental health should not be a barrier to education, ever. But this case does not define the fight against this barrier.

George Mellgard is a Trinity senior. His column, “esse quam videri,” runs on alternate Wednesdays.