> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Legal
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Court Gives Guidance on Colleges’ Responsibility to Prevent Suicide

By  Nell Gluckman
May 7, 2018
A panel of state judges ruled that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wasn’t liable for the suicide of a student, but that doesn’t mean universities are off the hook, law professors say.
AP Photo/Michael Dwyer, File
A panel of state judges ruled that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wasn’t liable for the suicide of a student, but that doesn’t mean universities are off the hook, law professors say.

Massachusetts’ highest court gave colleges and universities some guidance on Monday about their responsibilities on a complex and delicate issue: suicide prevention.

The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that it was not responsible for the death of a 25-year-old graduate student who killed himself by jumping off a campus building in 2009. The student’s father had sued the university, an administrator, and two faculty members, asserting they should have known that his son, Han Nguyen, was at risk.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

A panel of state judges ruled that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wasn’t liable for the suicide of a student, but that doesn’t mean universities are off the hook, law professors say.
AP Photo/Michael Dwyer, File
A panel of state judges ruled that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wasn’t liable for the suicide of a student, but that doesn’t mean universities are off the hook, law professors say.

Massachusetts’ highest court gave colleges and universities some guidance on Monday about their responsibilities on a complex and delicate issue: suicide prevention.

The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that it was not responsible for the death of a 25-year-old graduate student who killed himself by jumping off a campus building in 2009. The student’s father had sued the university, an administrator, and two faculty members, asserting they should have known that his son, Han Nguyen, was at risk.

“Until today we haven’t had really complex decisions come down from a lot of high state courts on the specific issue of suicide responsibility in colleges,” said Peter F. Lake, a professor of higher-education law at Stetson University. “In some ways this is the first major case.”

Lake said MIT had won the case because university officials had done what the court thought was reasonable, given the circumstances. The unanimous decision does not apply outside Massachusetts, although other courts are likely to consider the ruling if they face similar cases. Still, the decision does not mean that colleges and universities should rest easily. The Massachusetts judges made it clear that colleges do have a responsibility to do what they can to prevent suicide on their campuses.

MIT won the case, but the message to colleges is, you can’t simply look away. You will have some responsibility.

“MIT won the case, but the message to colleges is, you can’t simply look away,” Lake said. “You will have some responsibility.”

ADVERTISEMENT

In their decision, the judges said that while universities do not have the same high degree of responsibility to students as jails or hospitals do to prisoners or patients, for example, they have a closer relationship to a student than to a passing stranger. They operate sports teams and other activities that might be considered dangerous, and they touch almost all aspects of students’ lives when they are on campus.

“Universities are clearly not bystanders or strangers in regards to their students,” the decision says. “But universities are not responsible for monitoring and controlling all aspects of their students’ lives.”

Daniel S. Medwed, a professor at Northeastern University’s School of Law, said the decision “gives a little bit of guidance in an area that’s very gray.” It says that there are circumstances in which university officials should take action, and it outlines broadly what that action should be.

The judges said that universities must respond when they have “actual knowledge of a student’s suicide attempt that occurred while enrolled at the university or recently before matriculation.” They must also take action if they know about “a student’s stated plans or intentions to commit suicide.”

Taking action could mean initiating a suicide-prevention protocol, if one exists, the judges said. It could also mean alerting officials who are “empowered to assist the student” or, if the student refuses care, notifying the student’s emergency contact.

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision “balances privacy concerns with student health and suicide-prevention concerns,” Medwed said. The judges also took into consideration that the MIT student was 25 and lived off campus.

This is one of a few court decisions this year that will help shape universities’ understanding of their role in student safety, Lake said. In March, California’s highest court ruled that public colleges “must protect their students from foreseeable violence” in a decision that allowed a woman who had been stabbed by a classmate at the University of California at Los Angeles to sue the institution.

“If you put them side to side with each other, they say a lot of the same things,” Lake said of the cases in Massachusetts and California. Though neither MIT nor UCLA was found responsible, he said, higher education in general is “in an age of enhanced accountability.”

Nell Gluckman writes about faculty issues and other topics in higher education. You can follow her on Twitter @nellgluckman, or email her at nell.gluckman@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the May 25, 2018, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Nell Gluckman
Nell Gluckman is a senior reporter who writes about research, ethics, funding issues, affirmative action, and other higher-education topics. You can follow her on Twitter @nellgluckman, or email her at nell.gluckman@chronicle.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

  • Court Decision May Signal More Legal Liability for Colleges Over Violent Crimes
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin