The conversation around mental health in higher education has gained momentum in recent years, with universities emphasizing wellness initiatives and support services. However, when students experiencing mental health crises face disciplinary action, they often encounter a system ill-equipped to balance accountability with care.
Disciplinary proceedings are designed to enforce institutional policies, but they frequently fail to consider the complexities of mental health conditions. Students struggling with anxiety, depression, or other psychological challenges can find themselves punished rather than supported, exacerbating their distress and, in some cases, derailing their education entirely.
Universities often respond to mental health-related incidents through a disciplinary lens rather than a medical one. Students who exhibit signs of distress—such as self-harm, suicidal ideation, or emotional outbursts—may be subjected to forced medical leave, with little say in the decision. Many institutions also flag mental health issues as potential conduct violations, framing them as disruptions to campus life rather than legitimate medical concerns. Some universities can involve campus security or local law enforcement in situations that could be better handled by mental health professionals, turning a moment of crisis into a legal matter.
Joseph Lento, founder of Lento Law Firm, elaborates, “Universities too often conflate mental health crises with disciplinary infractions, which not only misinterprets the situation but can also violate students’ legal rights. Schools must differentiate between behavioral misconduct and a medical condition requiring support. Too often do we find schools that use disciplinary policies in an arbitrary manner rather than support students struggling with mental health issues.”
Moreover, many universities have policies allowing them to remove students from campus without a formal hearing if administrators believe a student poses a risk to themselves or others. These policies often lack clear procedural protections, leaving students without a meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal. The vague language in these policies allows for arbitrary enforcement, disproportionately affecting students with documented mental health conditions.Students who take involuntary leave due to mental health crises may struggle to return, facing re-enrollment barriers that delay or even prevent them from resuming their education.
“Students facing involuntary removal have legal avenues to challenge these decisions, but many are unaware of their rights. Due process protections, including the right to appeal and present medical evidence, are crucial in ensuring fairness and preventing discriminatory dismissals. For students facing these situations, working with experienced, professional help is critical,” says Lento.
Finally, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, students with mental health conditions are entitled to reasonable accommodations. However, universities frequently fail to uphold these protections. Students requesting mental health accommodations—such as deadline extensions, flexible attendance policies, or exam modifications—often face institutional resistance. Some universities deny accommodations based on subjective judgments of a student’s ability to succeed, rather than medical recommendations. Unfortunately, failure to provide accommodations can lead to academic probation or dismissal, unfairly punishing students for challenges outside their control.
According to Lento, “Federal law is clear—students with mental health conditions are entitled to reasonable accommodations. Legal advocacy plays a crucial role in holding universities accountable when they fail to comply, ensuring students can continue their education without unnecessary barriers.”
If that wasn’t enough, colleges and universities often prioritize legal protection over student welfare, fearing lawsuits if a student experiences a crisis on campus. This has led to a growing trend of risk-averse policies, where institutions remove students preemptively rather than providing meaningful support. Some universities pressure students to withdraw voluntarily, shielding the institution from liability while making it difficult for students to seek legal recourse.
For students facing mental health challenges that are forced out of school, the consequences extend beyond the immediate academic setback. Some students struggle to secure admission to another institution, as mental health-related disciplinary records can follow them. Loss of student status can result in loss of housing, financial aid, and healthcare benefits, further destabilizing an already vulnerable individual. The stigma of a mental health-related dismissal can have lasting psychological and professional repercussions, making it difficult to regain stability.
Simply put, the intersection of mental health and student discipline presents one of the most urgent challenges in higher education. Universities often respond to crises with punitive measures rather than supportive interventions, leading to unfair dismissals, lack of due process, and long-term consequences for students.
Lento states, “The future of student mental health advocacy must center on reforming policies to prioritize care over punishment. Universities need to implement clear, legally sound procedures that uphold student rights while ensuring access to the necessary support services. Students facing these issues should seek out all possible resources, including working with a knowledge education advisor or attorney.”
Legal advocacy plays a vital role in holding institutions accountable and ensuring that students are not unjustly penalized for their mental health conditions. As awareness of these issues grows, continued legal and policy reforms will be essential in creating a more compassionate and equitable educational system.
Disclaimer and Disclosure:
This article is an opinion piece for informational purposes only. Retail Insider and its affiliates do not take responsibility for the views expressed. Readers should conduct independent research to form their own opinions.
