In 1990, the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seemed to promise a new era for people with disabilities—one free from discriminatory exclusion and undue interference in personal autonomy. Thirty years later, universities—subject to the law’s mandates under Title III—have found themselves grappling with an unprecedented rise in mental illness among young adults on campuses. One approach to dealing with this crisis has been to compel students who pose a risk of self-harm to take leaves of absence from their studies until their health improves.

In employing such a strategy, Stanford University ran headlong into the ADA. A group of students who were forced to leave campus because of mental health disorders recently sued Stanford, arguing the university excluded them because of their disabilities. The lawsuit ultimately settled, and no court has considered the merits of the challenge. Additionally, no prior literature has discussed the ADA’s application in this context.

This Note analyzes whether the direct-threat or fundamental-alteration exceptions to the ADA’s integration mandate can justify a university policy compelling leaves of absence for mentally ill students. It answers in the negative, arguing that such a policy violates the ADA except as applied to the most severe cases. It further finds that policy views about the proper role of universities in staving off campus suicide are polarized between those wanting schools to be more paternalistic and those wanting students to have greater autonomy.