An Open Letter to the University of Auckland

A copy of this has been sent to the Vice Chancellor, Minister of Education, Minister of Immigration and other relevant public authorities

TW: Contains sensitive material about mental health issues and sexual assault

Last week a former international student studying here bravely shared her story with the student body.

We are writing to express our strong concern at the way that this international student has been treated and the unreasonableness of the University’s actions in both requiring her - and any student facing significant mental health issues with a similar enrolment agreement as hers - to have to immediately disclose a change to her mental health to the University and summarily terminating her enrolment with the University as a result.

While we assume that you are familiar with the facts, we feel it appropriate to still set them out as below.

The Facts

This international student has faced incredible hardship. When she first moved to New Zealand, she met an older male friend who blackmailed her into having sex with him by threatening to publish intimate photos of her. This had a profound effect on her mental health and wellbeing. His toxic behaviour led to her developing a diagnosable mental health condition.

In July 2016, the University required her to agree to certain conditions before she could re-enrol, (“the Agreement”). The Agreement required her to “promptly inform the University of any changes to the state of her mental health”, and that if she did not, the University could choose to cancel her enrolment. She was only 17 at the time she signed it.

She believes that, because of her ongoing mental health issues, the University was reluctant to re-enrol her and has explicitly and implicitly dissuaded her from continuing her studies.

Throughout this, she maintained excellent grades. She did not fail a single paper until the most recent semester. In June of 2019, her general practitioner made clear that they believed it would be best for her mental health if she was allowed to continue studying until her degree was completed and her psychiatrist believed that this could be a workable approach.

Unfortunately, her mental health did not improve. In October last year, she was raped by a patient while at a psychiatric ward at Auckland City Hospital.

Her traumatic experience in the hospital shook her profoundly. Understandably, she struggled in her exams, which took place less than a month later, failing two of the three papers she was enrolled in.

The University chose to cancel her enrolment in response. The Registrar’s basis for this was that she failed to inform them of her “change to the state of [her] mental health,” as required under the Agreement. The Registrar cited medical advice that the University was unable “to ensure a safe environment or provide adequate support for [her] well-being in New Zealand”. They have since stated that their medical advice indicated her health was at risk if she continued her studies at the University.

The international student and her family dispute this, and are seeking independent medical advice.

In any event, it is unclear whether, in providing the advice, the psychiatrist took into account the effects that deportation could have on her mental health.

She also states that this decision was made without consulting with her or her family.

Soon after being informed of her termination, Immigration New Zealand (“INZ”) told her that, as her visa was no longer valid, she would be issued a Deportation Liability Notice (“DLN”) in five days. It was only after receiving a letter explaining the context of her termination that INZ agreed to delay issuing the DLN until 22 January 2020 so that she could obtain legal representation.

It is our understanding that she intends to lodge an appeal against the deportation order on humanitarian grounds, and is working with AUSA Advocacy to appeal the University’s decision to terminate, rather than suspend, her enrolment.

Her situation raises serious concerns

Under the Student Charter, our University has a responsibility to provide, as best it can, for the health, safety and wellbeing of all its students. We believe that the University has strongly let her down in that expectation, for the reasons set out below.

The requirements to “promptly inform” and waive confidentiality are unreasonable

Firstly, we are astounded that it can be made a condition of enrolment that a student, in particular a victim of sexual assault, must "promptly inform the International Office of a change to the state of their mental health" (“the notice requirement”). We are even more astounded that a student can be required as a condition of enrolment to waive all rights of doctor-patient confidentiality and grant the University access to all personal mental health information (“the disclosure requirement”).

It is inappropriate and insensitive to expect a student dealing with severe mental health problems in the aftermath of significant trauma to “promptly inform” the University. It is (or if it is not, should be) well known that victims of sexual assault and those suffering from mental health issues experience severe shame, fear, guilt and embarrassment. For these reasons, many feel unable to report incidents to or seek help from even those closest to them. To place the onus on a victim to inform the University of their trauma or lose their enrolment displays, at best, an incredible lack of understanding of what that victim is going through.

Furthermore, this in combination with the disclosure requirement may well achieve the opposite effect and discourage students from keeping the University informed. A student who realises they have not “promptly” informed the University or medical practitioners of a development (and we emphasise this will often be through no fault of their own) has no reason to do so at that stage under such an agreement because they can only fear the termination of their enrolment. This is not only counter-productive to the University’s aim, but more importantly, highly dangerous for the student because it further discourages victims from seeking help. A student will certainly not be incentivised to see a medical practitioner if they know the information may at any time be disclosed to the University and, due to delay, lead to termination of their enrolment.

More broadly, these requirements also place international students in a more vulnerable position than domestic students because international students have additional and higher stakes attached to their enrolment. Their conditional residency, the large sum of money invested into their studies, the pressure from family to succeed, and the difficulty in navigating a foreign country with a limited support network, all make for very real reasons why someone in her position might not think it in their best interest to disclose, should they turn their mind to it at all.

Furthermore, given that the University already had access to her medical files, it is genuinely worth asking why informing the University was even necessary in the first place.

Given this, it rather seems like this minor breach was merely an excuse for the University to terminate enrolment, rather than work with her and her family to try make her desire to continue her studies a possibility. We acknowledge that, as a principle, the University has the right to terminate enrolment; however, it seems that in this case, terminating her enrolment was the starting point for the Registrar’s decision, when the true starting point should have been her best interests, taking her own views into account.

Her enrolment could have been suspended instead of terminated

Secondly, the decision to terminate her enrolment appears to have been made without considering the possibility of suspending her enrolment until such time as she was able to continue it.

Even if continuing her enrolment would have placed her health at risk, deporting her carries similar risks, as is evident in the distress she has expressed in response to the decision, compounded by the fact that her own input was apparently not requested in the decision-making process. Given this, it is surprising that the University did not choose an option that would have allowed her to remain in the country whilst she recovers from the events of October last year.

A suspension of enrolment could have prevented her from continuing her studies until the University deemed it safe to reinstate her enrolment. The University could have made this conditional on her psychiatrist recommending that she was ready to resume study. Had the University chosen to suspend her, she could have rested and focused on her mental health, instead of being thrust into a battle for her residency on Christmas Eve. This would have placed her under significantly less stress and anxiety, and allowed the University to reconsider her position at a later date.

It is unclear whether this option was considered, and if so, why it was rejected.

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that the University’s approach to and treatment with her led her to believe that her only option was to publish her full situation on social media. Incredibly intimate and sensitive details of her life have been exposed for thousands of people to see. Even if she is able to remain in New Zealand to finish her studies, her life can never be the same.

However, with the outpouring of sympathy from the student body have come dozens of stories that are disturbingly similar to hers. Some of these stories have been shared publicly by those inspired by her example, and some privately with other students. They include examples where the University has terminated the enrolment of those with mental health issues, who often did not have the energy to challenge the decision, and many more stories about how hard life is at the university for international students and students with mental health issues.

In any complex case, such as this student’s, there are multiple systemic problems that conspire to lead to undesirable outcomes. It seems clear to us that there are broad and systemic issues in the way domestic and international students who suffer from mental health issues are treated, and that the University is not treating its international students as best it can. Her case also highlights inequities in terms of the policies of our healthcare and the immigration systems.

Our understanding is that she is appealing the decision to terminate, rather than suspend or maintain her enrolment with the University. We strongly urge you to consider this appeal and reconsider and review the policies that led to this occurring, as we have outlined.