Inescapable Liability

For better or for worse, there is no Good Samaritan law in Harvard’s rulebooks.

In sending an emergency evacuation directive last week, the Harvard Accessible Education Office (AEO) unwittingly thrust this subject into the campus spotlight.

The e-mail explicitly instructed students NOT (in capital letters) to attempt to assist their disabled peers in the event of an emergency. Immediately after the directive was disseminated, House e-mail lists lit up with students alternately deeming the policy immoral and necessary. On its face, the policy may seem heartless. But it is the best way for Harvard as an institution to ensure the safety of its students and protect itself from liability. Policy or no policy, students will always make their own individual choices depending on the situation.

The directive is clearly extremely unfortunate, but it also has legitimate logic behind it. The explicit “NOT” in the policy serves as a legal shield for the University were a non-disabled student to sustain injuries (fatal or otherwise) helping a disabled friend. Were the AEO to encourage students to aid disabled Harvard students, Harvard could be held financially liable in the event of a tragedy. We live in an increasingly litigious age in a fiercely litigious country. It makes no sense to tempt fate (nor jury awards) by rewording the policy, especially when it is impossible to enforce in the first place.

In an emergency situation, students will do what they think is right depending on the situation. Louise H. Russell, director of the AEO for Harvard College and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS), says that, “There will always be well-meaning individuals who want to help, and if it can be provided safely, that is welcome.” Because of legal liability, Harvard cannot give an official wink and nudge to students to flout the rules. But there is certainly no punishment for helping a disabled friend.

The official Harvard policy—and the official policy at most other institutions—is an issue of safety. Russell points out that the instructions “discourage volunteers to assist in evacuations when there is a likelihood that anyone who is already incapacitated or the volunteers themselves could sustain injuries which impede a safe intervention and rescue.” Understandably, the AEO wants to minimize injuries in any emergency situation. In helping a disabled classmate, students could potentially hurt themselves or their classmate irreparably. Though it might sound callous, Harvard legally must urge students not to endanger themselves.

How to behave in an emergency often comes down to choice. And there will never be a clear cut decision to make in a situation where a non-disabled classmate has the option to help or leave behind his disabled friend. If anything, the existence of Harvard’s policy forces people to think about what they might do in a disastrous situation and prepare for emergencies should they ever occur. The debate that was sparked by last week’s missive has made students think for themselves about this, and that is undeniably a positive outcome.