Suicide is not common among students in graduate programs in all fields across this country and the world. Without a doubt, however, when it does happen - as it did last August when Harvard graduate student Jason Altom committed suicide by taking cyanide - it jolts the academic community.

What made headlines, and rightly so, was the suicide letter from Altom. He described his relationship with his Ph.D mentor as "abusive," and he felt strongly that "things would have been different" had there been a three-member faculty committee overseeing his progress rather than the traditional one-on-one student-mentor relationship that is still the hallmark of graduate programs. Such a three-member committee would comprise the immediate supervisor and two other tenured (or possibly one tenured and one untenured) professors.

A thought-provoking article on the subject appeared recently in Nature (paid subscription required for access), written by Carl Djerassi, a chemistry professor for four decades. The father of a suicide victim, Djerassi (as he put it) has "become obsessed by such tragedies." He presents cogent reasons why the three-member faculty committee suggested by Altom might not work.

Djerassi correctly points out that another committee member would learn of what Altom termed "abusive advisors" (if the student is unwilling or unable to complain directly to his Ph.D. advisor) only if the student confided in one of them instead. It cannot be assumed, however, that Altom would automatically confide in either of the other two members.

A hidden issue here is at the heart of most arguments against change in the current structure of graduate education, and deserves much more discussion. This issue is that most academic graduate programs indicate that they have in place mechanisms by which the student can avoid being abused. If, in fact, most or all graduate programs have such mechanisms, then a series of compelling questions needs to be answered to more fully understand what led Altom to commit suicide. Answers to these questions are relevant to all graduate programs, regardless of discipline:

• Is there any evidence that Altom confronted his mentor about the abusive behavior?
• What would compel any student to remain a victim of an abusive advisor?
• Is there any evidence that Altom discussed his perceived abuse with any other member of the faculty within the department, or outside the department, or with an administrator?
• Did his departmental program foster communication between students and other faculty (for example, the head of a departmental equivalent of a committee on graduate studies)?
• Did he have a student dissertation committee, normal practice in most graduate programs, formed as soon he had selected a laboratory, and comprised of several departmental/institutional faculty? (The role of this committee is to hold regular meetings to monitor a student's progress and to assist him or her during difficult times throughout the research period.)

What if Altom did confront his advisor about abuse? What action did his advisor take then? How were the conflicts - whether perceived or real - resolved? Was the working environment made worse following such a confrontation, as evidenced by changes in behavior of either the student or the advisor? If such a meeting took place (and data corroborating such a meeting must be available in documentation by the student or faculty) then it is essential that an institutional investigating body unearth answers to the myriad of questions arising from that encounter. Did the advisor recommend to Altom that it might be best for both of them if the student found another home base? Such a suggestion is neither unrealistic nor uncommon in graduate programs.

If Altom was unable to discuss what he defined as "abuse," why was this the case? Although it is a rare event, some students find their first year of graduate school not to their liking. They take a leave of absence, resign from the program, or go to another school. What was the environment that the student found himself in (which other students indeed might be experiencing today) that prevented him from having a healthy dialogue with his advisor, or from deciding to change labs or simply to quit the program? Is the level of tension and intimidation such that students not only do not talk to their advisor but do not talk to other members of the same department faculty? However incredible this might sound, one can envision an environment in which this might happen.

Regardless of whether Altom spoke of these problems with his immediate advisor, it is important to find out whether he did so with other faculty or administrators. This matter, too, is crucial to learning about the departmental and institutional climate, even about its leadership, in terms of whether it is friendly or hostile. If a faculty member learned about an abusive relationship between student and mentor, what if anything was done? To whom did the other faculty member speak about the problem? If nothing was done about it, why not?

This event must force the academy to analyze all graduate programs to ensure that mechanisms will allow students to discuss concerns with faculty freely and without fear. Do all graduate programs require the formation of a dissertation committee of four or five departmental faculty, possibly in addition to someone outside their institution? Moreover, when during the graduate experience is such a committee formed? It's important to know whether Altom had a dissertation committee at the time of his suicide and if they had met on a regular basis. Progress in the eyes of a committee helps buffer the student against an advisor who makes unreasonable demands. Documentation of committee meetings further protects the student and allows the student to know more precisely where he/she stands.

For students, this tragedy serves as a painful reminder that their lives cannot be placed in the hands of just one faculty member. They must make sure to network among the department faculty, to discuss their work on a regular basis with several faculty members, not just their immediate advisor. They should take the lead to organize their dissertation committees immediately after deciding upon a home base for their Ph.D. research. Committee members should be faculty that both mentor and students are comfortable with.

There are no simple, sound-bite solutions to help us understand the tragedy of a graduate student's suicide. Such calamities can - indeed, must - be avoided. To guarantee this requires change within the graduate school academy. We must find answers to the numerous questions posed above. In doing so, we will go a long way toward helping all of us deal with the loss of a student whose life we held in our hands. These answers will also force us to confront the training climates we create, and we can hope they will compel us to change our behavior or implement new mechanisms to avoid these painful experiences. Such change within the academy has never been easy, however. It requires real leadership.

Andrzej Krauze is an illustrator, poster maker, cartoonist, and painter who illustrates regularly for HMS Beagle, The Guardian, The Sunday Telegraph, Bookseller, and New Statesman.

Send us your comments and ideas for future articles.

Endlinks