HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson

Problem A: The Student Suicide Problem

The problem addressing a students expression of suicidal ideation involves
consideration of policy and procedures across campus to protect both the student and the
institution. After properly reporting Ms. Tus concerning behavior to a counseling center
therapist, several attempts were made from the academic advisor, Professor Caring, and
the therapist, Dr. Chin, to assess the mental stability of the student. As the situation
escalated, Ms. Tu expressed suicidal ideations and plans to commit suicide at home over
the holiday break to her advisor Professor Caring; however, Tu continued to deny these
thoughts and behaviors to Dr. Chin. Ms. Tu is insistent on confidentiality but ultimately
rejected the plan of action presenting by the counseling center. Developing a plan to
assist Ms. Tu is urgent as Thanksgiving break approaches, leaving Ms. Tu alone in her
dormitory room over the holiday.
The academic advisor and the counseling center responded immediately and
appropriately to the distressed student. While Ms. Tu has not created a disturbance within
the residence hall, I believe the campus housing department needs to be involved in the
discussion and response to this situation. The potential risks involved in this case are the
students well-being and the institutions liability to protect students from foreseeable
harm.
While Tu has not created a disruption in the residence hall, her expression of
suicidal ideations and plans is concerning for her continued stay on campus. The
residence hall staff is not trained and, therefore, not responsible for monitoring a student
on suicidal watch. At my current institution, if a resident expresses intentions to harm
oneself, we require a counseling assessment to determine whether or not the student is

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson

permitted to remain living on campus. If the assessment determines continued care, the
student may be presented conditions within a behavioral contract to keep students
accountable for remaining in therapy in order to continue living on campus. This
proactive plan is in place to protect the student threatening to harm ones self and to
demonstrate the institutions duty of care.
Further, I would suggest the institution form a Behavioral Intervention Team in
order to communicate and respond to students of concern or potential danger to the
institution. The Behavioral Intervention Team on our campus involves the offices of the
Dean of Students, Student Conduct, Residence Life, Campus Security, Legal Counsel,
Counseling Center, and other departments as needed. When a student of concern is
presented, these administrators present pertinent information and work together to resolve
the issue.
While the situation is of a sensitive nature, Ms. Tu must be given a behavioral
contract whether through Residence Life or Student Conduct in order to hold her
accountable for her expressed intentions that could potentially harm herself or others. If
the student refuses to fulfill the conditions determined by the Counseling Center,
Behavioral Intervention Team or Residence Life, the institution may need to consider
involuntary commitment or withdrawal from the university. These actions would be a last
resort option when all other resources and plans have been exhausted. In order to suggest
involuntary commitment or withdrawal, administrators should first consult institutional
policy regarding mental health involuntary commitment and withdrawal. They would
have to show substantial support for the students threat of danger to herself or others

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson

before taking this level of action. In addition, administrators should consult legal before
making a decision of this nature due to the possible ramifications to the institution.
If the university was successful in hospitalizing the student, the institution would
need to consider conditions for her return that demonstrate the threat of harm no longer
exist in order to remain enrolled or living on campus in the residence hall. If inpatient or
outpatient care is a condition of her continued enrollment and campus housing, the
students refusal to seek treatment may mean termination of housing contract or
involuntary withdrawal from the university.
Kaplin and Lee (2007) discuss past cases that have demonstrated the
responsibility of the institution to protect students from foreseeable harm, to take
affirmative action, and to warn parents or others of potential danger (p. 102). In
Schieszler v. Ferrum College (2002), the relative of a college student who hung himself
on campus was able to present sufficient support for a special relationship between the
institution and the student (as cited in Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Due to campus police and
residence hall staffs knowledge of suicide notes and student conduct history, the
institution failed in its duty to protect the student from foreseeable harm. The case was
later settled as shared responsibility (Kaplin & Lee, 2007).
In Tus case, the institution should contact the parents or guardians to warn them
of the suicidal threats. Although FERPA laws are often misunderstood, in cases of
emergencies involving the health and safety of a student, administrators are permitted to
contact parents with this information (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). To take a proactive stance, I
would suggest contacting Tus parents despite her refusal because if Tu does indeed

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson

commit suicide the institution may be held liable for not properly warning the family or
protecting the student from foreseeable harm (Kaplin & Lee, 2007).
If Tus situation had occurred at a small institution without campus counseling
services, the students assessment would have to be out-sourced to a local mental health
facility. At my current institution, we have a clinical counselor on campus four hours per
week for appointments. For all other mental health emergencies, we first consult the main
campus counseling center and then refer our students to a local mental health triage clinic
a mile from campus. We also have a partnership with a mobile crisis unit that will come
to campus to assess students in emergencies. The same proactive plan can be in place
involving the Behavioral Intervention Team or Residence Life behavioral contract
agreements; however, special effort to communicate across campuses and offices would
be essential. In addition, medical information release forms regarding physician referral
or recommendations would have to be in place to determine whether or not a student is
permitted to return to class or to the residence hall.

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson

Problem D: The Students with Mental Disorders Problem

In the problem regarding mental health disorders, State University has a Code of
Student Conduct, which includes a Mental Health Policy that applies to students who
have or suspected to have mental health issues occurring on campus. The Provost of State
University is currently facing two cases of student behavior that require careful
consideration of responding action from the institution.
In the case of Dennis and the false prophets, the students behavior in the
residence hall involves burning incense, chanting, and posting signs on residents doors
claiming they are false prophets. When approached by residence hall staff about his
behavior being disruptive to the residence hall community, Dennis did not cooperate and
refused to discuss the situation with the Residence Hall Director due to implication of the
Director being a false prophet as well. The following day Dennis leaves threatening signs
marked with blood and a blood stained knife in the Directors mail suggesting a
commitment to put an end to your fake prophecies.
While Dennis has rights of free speech and religious practices at this public
institution, his actions are not protected when the behavior becomes disruptive to the
functions of the institution or life threatening to others (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). The
Residence Life program should have a housing contract residents must abide by in order
to provide stability and safety within the residence hall. Within my institutions housing
policies, residents are not permitted to burn incense or candles due to potential safety
hazards. In addition, residents are not permitted to canvass or post flyers without
approval by the Department of Residence Life. The residence hall staff could potentially

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson

charge Dennis with these violations of his housing contract without involving his
religious practices.
Due to the escalation of events to threatening and dangerous claims to the safety
of students and staff, the Provost should require immediate counseling assessment and
temporary suspension from the residence hall until the incident is investigated. I would
recommend Residence Life consulting with the Behavioral Intervention Team to
communicate the student of concern across necessary departments involving Student
Conduct, Campus Security, Legal Counsel, and the Provost.
Another concern involved in this case is the students potential mental disorder
that may have caused the disruptive behavior in the residence hall. According to Kaplin
and Lee (2007), Students with mental or psychological disabilities are protected against
discrimination by the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA) (p. 419). However, if a students conduct disrupts campus activities or the
student becomes dangerous to himself or others, administrators are faced with how to
appropriately discipline the student (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Like in the case of Tarasoff v.
Reagents of the University of California (1976), the administrator or counseling staff may
potentially be held negligent if they fail to warn or protect others from foreseeable harm
(as cited in Kaplin & Lee, 2007). In addition, public institutions are required to make
reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities that may modify the
disciplinary code or academic program (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Institutions must consider
the possible discrimination claims under ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
when disciplining students with disabilities. In the case of Dennis, the institution would
need prior knowledge of a students disability by proper registration or documentation. If

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson

Dennis did not have a disability documented through the institution, they may not be
responsible for providing special accommodations. Whether the student has a mental or
emotional disorder, the institution should provide due process protections, and Kaplin
and Lee (2007) further recommend, subjecting the student to the same disciplinary
proceedings that a student without a mental or emotional impairment would receive (p.
421).
In the case of Gerry and the assault of her roommate, the same consideration
regarding mental health policies should be evaluated in determining disciplinary action.
Upon being arrested and held under bail, Gerrys parents obtained a lawyer whose
strategy suggested Gerrys behavior was a result of her first time experimentation with
LSD, which produced a delayed hallucinatory experience. The lawyer expects to delay
criminal trial and receive doctor recommendation to return to her studies and the
residence hall. Gerrys lawyer cautioned the Dean that any administrative or disciplinary
action would be challenged on the ground that Gerry was a handicapped person at the
time of the incident. Further, any disciplinary action by the institution could constitute a
form of double jeopardy according to Gerrys lawyer.
Despite Gerrys potential handicap that may have caused the aggressive
behavior towards the roommate, the institution has a right to hold the student accountable
under the student conduct code as well as policies within the residence hall. The
institution is not responsible for providing warning or protecting the victim of foreseeable
harm because no previous history of violence was noted involving this student. However,
the institution has a right to protect other students on campus from the potential threat of
harm following Gerrys act of violence. Therefore, the institution has an obligation to

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson

discipline the student due to violations of the student conduct code. Further, Gerrys
handicap was produced by a voluntary use of drugs of which she should be held
responsible. As Provost, I would consult legal counsel to be certain the institution was not
violating the students rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
However, I believe as a student, agreeing to the institutions code of conduct, the
institution has a right to discipline the student under due process. For instance, a student
can be charged and tried for underage alcohol consumption both in the court of law and
through the student conduct process on campus. The institutional process is separate from
the criminal charges; therefore, disciplinary action would not constitute a form of double
jeopardy as claimed by Gerrys lawyer.

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson

Problem E: The Homelessness Protest Problem

The problem involving a homelessness protest on a college campus presents a
number of concerns centered on students freedom of speech and protest. Upon
continuing the homelessness protest after the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs ordered
the huts torn down, the student protestors were arrested and charged with trespassing and
willful disturbance in violation of state law. In addition, these students will be charged
with a violation of the universitys code of conduct. The Chancellor must consider the
implications of disciplinary decisions to ensure the institution is not infringing on rights
of free speech and protest.
The question is not whether the Coalition Against Homelessness, consisting of
students and community members, had a right to organize a protest on the quadrangle of
the public institution. Rather the question is whether or not the protest disrupted the
normal operations of the university or infringed on the rights of other people.
According to the Kaplin (2007) text, Courts have affirmed that students have a
right to protest and demonstrate peacefully a right that public institutions may not
infringe (p. 475). This right is supported by the First Amendment, which protects the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances (p. 475). The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
(1969) and Healy v. James (1972) set the stage for postsecondary education and First
Amendment protections for symbolic speech and expressive conduct on campus (as cited
in Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Like in Burham v. Ianni (1997), the dispute of speech became a
question of the type of forum the expressive behavior, or photographs in this case, were
displayed. In the case of the homelessness protest, the campus quadrangle would be

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson 10

considered a public forum, an area available to the campus community and general
public for expressive activities (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 477). Burham v. Ianni (1997) also
utilized the Pickering/Connick test to determine whether the employees speech was a
matter of public concern, and whether or not the employees interest in that speech was
more important than the employers interest and services. The homelessness protest was
considered to be a matter of public concern and intended to educate the campus
community on the issue of homelessness in their community. Additionally, Kaplin and
Lee (2007) describe cases Tinker (1969) and Healy (1972) as determinants in defining
academic institutions as special environments due to the educational mission and
unique communities (p. 476). Due to the location of the homelessness protest in a public
forum in a college environment, administrators need to consider the implications of
regulating such behavior.
The difficulty with student protests is in determining what constitutes disruptive
behavior and reasonable regulation of such activity. The homeless huts were intended to
be an educational demonstration to the campus community; however, on the third day the
Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs ordered the huts torn down without explanation. After
the group met with the University Chancellor requesting to erect the huts, their wish was
denied due to safety concerns and liability of attracting vandals. The huts had received
attention and been vandalized twice prior to being torn down. According to Kaplin
(2007), In addition to determining that the protest is or will become disruptive, it is also
important to determine whether the disruption is or will be created by the protestors
themselves or by onlookers who are reacting to the protestors message or presence (p.
483). If the vandalism in this case was carried out by onlookers rather than the protesters,

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson 11

the administrators proper recourse is against the onlookers (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p.
483). In my opinion, the Vice Chancellor responded hastily to dismantling the huts in fear
of further onlooker vandalism. In doing so, he violated the rights of the student
protestors.
As a result of the Chancellors denial, the student group conducted another protest
erecting the huts in the center of campus with nearly 200 people joining them with
singing and chanting. Campus police arrived and arrested twelve people, eight of which
were students, charging them with trespassing and disturbing school activities. While I do
not agree with the Chancellors denial of the protest, the students were instructed to cease
the behavior or arrests would ensue. Before making a decision regarding disciplinary
action and negotiating with the Coalition Against Homelessness, I would advise the
Chancellor to seek legal counsel. I would ask legal if it matters whether or not the group
is affiliated with the university as a registered student organization. Would the right to
protest on the campus quadrangle be different for an outside group with student members
as described in the problem? Is the fear of onlooker vandalism enough to regulate student
protest? If not, the Chancellor should consider negotiating and dropping the charges due
to potential infringement on rights of free speech.
The State Trespass Statute states that entry onto the property with malicious intent
is punishable. The Coalition Against Homelessness intended to educate their community,
and I do not believe they had malicious intent in protesting. The State Willful
Disturbance Statue may not stand in court because the initial disturbance occurred by
onlookers not the protesters. The Chancellor could discipline the student leaders of the

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson 12

group for not complying with the code of conduct, as the events followed became a
disruption to the normal operations of the University.
While the rights to free speech and protest of those students are valuable, the
institution must also consider the disruption or harm that may result in order to protect
the entire campus community. According to the Kaplin (2007) text, an individual injured
as the result of a college-sponsored event, or as a result of activity that is allegedly related
to college activities, may attempt to hold the college liable for negligence (p. 99).
Institutions have a duty to students, beyond what is expected of guests and the general
public, to protect them from foreseeable harm; therefore, the Chancellor may be justified
for ceasing the protest if substantial support is provided regarding the potential threat of
harm to others. However, in my opinion, the Chancellor should have first attempted to
protect the rights of the protesters by disciplining the onlookers rather than ordering the
dismantling of the homeless huts.

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson 13

Problem F: The Campus Hate Speech Problem

The President of State University recognized a need to revise the Code of
Conduct to include penalties for the growing hate speech violations within their campus
community. The President should be commended for organizing a University Task Force
on Hate Speech to develop and recommend the appropriate institutional policy with
special attention to hate speech and behavior directed towards others. The General
Counsel noted the potential concerns regarding regulation of hate speech; however, the
Counsel approved the policy with conditional revisions. State University is working to
determine how to defend the newly implemented policy against the ACLUs claim of
unconstitutional regulation.
This problem addresses hate speech regulation and codes and the concerns for
potential violation on First Amendment rights. Kaplin and Lee (2007) define hate speech
as an imprecise catch-all termincludes verbal and written words and symbolic acts
that convey a grossly negative assessment of particular persons or groups based on their
race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or disabilitypurpose of the speech
is to humiliate or wound (p. 493). While the First Amendment provides protection of
free speech, there are parameters to protect others from discrimination and harm that
often result from hate speech. The Martin v. Parrish (1986) case reminds us that, The
rights of the speaker are thus always tempered by a consideration of the rights of the
audience and the public purpose served, or disserved, by his speech (p. 2).
This case involving State University and the ACLU group is similar to Doe v.
University of Michigan (1989) where a graduate student challenged the universitys hate
speech policy due to being unconstitutionally overboardsought to punish substantial

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

Simpson 14

amounts of constitutionally protected speech (as cited in Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 496).
The courts demonstrate another invalidation of campus hate speech regulation due to
vagueness in policy in UWM Post, Inc. v. Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin (1991) (as cited in Kaplin & Lee, 2007). The concern presented by ACLU is
the regulations defined by the Civility Code in turn punish areas of protected speech. The
President of the institution should have included legal counsel in the development of the
Task Force on Hate Speech. Legal counsel should have reviewed the new regulations
before presenting for the General Counsel approval.
In Papish v. Board of U of Missouri (1973), a graduate student was expelled for
violating the code of conduct for distributing student campus newspapers with indecent
speech. The student sued the institution for violating her First Amendment rights, and the
courts ruled in favor of the student (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Papish (1973) demonstrated
the academic communitys obligation to respect the content of speech and public
institutions liability to the legal definitions of obscenity and libel guidelines of the law (as
cited in Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Due to the difficulty in regulating speech and defining what
is indecent, hateful, or offensive to another, institutions should consider non-regulatory
approaches for addressing hate speech. Institutions should first consider the regulations
already present in their code of student conduct and determine if disciplinary action can
be applied to conduct and avoid free speech regulation (Kaplin & Lee, 2007).
State Universitys defense against the ACLUs claims may be supported by the
emphasis on Harassment and Intimidation which are defined as actions and
behaviors rather than speech. The institution should review the Civility Code to eliminate
any ambiguity that may cause discrepancies in future hate speech cases. Additionally, I

Simpson 15

HIAD 8420: Final Exam

would suggest consulting legal on the four instances in which the new regulation was
invoked. If the General Counsel approved the policies, I do not see any problems with the
charges and sanctions allocated to students and faculty. However, the institution should
be prepared for any repercussions due the current claim from ACLU.
References
Burham v. Ianni, 119 F. 3d 668 (8th Cir. 1997).
Kaplin, W.A., & Lee, B.A. (2007). The law of higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Martin v. Parrish, 805 F. 2d 583 (5th Cir. 1986).
Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973).