u/Double-Poetry-1621

I’m trying to understand a First Amendment issue involving a university counseling setting.

A student voluntarily goes to a university counseling center after an acute mental-health crisis. The crisis is not long-lasting. The student tells the counselor that, during the previous night, they had recent homicidal thoughts about an identifiable person and had done some related internet searches. The crisis had already de-escalated when the student sought help. The student had not contacted or approached the person, had not asked anyone to communicate a threat, did not possess a weapon, and had not attempted to acquire one.

Before counseling, patients are generally informed the general confidentiality and the Tarasoff-type duty to warn or other safety action

The counselor then tells the student that campus police will come to transport them to a hospital. The counselor remains in the clinical room when police arrive. The student is not told that the counseling session has ended or that the officers are conducting a separate disciplinary or criminal investigation. The student understands the officers’ questions about the thoughts, the person involved, internet searches, and possible means to be part of the safety evaluation and hospital-transport process, and answers honestly. The student is then voluntarily hospitalized.

Later, the university characterizes what the student told the counselor and police as “threatening statements” or evidence of a “plan,” and uses those statements in university discipline.

My question is specifically about the First Amendment “true threat” concept, not whether safety precautions should be taken.

If a patient already knows that a counselor has a duty to act on serious homicidal ideation, does that knowledge itself help establish that the patient “knew, or consciously disregarded a substantial risk,” that an honest clinical disclosure would be understood as a threatening expression?

In other word, an the reasoning become:

patient knows therapist may warn/protect → patient honestly reports recent homicidal ideation → therapist reasonably treats the disclosure as risk information → therefore the disclosure itself is an unprotected “true threat”?

What prompted my question is R.W. v. Columbia Basin College. My understanding is that the district court initially treated R.W.’s private clinical disclosure as protected speech, but after later proceedings held in 2025 that the statements constituted a true threat. I understand that the later decision rested on several additional facts specific to R.W., including the nature and duration of the ideation and firearm access. But among the factors**,** the court expressly considered were the determinations of multiple mental-health professionals that a duty to warn had been triggered.

That part of the reasoning seems potentially circular to me. A duty to warn/protect exists precisely so that patients can disclose dangerous thoughts and clinicians can assess and respond to risk.

This seems especially important in a university setting. At many universities, transportation for psychiatric evaluation may be handled by campus police. Once campus police become involved, information originally disclosed for clinical safety purposes may also be transmitted through university administrative channels and may later become part of a student-conduct process.

A student may therefore understand that “if I disclose serious homicidal ideation, the counselor may take protective action,” without understanding that “my truthful disclosure may later be characterized by my university as a threatening statement and punished as misconduct

I’m a Purdue graduate student and an international student. I’m posting this because I think students — especially international students — need to understand what can happen when a mental-health disclosure becomes part of a university conduct process.

I am NOT telling anyone to hide an imminent risk or not seek emergency help. I voluntarily went to CAPS because I had experienced a serious mental-health crisis and wanted professional treatment. But what happened afterward has made me extremely concerned about how disclosures made during crisis treatment can later be characterized as misconduct.

On the night before I went to CAPS, I had an acute mental-health crisis. During that crisis, I experienced suicidal and homicidal thoughts about my former PI. I also did disturbing internet searches about previous graduate-student/professor violence and firearm access.

I did not contact my former PI. I did not send him a threat. I did not approach him. I did not have a weapon, and I did not attempt to buy one.

The next morning, after I had calmed down, I voluntarily went to CAPS and honestly disclosed what I had been thinking because I wanted help.

CAPS called Purdue Police. A CAPS counselor remained in the room while an officer asked me questions about my thoughts, my former professor, my internet searches, and weapons. I answered those questions honestly because I understood this to be part of the safety and hospital-transport process.

I was then voluntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital for several days. When I was discharged, I was cleared to return to work/school without restrictions.

But while I was hospitalized, the description of what happened began changing.

The earliest police description referred to “homicidal and suicidal ideations/thoughts.” Later university and police records started using terms such as “threats,” “directly threatened to kill,” “plan to murder,” and research undertaken to “carry out that plan.”

Eventually Purdue charged me with Endangerment based specifically on allegedly making threatening statements to CAPS and PUPD on June 26.

That distinction was the central issue at my conduct hearing.

I did not deny having homicidal thoughts. I did not deny telling CAPS and police about them. My position was that disclosing homicidal ideation to a counselor while voluntarily seeking crisis treatment, and answering police safety questions honestly, is not automatically the same thing as making a threatening statement.

During the hearing, I repeatedly tried to bring the discussion back to that specific charge.

At one point, the University representative asked me what I thought a “plan” was. I asked her what Purdue considered the difference between a thought and a plan. She declined to give me a clear distinction and later described what I had as, in words I remember, “thoughts for a plan.”

There was also a lot of discussion about whether I was generally a “threat,” which I found troubling because that is not the same question as whether Purdue proved that I committed the specific charged conduct.

Today, the Community Standards Board found me responsible, based on what was described as the severity of the threatening statement.

That reasoning is especially concerning to me because the fundamental dispute was whether my clinical disclosures were threatening statements at all. The seriousness of homicidal ideation is not something I minimize. But “this thought was severe” and “this disclosure constituted misconduct” are two different conclusions.

The University representative then recommended a 3–5 year suspension, saying in substance that it would be for my benefit.

For an international student, that is not simply “taking a few years away from school.”

A multi-year suspension can mean losing enrollment, losing F-1 student status, losing graduate employment and insurance, disrupting a degree, and potentially having to leave the United States. During the hearing, one Board member actually asked me what suspension would mean for my immigration status. I tried to answer, but the University representative interrupted and said that although there was sympathy and empathy for my situation, immigration consequences should not affect the Board’s decision.

I understand that immigration consequences should not determine whether someone committed misconduct. But if the University is considering a 3–5 year suspension, those consequences are very real.

What worries me most is the message this sends to students in crisis.

Students are told to seek help and honestly disclose dangerous or disturbing thoughts to mental-health professionals. But in my case, the disclosures I made after voluntarily going to CAPS were later characterized as “threatening statements” and became the basis of a serious disciplinary finding.

There is an important difference between:

having a disturbing thought → recognizing it as a crisis → voluntarily seeking professional help → honestly disclosing it

and

communicating a threat or taking action toward harming someone.

Universities absolutely need to respond seriously to genuine safety risks. I am not arguing otherwise. But if a student can seek help, disclose homicidal ideation honestly, cooperate with police and treatment, and then have that disclosure itself transformed into a disciplinary “threat,” students may reasonably become afraid to tell counselors what they are actually thinking.

For international students, the stakes are even higher because university discipline can have immediate immigration consequences.

I’m waiting for the final written sanction/decision now. I’m also preserving the record and considering the available appeal and legal options.

Please seek help if you are in crisis. But international students should also understand that confidentiality, police involvement, threat-assessment processes, student conduct proceedings, and immigration status can intersect in ways you may never have been warned about.

It's me again. I was the one posted this https://www.reddit.com/r/Purdue/comments/1utb5ag/comment/owynywl/?context=3

I later raised up the ADA/disability accomondation questions to ODOS and after several days they told me the assessment is not needed anymore. Instead they changed it to a conduct process and will hold a CSB meeting. The school initially alleged me of "making threatening statements" to CAPS and PUPD, and later they enlarged the scope after the info sesssion for the meeting.

I'm wondering what a standard conduct process is usually at Purdue. How long do they send the notice? It has been 5 weeks since my disclosure at CAPS and then I got the conduct notice last Thursday.

I'd also like to know how long does Purdue usually let student prepare for the meeting? I sent ISS an question regarding my suspension in late July and they responded this week. So when I got the charge notice, I'm not sure what will happen to my immigrant status if I'm still suspended until the start of autumn semester, and therefore I applied to move the meeting before the semester. Initially it was scheduled on Aug 24, and it's moved to 19 on this Tuesday. After I got ISS's information I understand that as long as I can solve the case in the first three weeks of autumn I should be fine with my immigration status, I asked to change the CSB hearing date back to 24 and they denied.

So my preparation time is very limited at this time. ODOS requires me to submit all my materials by next Monday 5pm, and by the end of this Friday, I didn't get any of my requested materials from school:

- I asked OSRR Dean to explain the alleged scope and it's still unclear to me.

- Last week I requested ODOS to coordinate me to get the body-worn camera recording from PUPD, which provide the most direct evidence of what occurred during my interaction with the officers. This Thursday I was told the recordings will not be available for me before the meeting.

- Alternatively, I asked ODOS to invite the PUPD officer who transported me from CAPS to the hospital on that day as my witness. No answers as for now. In contrast, another officer who was not present on that day will be serve as university witness, and another BIT dean who interviewed with me one week after the incident will be serve as university witness, too. I will not be permitted to invite anyone as witness who was not present at the incident.

- CAPS told my ODOS supported that the on-call counselor who gave me treatment cannot be my witness due to dual relationship. I understand that, so instead I asked if the counselor can answer a few factual question in written response. They said I should asked my CAPS contact to coordinate. However, my CAPS contact will be out of office until Aug 28.

- I requested the case file and materials via public record, which is the way ODOS directed me to. Public record direct me to ask for FERPA record. However I have asked to review my FERPA record even before the conduct notice came, and they have not arrange any review for me.

- I asked if the CSB member will have a conflict check, as I have been TAing for two year and had taught at least 200-300 students. I don't wish to see any of my former or incoming students on such hearing. There's no answer to this question yet.

So before my material submission deadline, almost all my request for materials from school are either unresolved, unavailable, or unanswered. I only review the case file and documents at a one-hour Zoom meeting via screen sharing, and the OSRR Dean urged me a lot when I was trying to read carefully as she said she had to go over the process. I only have another opportunity to review the case file, which is one hour before the CSB hearing. I really feel this process is unfair and the school didn't give me the meaningful opportunity for me to understand the evidence against me, obtain responsive evidence or witnesses, and prepare my case before my submission deadline.

Is Purdue's conduct process always like this? Or in other words, are all the school conduct process like this?

I'd also like to give some suggestions to those who have mental crisis and experience homicidal and suicidal thoughts: if you feel you have an acute crisis, don't go to CAPS even if they said they have crisis support. Go to River Bend Hospital or Sycamore Springs on your own, as CAPS will send you there anyway, besides Purdue will give you a suspension and other troubles. This will be especially problematic if you are an international student and need to remain immigration status.

I’m a Purdue international graduate student. During an acute mental-health crisis, I had some suicidal and homicidal thought but did not cause any actual harm or threat. The following day I voluntarily went to CAPS because I wanted help and wanted to prevent harm. CAPS contacted Purdue Police, and they required me to sign a release of information to the PD. Then I was questioned and transported to a psychiatric hospital. I was hospitalized voluntarily and later discharged with an outpatient treatment plan and stated no restriction on returning to school.

Despite that, Purdue issued a summary suspension and a campus-wide restriction. After I appealed, the Behavioral Intervention Team required me to obtain an independent forensic risk assessment from an outside professional before they would reconsider my status.

Purdue Police also initiated a red flag court proceeding against me. I have never owned, possessed, or attempted to purchase a firearm, and no firearm was seized. Nevertheless, I am now facing the possibility of a judicial “dangerous” finding. As an international student, I am concerned that such a finding could create serious immigration or visa complications, even apart from the university suspension itself.

My former PI also filed a protective-order petition containing statements that I dispute as false, including allegations of stalking and threats. In fact, I was trying to avoid contact with him from several weeks ago, and he is the one trying to reach out to my partner after the incident. The resulting order currently prevents me from entering campus. It has also contributed to the loss of my TA appointment and income before the allegations have been fully examined at a hearing.

What has made this especially difficult is that I am an international graduate student. Purdue stopped my online TA appointment even though the work could be performed remotely. As a result, I lost my salary and may lose the graduate staff health insurance connected to that appointment. The suspension and loss of employment may also affect my F-1 student status and my ability to remain in the United States.

CAPS also discontinued my counseling services after stating that my needs were beyond its scope. Although I was given general outside resources, I was left to find continuing mental-health care on my own while dealing with university proceedings, two court matters, loss of income, and uncertainty about my immigration status.

At the same time that the university removed my income and insurance, it told me that I must locate and personally pay for a forensic-qualified evaluator. These assessments can be very expensive and are often not covered by ordinary health insurance. In other words, Purdue has required an assessment as a condition of reconsidering my suspension while simultaneously taking away the employment and insurance that would have helped me pay for it, ending my university counseling services, and restricting my access to campus.

I understand that the university has legitimate safety responsibilities. However, there should also be a fair, accessible, and individualized process for students who voluntarily seek treatment—especially international students whose enrollment, employment, health insurance, immigration status, access to treatment, and ability to pay for a required assessment are all interconnected.

I would be very interested to know whether the student in this post was required to obtain an outside forensic assessment, whether Purdue paid for it, and what ultimately happened after the threat-analysis or appeal process.

Please also remember that CAPS is part of the university, not an institution independent from Purdue, and ODOS is responsible for protecting the university’s institutional and campus-safety interests. Students should not assume that everything disclosed during a serious crisis will remain solely within a therapeutic process or that it cannot later be shared with police or used in administrative proceedings. If you are experiencing a very serious mental-health crisis, do not rely on CAPS as your only solution. Seek immediate help, but consider an independent medical provider, hospital, crisis service, or trusted advocate when possible, and ask clearly about confidentiality, mandatory reporting, releases of information, and how your statements may be used. In my experience, going to CAPS for help ultimately made the situation substantially more complicated.