This article provides an update to the 1999 book, Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University: Who Assumes the Risk of College Life, co-authored by Stetson law professors Robert D. Bickel and Peter Lake.

The article discusses cases decided since 1999 that deal with central issues of legal duty. The major focus of Rights and Responsibilities was describing the evolution of the law of legal duty in higher education. It has become apparent that the most significant cases in this regard are those involving student alcohol use. Rights and Responsibilities was not a book devoted to college alcohol issues, as such. Yet, it is increasingly apparent that the battleground over competing visions of the modern university is the high-risk alcohol culture and its epidemic primary and secondary effects. Litigation over injuries fueled by alcohol drive college and university safety law today. Many of the recent alcohol cases involve Greek organizations. Courts continue to hold Greek organizations responsible for foreseeable danger to members and others. There are also some significant cases that do not involve alcohol and are relevant to issues of duty and reasonable care in higher education law. Importantly, as No-duty arguments begin to fail in court, it is increasingly necessary for college and university lawyers to turn to other arguments such as causation and plaintiff fault to manage the litigation boom.

Part II discusses some future trends. First, the article briefly discusses the continuing rise of risk management cultures at colleges and universities in recent times. Rights and Responsibilities did not cause the rise in risk management cultures; yet, there is a profound inter-relationship between the book and the continued development and refinement of the concept of college risk management. The modern college or university now attends to foreseeable risks as a matter of good business, not just for litigation avoidance.

Part II also discusses the need for further development of the facilitator model as set out in Rights and Responsibilities. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clearer than ever that Rights and Responsibilities and the facilitator model require further development in at least two areas. One area concerns student process systems. Today, safety is intimately connected to the efficacy of student process systems. These systems are failing and need attention. Additionally, Rights and Responsibilities and its facilitator model were deeply animated by active risks posed to students by the students' own behavior, the behavior of other students, and non-students; and to a lesser extent, passive risks created by conditions on or near campus. Although Rights and Responsibilities did attend to some wellness issues, it did not focus upon the ever-growing range of student wellness issues including student suicide, depression, anxiety, cutting, etc. We are now on the leading edge of a new generational set of student concerns. There will be a rise in concern for - and thus ultimately litigation over - issues related to student wellness. The future of the facilitator model depends on attending to these new risks.

The number-one student risk factor in the minds of most college administrators now is alcohol use, and to a certain extent, the use of other drugs. Alcohol has been a risk factor in a number of prominent student deaths, including the untimely death of Scott Krueger at MIT. Alcohol is heavily associated with secondary risks, such as sexual assault and student riots over changes in alcohol policies. High-risk alcohol use is also a major factor in self-inflicted injury. The Authors anticipate that in the near term, however, attention paid to suicide and other serious forms of self-inflicted injury will continue to increase and that these concerns may begin to gain prominence.

The American legal system has been reluctant to hold institutions liable for suicide or self-inflicted injury. Traditionally, an individual who committed suicide was thought to be the sole proximate cause of injury; therefore, other entities were not responsible for the suicide. These traditional legal rules translated into substantial protection for colleges and institutions of higher education with respect to suicide and self-inflicted injury. Such legal protection has created the reality that many institutions have not placed high priority on these issues. The Authors describe various factors that could begin to erode legal protections of colleges regarding student suicide. Many of these factors are already evident in the case law and in noncollege cases. The Authors offer a law-and-policy vision of appropriate college responses to student suicide and self-inflicted injury based in large measure on the facilitator model first put forth by Professors Bickel and Lake in their book, The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University: Who Assumes the Risks of College Life? The Authors recognize that universities are not in a position to place the general student population in custodial control sufficient to prevent suicide. A need to do so would undermine the very nature of the academy. Colleges cannot be bystanders, however, to this major social issue, which promises to become a major form of risk to manage in college communities. The college of the future will strive to create a reasonably safe learning environment supportive of individuals with mental-health issues and will be prepared to take reasonable steps to protect the physical safety of those and other individuals.

This article, written for prospective and new law students, addresses, in a humorous way, the myths, little lies, half-truths, and realities about law school. Examples of myths include The Imposter Syndrome, GPA is everything, and All law students are cutthroats. The article provides advice, guidance, and considerations for those contemplating, or just entering, law school.