The recent case of "Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, et al.," considered the question of whether a college or university has the affirmative obligation to protect its students from all harm at all times, including suicide. Han Nguyen was a 25-year old graduate student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) when he committed suicide in 2009. His family sued the school, alleging that it lacked sufficient support services, did not provide adequate care for its students, and failed to intervene despite knowledge of his mental state. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not find MIT liable under the facts of the case, and within its decision, articulated the obligations of colleges and universities when it comes to suicide prevention. The Court rejected the notion that colleges and universities must act "in loco parentis" and keep its students safe under all circumstances. It identified limited circumstances under which a college or university must take reasonable measures to protect a student from self-harm: where the college or university has "actual knowledge" of a student's suicide attempt that occurred while enrolled or recently before matriculation, or of a student's stated plans or intentions to commit suicide. It also addressed what would satisfy the college or university's obligations under such circumstances. The Court's decision is crucial in encouraging schools to continue to offer resources to students in need. It not only placed finite parameters on when a school has a duty to intervene, but also identified the "complex and competing considerations" giving rise to its decision: adult students' privacy and autonomy; the notion that non-clinicians cannot and should not be expected to probe or discern suicidal ideations that are not expressly evident; and allowing schools to take steps to acknowledge and manage the risk of campus suicide with realistic duties and responsibilities.