A University of Oregon marketing professor is under fire because he required students to confront their fears. One student revealed a fear of coming out to parents. Though the professor denies he required the students to act on these fears, the students thought they had to and some did. They came out to family, recorded the episodes on video and presented their findings to the class.

While this “coming out” scene may seem as harmless as a plot for a reality TV show, there are some legal issues – not to mention the ethical and moral ones – that come into play here. It’s certainly plausible for a university counselor to guide a student through “coming out” by suggesting he or she “come out” to parents. A professional would help the student gauge parents’ predictive behavior. But when a marketing lecturer tells a student to come out to parents for a class exercise, it not only seems frivolous but carries with it a risk of harm to the student. Parents’ and friend’s reactions can range from acceptance to murder.

Reality TV folks like this because it’s an “ambush.” But such surprises can have serious consequences. I’m reminded of the 1995 case involving Scott Amedure, a gay man. Instead of a university professor telling him to come out to his parents, TV talk show host Jenny Jones, of “The Jenny Jones Show”, asked Amedure to reveal on air to a straight male friend, Jonathon Schmitz, that he was gay and had a “crush” on him. Schmitz agreed to come on the show for a feature on secret admirers. Schmitz had no idea that the program was about “Same Sex Crushes”; he had hopes of reuniting with a former fiancée or meeting the love of his life. Schmitz even indicated that he didn’t want to go on the show if the admirer was another man.

Meanwhile, “The Jenny Jones Show” instructed Amedure to develop his sexual fantasies about Schmitz. Before Schmitz appeared on the show, Amedure relayed one such fantasy to the show’s audience. When Schmitz discovered on stage that Amedure was his secret admirer, he appeared embarrassed, but he smiled and covered his face. He even hugged Scott. But he said he was straight. Then, during the show, Jenny Jones replayed the clip of Scott describing his sexual fantasy involving Schmitz. Again, Schmitz seemed embarrassed, but laughed.

Three days later, after receiving a note from Amedure, Schmitz purchased a gun, went to Amedure’s trailer and shot him twice in the chest. He told a 911 dispatcher that he killed Amedure because of the embarrassment and humiliation over the talk show. Schmitz would eventually be found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25-50 years in prison.

The family of Scott Amedure brought a wrongful death action against “The Jenny Jones Show”, owned by the Jones Group, and Schmitz. A Michigan jury awarded them $25 million. Amedure’s family argued that the Jones Group breached its duty to Amedure by creating a dangerous situation and then failing to provide for his safety. The producers knew that Schmitz did not want to be told that his admirer was a man, and yet they persisted in placing Schmitz in this potentially volatile situation.

The court found it “only logical” to extend the Jones Group’s duty further than the business premises because they “actively created a volatile personal situation into which they invited the injured party to – in essence – an ambush,” thereby setting the parties upon a course of conduct.

But an appellate court in Michigan, in a case called Graves v. Warner Bros., later found that Jones owed no duty to Amedure because the murder occurred several days after the show and after both guests returned to their homes in another state. The appellate court tossed out the $29 million jury verdict, ruling that the relationships between the talk show and its guests were “of business invitor to invitee” and that “any duty ends when the relationship ends.”

Of course a college occupies a totally different relation to its students than does a talk show to its guests. The relationship is based, to a great extent, upon a foundation of trust. Even assuming the Michigan court is correct and that a talk show’s duty ends after a taping, that’s not the case with the university and its students. At the very least, the duty to protect continues while the student is enrolled.

Let’s hope the case involving the University of Oregon does not become a national trend, where colleges encourage students to “come out” for purely academic reasons.