but not beyond the law, so an analysis that completely ignores "who was the biggest ass" and instead focuses on what laws apply to this situation, and to which degree interpretation can be extended, is most refreshing.

Except that if you read to the end it wasn’t her school it was another. So she’s cunning as well as nasty.

And the conclusion was that the person in question could be disciplined, or even fired for the suicide hotline stunt.

The conclusion of the article is quite intentionally left off because even after that analysis, it turns out that the law isn't like programming (as the article literally points out) and even after looking at what the law, and judicial reason, allows for, there is no clear cut answer here. There are too many grey areas for there to be "one conclusion".

And of course the conclusion in court in cases like these is, as it should be: the judge's decision based on all the information surfaced during the trial to help them reach their decision.

wtf. That wasn't the conclusion. Halve that. Disciplinary action might be legally justified. It would clearly be a dangerous case to lose for the University (setting up some nasty jurisprudence, among other damages), so it's unlikely to happen.