In this article, the author makes an unpopular argument that involves the necessity for college counselors and psychologists to work harder with a high-risk group of students. He argues that an ideal, successful, well-functioning college counseling center must serve a wide range of clients. He wants to push back on the latest trend in the journals, at the professional conferences, and in online discussion groups, in which institutions seek to limit campus counseling to students who are in need of short-term, developmental care, and "refer out" those who are at higher risk or require more specialized treatment. Campus counseling services are telling too many students with high-risk problems to seek help elsewhere. The trend is a modern-day version of the old not-in-my-backyard movement, which argued against allowing mentally ill individuals to live in residential neighborhoods--except this time, some counselors and psychologists who fought for inclusion are now leading the charge for exclusion. Investing in more comprehensive care is not only a question of professional ethics but also financially sound. There have been several lawsuits filed against college counseling centers after a student committed suicide after the center refused care on the basis of short-term-care limits, scope of practice and training, or availability of resources. Most of the suits were settled at a significant cost to the institutions.