Stanford Sued After Following Another Student Suicide

[Anonymous]

Whatever the boy did at Stanford is A-OK!!!

The girls - screw them.

Signed,
Standford University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guarantee Stanford will be making changes to its disciplinary process and procedures based on this case. The school definitely knows it made mistakes. I guarantee that no student will ever again receive notice after hours via email while alone in their room. They will be given notice in-person with a university official and a therapist on stand-by. And potential punishments will be tailored more closely to the alleged violations.

Not sure if serious. You’re only viewing this from her perspective. Stanford has to have a process to handle all violations from Katie Miller to Brock Turner. Any fine tuning or tailoring that helps Katie HAS TO BE AVAILABLE to the Brock Turners of the world or Stanford will be facing massive liabilities.

She was emailed late at night because statute of limitations was about to expire. Say Stanford can’t find her or Brock leaves is in hiding Tun out the statute of limitations. Then what?

How about not wait until 3 days before the SoL is going to expire to send her the email??? They had the case for months. Stanford handled this terribly and will have to pay and change policies.

[Anonymous]

Is Stanford the college that redid their student housing and made it super dull and dreary?

[Anonymous]

I mean these kinds of things happen to regular young people all the time. People with fewer resources both financially and socially. Why are these kids with all the advantages not expected to deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t think people would be defending a male athlete throwing hot coffee on a female athlete for some perceived wrongdoing that had been investigated and dropped by two different investigatory agencies.

That's not the issue. Throwing hot coffee on another person is not defensible.

The concern is how the university handled that transgression. Was it overly punitive? Was it appropriate to threaten removal of her degree? Is it fair that other students who commit physical assault don't face similar consequences? Should her previously clean disciplinary record (3+ years on campus) be considered? Should their knowledge that she was seeking therapy factor into how they delivered this news? Was it necessary to draw out the process for six months and deliver the threat of expulsion within hours of the filing deadline? Was there appropriate due process? And the bigger question...did the sum of their actions contribute to her death?

Stanford's OCR judicial process was under scrutiny for over 10 years prior to this incident. Reforms were recommended. It seems many of those reforms were not implemented.

I'm not sure the university will be held accountable, but one can hope this leads to reform of their disciplinary process. This is a life that could have been saved with a different approach...that's the real tragedy here.

Can you please give examples on how it was overly punitive? I read the complaint and I don’t see it.

you don’t think that including not receiving her degree is punitive for allegedly throwing her coffee given her history at school. Really?

So, you don’t seem to understand how these things work and your indignation is misplaced.

She wasn’t being investigated for throwing coffee on someone. She was being investigated for assault which covers everything from throwing coffee on someone to beating someone to within an inch of their life. The punishment for assault on any campus is going to be up to expulsion.

The school doesn’t determine the punishment before running through the investigative process because you don’t want to tell the accused the limits of the punishment and then find out there was much worse behavior. Realistically, if there was nothing beyond the coffee, she wasn’t going to be expelled.

And you don’t seem to understand that it was her perception of message received and had put the school on notice of the stress it was causing her. Delivered In a callous and irresponsible manner that left her isolated and desperate despite everything she had done for school. It does matter what the offense was and her history. You may want to dismiss that but you are wrong, if “realistically” she would not have been expelled, then they should not have threatened it. And by the way, she DID already provide her side of the story months ago. The school failed her plain and simple. And hopefully they will pay but more importantly act differently next time.

No. The whole point of due process is that you can’t go easy procedurally on Katie and then come down hard procedurally on Brock Turner. If you start doing that, then You threaten the integrity of your punishment on the real bad actors like Brock Turner. It doesn’t matter that she was stressed by this. I’m sure EVERYBODY who goes through the process is stressed by it. A fair and impartial process requires that everybody be treated the same until the process is over. Then, when doling out punishment, is when you adjust for things like “she was a great kid who screwed up” and “this was a heinous act which can’t result in a second chance”.

Katie and Brock Turner, and what they did, are not even remotely comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many men accused of sexual assault at Stanford received an email threatening to withhold their diploma? I would be shocked if it were any. Certainly if a woman decides not to file a complaint, there is no discipline.

Meanwhile, she spills coffee. He doesn’t file a complaint. And Stanford still goes for the nuclear option. That’s an absurd over reaction. Did they learn nothing from Brock Turner?

I’m so furious. I was part of a similar incident at Dartmouth. The deans tried to push me into the campus disciplinary system and were pissed when I went to the Hanover police and asked to press charges. I was repeatedly asked by an administrator responsible for my access to course registration and on-campus job recruiting to drop the charges because it would be “better” to deal with it on campus. For them.

In the end, I stayed on campus during a break to testify in court. Unfortunately the prosecutor accepted a plea deal the day before. The incident- in which I had done nothing- ultimately affected my recruiting and my life after graduation.

Rest in peace, Katie Meyer. I hate what they did to her and respect her so much- anyone who doesn’t understand the power an institution has over its students in this kind of scenario is ignorant and naive. I wish they hadn’t cornered her like this.

How is this remotely similar? You were the victim, Katie was alleged to be the assailant.

I was at Yale in the mid nineties. A male student walked up to a black female student in the dining room on a dare and smacked her on the face. She tried to report him to the master of the college. The master did not get back to her or meet with her for several days, so she went to the new haven police and reported an assault. I think she absolutely did the right thing, but so many people in the res college thought she should not have gone to the police.

So I was also at Yale in the mid 90s. This doesn't quite ring true because your language is off. I have never heard a Yalie said "dining room."

[Anonymous]

Stanford just doesn't seem like the most trustworthy place.

https://www.statnews.com/2022/11/30/stanford-tessier-lavigne-research-misconduct/

[Anonymous]

Not sure if serious. You’re only viewing this from her perspective. Stanford has to have a process to handle all violations from Katie Miller to Brock Turner. Any fine tuning or tailoring that helps Katie HAS TO BE AVAILABLE to the Brock Turners of the world or Stanford will be facing massive liabilities.

She was emailed late at night because statute of limitations was about to expire. Say Stanford can’t find her or Brock leaves is in hiding Tun out the statute of limitations. Then what?

Of course I was serious, and I was viewing the process from the student perspective (which of course Stanford must also consider). Obviously any changes need to (and should) apply across the board. One such change could be in-person notification more than 5 hours before the statute was set to expire. Emailing her 5 hours before the expiration happened precisely because Stanford drew out their own process - the expiration wasn’t a surprise and communication could have been planned better around it. Following this case, procedures will be updated to make sure that happens. Just wait and watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back of the envelope calculation: the suicide rate in the population is roughly 1/2000 each year. I think Stanford has around 2000 students per class.There are 4 classes on campus in any given year so 8000 plus three classes that went through since 2019 is 14000. So you would expect 7 suicides, all other things being equal. 9 isn't going to be statistically significant. Given the rate of mental health issues at these schools, it might even be low.

.

Several were grad students.

Any university with this kind of suicide rate will be called out. Why would any parent send their kid to a university to die? It's like sending a kid off to school, only to go there a semester later to collect the body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not sure if serious. You’re only viewing this from her perspective. Stanford has to have a process to handle all violations from Katie Miller to Brock Turner. Any fine tuning or tailoring that helps Katie HAS TO BE AVAILABLE to the Brock Turners of the world or Stanford will be facing massive liabilities.

She was emailed late at night because statute of limitations was about to expire. Say Stanford can’t find her or Brock leaves is in hiding Tun out the statute of limitations. Then what?

Of course I was serious, and I was viewing the process from the student perspective (which of course Stanford must also consider). Obviously any changes need to (and should) apply across the board. One such change could be in-person notification more than 5 hours before the statute was set to expire. Emailing her 5 hours before the expiration happened precisely because Stanford drew out their own process - the expiration wasn’t a surprise and communication could have been planned better around it. Following this case, procedures will be updated to make sure that happens. Just wait and watch.

They claim to have communicated with her about it earlier that week.

[Anonymous]

In the mid 90s while a college junior, my roommate and I received a disciplinary citation for excessive noise in our dorm room after 10pm, this was in the fall. We needed to pay a fine or do community service. We ignored the notice and the follow up, until in May at the start of finals we received a notice that if we dis nit comply we would not be able to return to college the next year. We both freaked out, roommate paid the fine and I did not have enough money left so I did comm service in the midst of finals.

Sharing this because, while I was scared to pieces by the uni’s notice and the timing was awful, I knew I deserved it and had to own up and didn’t question how the uni handled it. I do wonder if language about “not graduating” or in my case, not being permitted to return to school, is standard for any disciplinary violation, because I wouldn’t call a dorm noise complaint a high stakes action to be disciplined. This was all a different time, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the mid 90s while a college junior, my roommate and I received a disciplinary citation for excessive noise in our dorm room after 10pm, this was in the fall. We needed to pay a fine or do community service. We ignored the notice and the follow up, until in May at the start of finals we received a notice that if we dis nit comply we would not be able to return to college the next year. We both freaked out, roommate paid the fine and I did not have enough money left so I did comm service in the midst of finals.

Sharing this because, while I was scared to pieces by the uni’s notice and the timing was awful, I knew I deserved it and had to own up and didn’t question how the uni handled it. I do wonder if language about “not graduating” or in my case, not being permitted to return to school, is standard for any disciplinary violation, because I wouldn’t call a dorm noise complaint a high stakes action to be disciplined. This was all a different time, of course.

That’s really interesting and has so many parallels. I’m curious if you can imagine if you had received that communication but without the “you can pay a fine or do community service” options and just the open-ended threat that you might not be able to return to campus. What do you think you would have done first, who would you have called, etc.?

I was in a similar situation in college receiving that kind of communication for a minor mistake and will never forget the lonely panic, especially because it was too late at night to call home in a different time zone, I was too embarrassed to go to friends until I understood what was happening, and I was too compliant to say something back to the administrators who contacted me, as well as too naive to realize I could have. We didn’t really have documents on the internet at the time, so my version of Katie Meyer’s frantic toggling between screens was furiously paging through the rules section of my course book to try to understand. I ended up graduating late because of it, and even with a diploma and it being mostly a secret, the shame followed me for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not sure if serious. You’re only viewing this from her perspective. Stanford has to have a process to handle all violations from Katie Miller to Brock Turner. Any fine tuning or tailoring that helps Katie HAS TO BE AVAILABLE to the Brock Turners of the world or Stanford will be facing massive liabilities.

She was emailed late at night because statute of limitations was about to expire. Say Stanford can’t find her or Brock leaves is in hiding Tun out the statute of limitations. Then what?

Of course I was serious, and I was viewing the process from the student perspective (which of course Stanford must also consider). Obviously any changes need to (and should) apply across the board. One such change could be in-person notification more than 5 hours before the statute was set to expire. Emailing her 5 hours before the expiration happened precisely because Stanford drew out their own process - the expiration wasn’t a surprise and communication could have been planned better around it. Following this case, procedures will be updated to make sure that happens. Just wait and watch.

All you are suggesting is shortening the SOL. Now it will be five hours earlier. So what. That’s not a substantive change at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the boy did at Stanford is A-OK!!!

The girls - screw them.

Signed,
Standford University

Yep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read the actual complaint. There’s a lot going on there.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23320591-meyer-v-stanford-complaint?responsive=1&title=0

In summary - Do not F with a football player. Stanford will come after you hard. Very hard.

Football>Everything