Stanford Sued After Following Another Student Suicide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

I read this as Stanford attempting to intimidate the family.

FWIW I live near Stanford and the general feeling around here is that is what Stanford has done.

That is a strange reaction. How is detailing all the steps taken and the help offered to Katie an attempt to intimidate?

Stanford describes her actions as allegedly causing “physical injury.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

See. That’s clever because you didn’t lie, exactly. But, here is what you aren’t saying. Standford didn’t act for 5 months and 27 days. She was asked to provide exculpatory evidence on 2/25 (ie, to prove a negative). She was charged three days later, on 2/28. THREE DAYS to prove that spilling coffee while riding a bike was accidental, not intentional. As if that’s even possible to do. And yes, Stanford had to charge her three days later because they didn’t ask her for the “exculpatory” evidence at any point in the first 5 months, 27 days. She went months without hearing anything and thought the matter was settled.

She first became aware she needed to gather documentation, get a lawyer, go through all the information and documents, prepare a response on 2/25. She was expected to do this while maintaining a full class load, playing soccer, and serving as an RA. How do they expect a college kid to full that off? A Court would give a defendant at least 30 days to respond (maybe 45 or 60) unless it was a true emergency. (Stanford not bothering to act for almost 6 months is not an emergency). No one can argue in good faith that she got due process.

Stanford played the nastiest sort of legal gotcha with their own student— one with no prior disciplinary record an exemplary academic record— an was chosen for a prestigious award— given by Stanford— between August, when the event occurred, and February, when suddenly they are threatening to withhold their diploma— over spilling coffee.

Quit gaslighting and consider that maybe this makes Stanford look terrible because Stanford’s actions were, in fact, objectively awful.

Whatever she may have done, we can all agree it was not accidental. She deliberately did something to the football player which she may have believed was justified by his actions, but there is no real argument here what she did was accidental.

+1

The female student probably lied about an 'accidental" spilling of coffee, and probably ignored the Feb 25th email.

It’s always so telling how the use of “female” in contexts like this means the writer is an incel male.

It's always so telling that the use of speculative ad hominem assertions in contexts like this means the writer is not thinking logically and makes us females look silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don’t understand 187 onwards. Was the football player given guidance to have all of these supporting comments and documents from his family and team? How did he know to do this and Katie Meyer did not? It feels as if he successfully coached through the process and Katie Meyer was left out to dry.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

See. That’s clever because you didn’t lie, exactly. But, here is what you aren’t saying. Standford didn’t act for 5 months and 27 days. She was asked to provide exculpatory evidence on 2/25 (ie, to prove a negative). She was charged three days later, on 2/28. THREE DAYS to prove that spilling coffee while riding a bike was accidental, not intentional. As if that’s even possible to do. And yes, Stanford had to charge her three days later because they didn’t ask her for the “exculpatory” evidence at any point in the first 5 months, 27 days. She went months without hearing anything and thought the matter was settled.

She first became aware she needed to gather documentation, get a lawyer, go through all the information and documents, prepare a response on 2/25. She was expected to do this while maintaining a full class load, playing soccer, and serving as an RA. How do they expect a college kid to full that off? A Court would give a defendant at least 30 days to respond (maybe 45 or 60) unless it was a true emergency. (Stanford not bothering to act for almost 6 months is not an emergency). No one can argue in good faith that she got due process.

Stanford played the nastiest sort of legal gotcha with their own student— one with no prior disciplinary record an exemplary academic record— an was chosen for a prestigious award— given by Stanford— between August, when the event occurred, and February, when suddenly they are threatening to withhold their diploma— over spilling coffee.

Quit gaslighting and consider that maybe this makes Stanford look terrible because Stanford’s actions were, in fact, objectively awful.

Whatever she may have done, we can all agree it was not accidental. She deliberately did something to the football player which she may have believed was justified by his actions, but there is no real argument here what she did was accidental.

+1

The female student probably lied about an 'accidental" spilling of coffee, and probably ignored the Feb 25th email.

It’s always so telling how the use of “female” in contexts like this means the writer is an incel male.

It's always so telling that the use of speculative ad hominem assertions in contexts like this means the writer is not thinking logically and makes us females look silly.

Lol okay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

What evidence against Katie? Specifically? What do you think Stanford knows that Katie’s family doesn’t about her “behavior”. If you read the WaPo article and this thread, Stanford’s response contains exactly no new information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

You need to improve your imagination.

There is no evidence that Katie read the email that Stanford sent. She was notified by email after working hours less than five hours before the university statute of limitations expired - while alone in her dorm room - that the school was proceeding with charges. There are very clearly procedural issues at a minimum with how this was handled. I am assuming that you are a parent if you are on this board - would you want your kid to be in the position that Katie Meyer was?

So your position is that Stanford decided to unfairly prosecute a disciplinary action against a star athlete for shits and giggles? Do you not realize how that makes no sense?

According to the complaint, the male victim did not accuse her. So why was a proceeding started? My guess is he sought medical attention because he was burned with a scalding liquid and the health center reported it. I think it more likely she deliberately poured a hot coffee causing injury than there was a coffee spill that was found sufficient to justify punishing her.

And I think the Stanford football player didn’t complain because he knew her response would be to accuse him of sexually assaulting her team mate, who was a minor. And he had his reputation and future to think about. So instead of complaining and having his name associated with a sexual assault, he griped to the coach and/or athletic boosters, who acted on his behalf, so his ability to play football in the fall was not jeopardized and he got to keep his reputation intact.

I think it’s telling that the minor reported the sexual assault and Stanford didn’t act. And the football player did not report the coffee incident and Stanford responded with a punishment appropriate for a rapist or murderer.

I think that a womens soccer player at Stanford may be an impressive athlete and Katie was probably a much better athlete, scholar and human being than the football player. But the “star athletes” are the members of the mens football and basketball program. And I think they have more clout because these are revenue sports with wealthy and powerful boosters.

I know she spilled the coffee while riding her bike. And I also think that no matter how impressive an athlete she was, she wasn’t biking with “scalding” coffee.

Does any of that seem possible to you?

The complaint against Katie was initiated by Lisa Caldera, Dean of Residential life, not the football player, coach or a football booster.

How did the Dean find out about the incident? And why did the Dean threaten to expel Katie? Do you think any of this would have happened if she had spilled coffeee on a random unhooked history major?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

What evidence against Katie? Specifically? What do you think Stanford knows that Katie’s family doesn’t about her “behavior”. If you read the WaPo article and this thread, Stanford’s response contains exactly no new information.

Not that poster, but the press release responds to all of the allegations in the complaint and sets forth both the opportunities Katie had to present evidence and the various types of assistance that were offered to her. It also makes clear the allegation against her were far more serious than her parents represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

I read this as Stanford attempting to intimidate the family.

FWIW I live near Stanford and the general feeling around here is that is what Stanford has done.

That is a strange reaction. How is detailing all the steps taken and the help offered to Katie an attempt to intimidate?

Stanford describes her actions as allegedly causing “physical injury.”

“Physical injury” is incredibly vague. And can be anything from a small bruise to becoming paralyzed. If he had needed medical treat,ent, they would have said so.
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

What evidence against Katie? Specifically? What do you think Stanford knows that Katie’s family doesn’t about her “behavior”. If you read the WaPo article and this thread, Stanford’s response contains exactly no new information.

Not that poster, but the press release responds to all of the allegations in the complaint and sets forth both the opportunities Katie had to present evidence and the various types of assistance that were offered to her. It also makes clear the allegation against her were far more serious than her parents represented.

Please point to where it makes clear that the allegations against her are more serious than her parents represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

You need to improve your imagination.

There is no evidence that Katie read the email that Stanford sent. She was notified by email after working hours less than five hours before the university statute of limitations expired - while alone in her dorm room - that the school was proceeding with charges. There are very clearly procedural issues at a minimum with how this was handled. I am assuming that you are a parent if you are on this board - would you want your kid to be in the position that Katie Meyer was?

So your position is that Stanford decided to unfairly prosecute a disciplinary action against a star athlete for shits and giggles? Do you not realize how that makes no sense?

According to the complaint, the male victim did not accuse her. So why was a proceeding started? My guess is he sought medical attention because he was burned with a scalding liquid and the health center reported it. I think it more likely she deliberately poured a hot coffee causing injury than there was a coffee spill that was found sufficient to justify punishing her.

And I think the Stanford football player didn’t complain because he knew her response would be to accuse him of sexually assaulting her team mate, who was a minor. And he had his reputation and future to think about. So instead of complaining and having his name associated with a sexual assault, he griped to the coach and/or athletic boosters, who acted on his behalf, so his ability to play football in the fall was not jeopardized and he got to keep his reputation intact.

I think it’s telling that the minor reported the sexual assault and Stanford didn’t act. And the football player did not report the coffee incident and Stanford responded with a punishment appropriate for a rapist or murderer.

I think that a womens soccer player at Stanford may be an impressive athlete and Katie was probably a much better athlete, scholar and human being than the football player. But the “star athletes” are the members of the mens football and basketball program. And I think they have more clout because these are revenue sports with wealthy and powerful boosters.

I know she spilled the coffee while riding her bike. And I also think that no matter how impressive an athlete she was, she wasn’t biking with “scalding” coffee.

Does any of that seem possible to you?

The complaint against Katie was initiated by Lisa Caldera, Dean of Residential life, not the football player, coach or a football booster.

How did the Dean find out about the incident? And why did the Dean threaten to expel Katie? Do you think any of this would have happened if she had spilled coffeee on a random unhooked history major?

If it was intentional and they suffered physical injury as a result, as was allegedly the case here, yes, of course. One can't go around assaulting other students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

What evidence against Katie? Specifically? What do you think Stanford knows that Katie’s family doesn’t about her “behavior”. If you read the WaPo article and this thread, Stanford’s response contains exactly no new information.

Not that poster, but the press release responds to all of the allegations in the complaint and sets forth both the opportunities Katie had to present evidence and the various types of assistance that were offered to her. It also makes clear the allegation against her were far more serious than her parents represented.

Please point to where it makes clear that the allegations against her are more serious than her parents represented.

Her parents refer to it as spilt coffee, the Stanford press release refers to hot coffee that caused physical injury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

What evidence against Katie? Specifically? What do you think Stanford knows that Katie’s family doesn’t about her “behavior”. If you read the WaPo article and this thread, Stanford’s response contains exactly no new information.

Not that poster, but the press release responds to all of the allegations in the complaint and sets forth both the opportunities Katie had to present evidence and the various types of assistance that were offered to her. It also makes clear the allegation against her were far more serious than her parents represented.

Please point to where it makes clear that the allegations against her are more serious than her parents represented.

Her parents refer to it as spilt coffee, the Stanford press release refers to hot coffee that caused physical injury.

From the Stanford statement:

Stanford’s Office of Community Standards (OCS) received a complaint regarding alleged behavior by Katie that resulted in physical injury, and as is the practice of the office, it launched a review of that allegation. After extensive factfinding and the opportunity for both sides to provide information, it was found that the high threshold was met for the matter to proceed to a hearing. However, it is important to emphasize that we are committed to supporting students through the student judicial process under OCS, and we did so in this case. In particular, the university offered Katie an advisor to work with her throughout the process and told her she could have a support person of her choosing with her in any meeting or conversation with OCS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for Katie Meyer spilling coffee on that A-hole! I don’t ever think a University is culpable for a student’s suicidal. But from what I understand, Katie and other athletes are under enormous stress and pressure. The whole system is broken and student athletes are not being served well. Stanford handled this very poorly. Should they be legally liable? I personally don’t think so, but curious to hear more.

It’s not just student athletes. I think this generation has been brought up to think that life is over if they make a mistake. Yes of course mental illness plays into suicides. Duh. But what is scarier is that adolescent brains don’t process things like adult brains do (over age of 25.). So even a kid who does not show signs of depression can make a rash decision when confronted with what seems like a life ending event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for Katie Meyer spilling coffee on that A-hole! I don’t ever think a University is culpable for a student’s suicidal. But from what I understand, Katie and other athletes are under enormous stress and pressure. The whole system is broken and student athletes are not being served well. Stanford handled this very poorly. Should they be legally liable? I personally don’t think so, but curious to hear more.

It’s not just student athletes. I think this generation has been brought up to think that life is over if they make a mistake. Yes of course mental illness plays into suicides. Duh. But what is scarier is that adolescent brains don’t process things like adult brains do (over age of 25.). So even a kid who does not show signs of depression can make a rash decision when confronted with what seems like a life ending event.

No doubt, this was a horrible tragedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

I read this as Stanford attempting to intimidate the family.

FWIW I live near Stanford and the general feeling around here is that is what Stanford has done.

That is a strange reaction. How is detailing all the steps taken and the help offered to Katie an attempt to intimidate?

Stanford describes her actions as allegedly causing “physical injury.”

Which means it was minor at best. You can be certain that if medical treatment had been required, for instance, that would have been noted. I am extremely skeptical of Stanford’s response here. This is an intimidation play by Stanford, no question. They want her parents to drop the lawsuit because they don’t want the details to become public.