Reply to Stanford Sued After Following Another Student Suicide

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Stanford Sued After Following Another Student Suicide"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

I like the “guilty until proven innocent” vibe you have going on.  Have you ever worked for Stanford?

She alleges it was an accident. I agree that’s an incredible coincidence, if true. But, under the presumption of innocence you would expect us to give the football player in the sexual assault, and MAGA gave Kyle Rittenhouse, and the right gave Beer Bong Brett— no, we can’t all agree, because she says she was innocent and she  gets the presumption of innocence.

But, let’s go with “probablies”— probably intentional and probably not scalding and the football player wasn’t disfigured (coffee in a dining hall vat isn’t usually scalding, she felt safe biking with and time had passed while she paid for it, got to her bike, started across campus). Do you think withholding a degree when she has completed 90% of the work is a proportional sanction?

[/quote]

She was given multiple opportunities to be heard and to present her defense. She was given contact info. for assistance as well. Instead she chose suicide. This appears to be a person with serious psychological issues.[/quote]

She gave her defense in the fall! Her statement itself sums up the dynamic of both the coffee incident and how she as a woman is being treated on this thread. God forbid a woman stand up for herself or others with any sort of assertiveness. The University had months to send the 2/25 email. I’d love to have a word with the administrator who hustled it out at the last minute to cover themselves under pressure  from who knows who. Football coach? Another administrator who had dropped the ball? Someone who knew that the original assault had been overlooked and said something so the administration had to take decisive action of some kind?

You and the rest of the posters obsessed with saying she put herself in this situation are the ones with psychological issues. [/quote]

It is clear that she initiated the chain of events which resulted in the disciplinary action. Her actions are not excused just because she is a female. Please stop trying to make this out to be about one's birth sex. It is not. It is about actions and consequences. What would you write if the situation involved a male football player accidently spilling coffee on a female soccer player who had been rumored to have given unwanted affection to another male football player ?[/quote]

No, this was started by the adult male athlete who sexually assaulted a minor and it was fueled by a University administration that did not take action against him![/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics