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]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]

First, she did get a presumption of innocence and the opportunity to submit her side of the story, an opportunity she apparently took.  After reviewing the evidence, the decision makers, which I assume was a committee, found evidence sufficient to justify disciplining her, but still gave her another opportunity to present evidence before making that decision final.

There is no way this is about spilled coffee, come on.  You can’t seriously believe that.[/quote]

You’re right. It’s ridiculous to withhold a diploma over spilled coffee. And yet— that was Stanford's rationale for threatening to withhold her diploma. That’s just a fact.

What does the land of alternative fact think this is about? [/quote]

I read the complaint.  It sounds like she poured hot coffee on him, but I can’t tell for sure since none of the disciplinary proceeding documents provided to Katie or submitted by her are attached to the complaint, or even excerpted.[/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