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]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]

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?
[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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

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?[/quote]
https://theymustresign.substack.com/p/stanfords-president-and-provost-must
Sounds like Dean Caldera was also running a college consulting program during Stanford work hours.[/quote]

Tell me this Caldera consulting thing is a joke, because even at our podunk K-8 this isn’t allowed. Caldera is coming off as shady and self-serving, which would be fine except that she’s inserted herself front and center into a massive discliplinary and now legal issue. It’s hard to take her seriously when she comes across as ethically challenged.[/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