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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

You know none of this for fact. Wow. Do you always walk around living in an imaginary reality?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

No because it is nonsensical. You seemed desperate to believe a story that makes no sense because it fits your world view that the powers that be want to defend male athletes at all costs.

Katie was a star at Stanford and would not have been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding for no reason, especially because she had been given a chance to tell her side of story and still was found at fault. She likely did something wrong, and knew she had no real evidence to the contrary. In any case, The Stanford disciplinary committee wasn’t taking action to goad her into suicide so the lawsuit makes no sense.

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.

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.

So all you read is female versus male while ignoring the facts ?

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?

No because it is nonsensical. You seemed desperate to believe a story that makes no sense because it fits your world view that the powers that be want to defend male athletes at all costs.

Katie was a star at Stanford and would not have been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding for no reason, especially because she had been given a chance to tell her side of story and still was found at fault. She likely did something wrong, and knew she had no real evidence to the contrary. In any case, The Stanford disciplinary committee wasn’t taking action to goad her into suicide so the lawsuit makes no sense.

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.

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?

No because it is nonsensical. You seemed desperate to believe a story that makes no sense because it fits your world view that the powers that be want to defend male athletes at all costs.

Katie was a star at Stanford and would not have been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding for no reason, especially because she had been given a chance to tell her side of story and still was found at fault. She likely did something wrong, and knew she had no real evidence to the contrary. In any case, The Stanford disciplinary committee wasn’t taking action to goad her into suicide so the lawsuit makes no sense.

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.

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?

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.