[82lsju]

In a joint statement Monday, the school and Meyer's family announced Stanford will create a Katie Meyer Leadership Award "to be given to an exceptional Stanford student-athlete each year." The statement, which made no mention of any monetary settlement, said that Meyer's jersey "will be retired to honor the impact Katie had on Stanford women's soccer."

The university also announced that it will "adopt the principles of Katie Meyer's Law to provide support to students" who are facing the school's disciplinary process.

The law was passed by the California legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2024 in honor of Meyer. It mandates that any California college or university that receives public funding for financial aid have a designated adviser during disciplinary proceedings.

Additionally, the joint statement said, Stanford and the Meyer family agreed to "collaborate ... to launch an initiative focused on the mental health and well-being of student-athletes."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...th-lawsuit

[82lsju]

In a joint statement Monday, the school and Meyer's family announced Stanford will create a Katie Meyer Leadership Award "to be given to an exceptional Stanford student-athlete each year." The statement, which made no mention of any monetary settlement, said that Meyer's jersey "will be retired to honor the impact Katie had on Stanford women's soccer."

The university also announced that it will "adopt the principles of Katie Meyer's Law to provide support to students" who are facing the school's disciplinary process.

The law was passed by the California legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2024 in honor of Meyer. It mandates that any California college or university that receives public funding for financial aid have a designated adviser during disciplinary proceedings.

Additionally, the joint statement said, Stanford and the Meyer family agreed to "collaborate ... to launch an initiative focused on the mental health and well-being of student-athletes."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...th-lawsuit

[crackpot]

This is absolutely the best settlement. It shouldn't have taken this long to get there.

[crackpot]

This is absolutely the best settlement. It shouldn't have taken this long to get there.

[fullmetal]

I hope this truly brings closure to the Meyer family. It's not lost on me that this closure is taking place under Levin's tenure as president and not MTL's. I know that the Meyers have suffered unspeakable tragedy because of Stanford, but if there's any way for the Meyers to not hate Stanford, I hope that happens.

[fullmetal]

I hope this truly brings closure to the Meyer family. It's not lost on me that this closure is taking place under Levin's tenure as president and not MTL's. I know that the Meyers have suffered unspeakable tragedy because of Stanford, but if there's any way for the Meyers to not hate Stanford, I hope that happens.

[FarmTeam]

I hope this truly brings closure to the Meyer family. It's not lost on me that this closure is taking place under Levin's tenure as president and not MTL's. I know that the Meyers have suffered unspeakable tragedy because of Stanford, but if there's any way for the Meyers to not hate Stanford, I hope that happens.

"Because of Stanford"? Two things can be true at once: (1) this was a terrible tragedy, and (2) the idea that Stanford was in any way culpable is absurd. 

The family took the "L" on this one by casting blame when there was none to be found, filing a frivolous lawsuit and sullying their daughter's name by doing so, and ultimately settling for nothing but PR moves and other stuff that Stanford would have done anyway or was obligated to do per California law. There's a reason why there's no financial settlement here...

[FarmTeam]

I hope this truly brings closure to the Meyer family. It's not lost on me that this closure is taking place under Levin's tenure as president and not MTL's. I know that the Meyers have suffered unspeakable tragedy because of Stanford, but if there's any way for the Meyers to not hate Stanford, I hope that happens.

"Because of Stanford"? Two things can be true at once: (1) this was a terrible tragedy, and (2) the idea that Stanford was in any way culpable is absurd. 

The family took the "L" on this one by casting blame when there was none to be found, filing a frivolous lawsuit and sullying their daughter's name by doing so, and ultimately settling for nothing but PR moves and other stuff that Stanford would have done anyway or was obligated to do per California law. There's a reason why there's no financial settlement here...

[BobK]

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault. Thankful we have a new administration

[BobK]

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault. Thankful we have a new administration

[triangle2]

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault.  Thankful we have a new administration

100% agree with BobK. Although very hard to quantify, I wonder what was the impact of the bad publicity on the University's reputation, particularly to families of prospective student athletes. Wish I knew who within the University was responsible for green lighting three years of litigation against the Meyer family. #morons

[triangle2]

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault.  Thankful we have a new administration

100% agree with BobK. Although very hard to quantify, I wonder what was the impact of the bad publicity on the University's reputation, particularly to families of prospective student athletes. Wish I knew who within the University was responsible for green lighting three years of litigation against the Meyer family. #morons

[fullmetal]

Wish I knew who within the University was responsible for green lighting three years of litigation against the Meyer family. #morons

Leaders who are not "Stanford people" see their purpose as protection of the brand image (deflecting blame) and elevating it as far as it burnishes their own reputation.  I think the best leaders for Stanford are people who understand that the students are more important to the university than the brand image.  Do what's best for the students, and everything else will follow.

[fullmetal]

Wish I knew who within the University was responsible for green lighting three years of litigation against the Meyer family. #morons

Leaders who are not "Stanford people" see their purpose as protection of the brand image (deflecting blame) and elevating it as far as it burnishes their own reputation.  I think the best leaders for Stanford are people who understand that the students are more important to the university than the brand image.  Do what's best for the students, and everything else will follow.

[FarmTeam]

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault.  Thankful we have a new administration

100% agree with BobK. Although very hard to quantify, I wonder what was the impact of the bad publicity on the University's reputation, particularly to families of prospective student athletes. Wish I knew who within the University was responsible for green lighting three years of litigation against the Meyer family. #morons

Well, you're both wrong. :-) In no world does sending a notice of disciplinary action constitute "fault" for a 22 year old then committing suicide. Think about how soft our society -- and Gen Z -- is if we think that's the case. It's moot now, but I suspect you're mixing up sympathy for the family and sadness about the tragedy with a clear-eyed view on these things. What's next? Counselors before issuing speeding tickets?

---

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault.  Thankful we have a new administration

100% agree with BobK. Although very hard to quantify, I wonder what was the impact of the bad publicity on the University's reputation, particularly to families of prospective student athletes. Wish I knew who within the University was responsible for green lighting three years of litigation against the Meyer family. #morons

I'm a Stanford person (undergrad and grad), politically liberal for whatever that's worth, tend to be knee-jerk sympathetic to the plight of students and athletes. But I'm also a realist and you all are confusing sympathy with fault. Did you think Stanford is responsible for every bad thing that happens to a student? Like Weiner's death from a recreational fentanyl overdose? Sometimes terrible things happen to good people. And if they happen to be Stanford students, that doesn't automatically make it the University's fault. It's laughable -- to the point of being SNL skit worthy -- to suggest that emailing a disciplinary sanction was reckless and "caused" the suicide of an adult recipient. It's pure fantasy.

[FarmTeam]

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault.  Thankful we have a new administration

100% agree with BobK. Although very hard to quantify, I wonder what was the impact of the bad publicity on the University's reputation, particularly to families of prospective student athletes. Wish I knew who within the University was responsible for green lighting three years of litigation against the Meyer family. #morons

Well, you're both wrong. :-) In no world does sending a notice of disciplinary action constitute "fault" for a 22 year old then committing suicide. Think about how soft our society -- and Gen Z -- is if we think that's the case. It's moot now, but I suspect you're mixing up sympathy for the family and sadness about the tragedy with a clear-eyed view on these things. What's next? Counselors before issuing speeding tickets?

---

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault.  Thankful we have a new administration

100% agree with BobK. Although very hard to quantify, I wonder what was the impact of the bad publicity on the University's reputation, particularly to families of prospective student athletes. Wish I knew who within the University was responsible for green lighting three years of litigation against the Meyer family. #morons

I'm a Stanford person (undergrad and grad), politically liberal for whatever that's worth, tend to be knee-jerk sympathetic to the plight of students and athletes. But I'm also a realist and you all are confusing sympathy with fault. Did you think Stanford is responsible for every bad thing that happens to a student? Like Weiner's death from a recreational fentanyl overdose? Sometimes terrible things happen to good people. And if they happen to be Stanford students, that doesn't automatically make it the University's fault. It's laughable -- to the point of being SNL skit worthy -- to suggest that emailing a disciplinary sanction was reckless and "caused" the suicide of an adult recipient. It's pure fantasy.

[dabigv13]

I agree that Stanford did nothing wrong here, and I think this outcome, apparently with no monetary settlement, reflects that. It's not pleasant to defend against a lawsuit from bereaved parents but I think it was certainly appropriate to do so.

It was a tragedy, but Stanford is not culpable for every tragedy involving a Stanford student.

[dabigv13]

I agree that Stanford did nothing wrong here, and I think this outcome, apparently with no monetary settlement, reflects that. It's not pleasant to defend against a lawsuit from bereaved parents but I think it was certainly appropriate to do so.

It was a tragedy, but Stanford is not culpable for every tragedy involving a Stanford student.

[Mick]

Stanford did what it intended to do. It sent an after-hours e-mail to a student under stress threatening withholding of diploma and expulsion pointing to an internal process in which she was pre-judged guilty in which she was not allowed an advocate or lawyer, despite multiple Stanford alumni in prior years recommending that Stanford have advocates and/or lawyers available for students undergoing a disciplinary process. It was against the wishes of the Stanford football player in question who allegedly SA'd a minor. Stanford's communications framed Meyer's action not as protective of the minor in question, but as malicious. Stanford did not inform her parents, because getting a parent involved would have complicated and perhaps impeded Stanford's actions against a student that they preferred to be cowed and intimidated into acceding to whatever end result Stanford preferred. The e-mail threatened Meyer's future...it did exactly what Stanford wanted in a five-page, single-spaced, formal letter. Katie expressed significant distress to Stanford staff. Stanford escalating a minor altercation (spilling coffee, which resulted in no reported injuries) into a formal violation involving physical injury. The university disregarded the football player's lack of formal complaint and his desire for resolution without punishment, instead proceeding with charges that placed Katie's academic and athletic future at risk. Stanford knew or should have known that a high‑achieving, perfectionist senior, close to graduation and team captain, would be especially vulnerable to an abrupt threat of expulsion or degree loss. And ultimately, Stanford didn't discipline a football player who allegedly SA'd a minor but formally disciplined the team captain who was attempting to protect that minor.

Meyer informed the University that she had been stressed out for months and that she was terrified that an accident would destroy her future. She sought care at the University's Sports Psychology Clinic in November 2021 and reported to a psychiatrist that she was experiencing increased depression symptoms and suicidal thoughts and was prescribed Concerta to address that. Concerta's side effects include suicide ideation which may be present for months after discontinuation of the medicine. Katie couldn't get a refill because of insurance issues, and had no refills after November 2021. Stanford's psychologist and psychiatrist failed to monitor her refills. She had no drugs in her system at the time of her death. At the time that Meyer received the notice, the Office of Community Standards and Stanford's Counseling and Psychological Services were closed. She was told to provide exonerating evidence by  2/28, but was not allowed to communicate with witnesses or related parties. That night, Meyer took her own life.

Stanford had a history of allegations of student-rights violations stretching back to at least 2013, according to the Student Justice Project, a coalition of Stanford University students, their parents, and alumni who sought to educate the Stanford community about student rights violations. It was further noted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's 2019-2020 report, which evaluated fundamental fairness of disciplinary proceedings at 53 prominent colleges and universities across the country that Stanford's presumption of innocence was "limited." Stanford's own evaluation committee the Committee of 12 found the OCS process to be "overly punitive," "not education" and causing harm to its students in April, 2021.

There were eight formal causes of action in the original complaint, which constituted institutional bullying, for which Stanford can be justly proud. That's what institutions do, they throw their considerable weight behind a process designed to threaten and intimidate. Not a legal process, mind you...just one that adheres to University standards. Inadequate student protections in discipline: The lawsuit and later public debate helped spur “Katie Meyer’s Law,” which requires California institutions receiving public financial‑aid funding to ensure students have an advisor during disciplinary proceedings. The complaint’s underlying premise is that Stanford’s pre‑reform system lacked sufficient procedural and emotional safeguards.

There was a settlement, but the financial terms were not disclosed. One cannot definitively state that there was no financial settlement.

My own position is that if the University's actions spurred a law now known as "Katie Meyer's Law" (Assembly Bill 1575) that literally changed the student discipline process for all California universities...it's at least a little bit at fault. It's quite a stretch to state that Stanford bears no fault whatsoever.

[Mick]

Stanford did what it intended to do. It sent an after-hours e-mail to a student under stress threatening withholding of diploma and expulsion pointing to an internal process in which she was pre-judged guilty in which she was not allowed an advocate or lawyer, despite multiple Stanford alumni in prior years recommending that Stanford have advocates and/or lawyers available for students undergoing a disciplinary process. It was against the wishes of the Stanford football player in question who allegedly SA'd a minor. Stanford's communications framed Meyer's action not as protective of the minor in question, but as malicious. Stanford did not inform her parents, because getting a parent involved would have complicated and perhaps impeded Stanford's actions against a student that they preferred to be cowed and intimidated into acceding to whatever end result Stanford preferred. The e-mail threatened Meyer's future...it did exactly what Stanford wanted in a five-page, single-spaced, formal letter. Katie expressed significant distress to Stanford staff. Stanford escalating a minor altercation (spilling coffee, which resulted in no reported injuries) into a formal violation involving physical injury. The university disregarded the football player's lack of formal complaint and his desire for resolution without punishment, instead proceeding with charges that placed Katie's academic and athletic future at risk. Stanford knew or should have known that a high‑achieving, perfectionist senior, close to graduation and team captain, would be especially vulnerable to an abrupt threat of expulsion or degree loss. And ultimately, Stanford didn't discipline a football player who allegedly SA'd a minor but formally disciplined the team captain who was attempting to protect that minor.

Meyer informed the University that she had been stressed out for months and that she was terrified that an accident would destroy her future. She sought care at the University's Sports Psychology Clinic in November 2021 and reported to a psychiatrist that she was experiencing increased depression symptoms and suicidal thoughts and was prescribed Concerta to address that. Concerta's side effects include suicide ideation which may be present for months after discontinuation of the medicine. Katie couldn't get a refill because of insurance issues, and had no refills after November 2021. Stanford's psychologist and psychiatrist failed to monitor her refills. She had no drugs in her system at the time of her death. At the time that Meyer received the notice, the Office of Community Standards and Stanford's Counseling and Psychological Services were closed. She was told to provide exonerating evidence by  2/28, but was not allowed to communicate with witnesses or related parties. That night, Meyer took her own life.

Stanford had a history of allegations of student-rights violations stretching back to at least 2013, according to the Student Justice Project, a coalition of Stanford University students, their parents, and alumni who sought to educate the Stanford community about student rights violations. It was further noted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's 2019-2020 report, which evaluated fundamental fairness of disciplinary proceedings at 53 prominent colleges and universities across the country that Stanford's presumption of innocence was "limited." Stanford's own evaluation committee the Committee of 12 found the OCS process to be "overly punitive," "not education" and causing harm to its students in April, 2021.

There were eight formal causes of action in the original complaint, which constituted institutional bullying, for which Stanford can be justly proud. That's what institutions do, they throw their considerable weight behind a process designed to threaten and intimidate. Not a legal process, mind you...just one that adheres to University standards. Inadequate student protections in discipline: The lawsuit and later public debate helped spur “Katie Meyer’s Law,” which requires California institutions receiving public financial‑aid funding to ensure students have an advisor during disciplinary proceedings. The complaint’s underlying premise is that Stanford’s pre‑reform system lacked sufficient procedural and emotional safeguards.

There was a settlement, but the financial terms were not disclosed. One cannot definitively state that there was no financial settlement.

My own position is that if the University's actions spurred a law now known as "Katie Meyer's Law" (Assembly Bill 1575) that literally changed the student discipline process for all California universities...it's at least a little bit at fault. It's quite a stretch to state that Stanford bears no fault whatsoever.

[BobK]

Thank you Mick. How someone could read this and say Stanford the bully did no wrong is well not right

[BobK]

Thank you Mick. How someone could read this and say Stanford the bully did no wrong is well not right

[here4WBB]

I second the thanks, Mick.  Institutional failure is real.

[here4WBB]

I second the thanks, Mick.  Institutional failure is real.

[dabigv13]

My own position is that if the University's actions spurred a law now known as "Katie Meyer's Law" (Assembly Bill 1575) that literally changed the student discipline process for all California universities...it's at least a little bit at fault. It's quite a stretch to state that Stanford bears no fault whatsoever.

Not sure I agree with this reasoning. This is the same legislature that passed a law targeting private schools like Stanford for legacy admissions, with the Varsity Blues scandal as the supposed stimulus, as per the bill's author Phil Ting. But legacy admissions really had nothing to do with Varsity Blues cases.

Now, the Katie Meyer bill seems like a good law. But I sincerely doubt it would have averted her tragic suicide. If Stanford had sent that same letter, with an extra paragraph regarding her being entitled to an independent advisor during potential disciplinary proceedings, would it have changed anything? I'm skeptical. And the bill only applies to public universities, so it doesn't even apply to Stanford! That last bit seems a particular head scratcher to me.

[dabigv13]

My own position is that if the University's actions spurred a law now known as "Katie Meyer's Law" (Assembly Bill 1575) that literally changed the student discipline process for all California universities...it's at least a little bit at fault. It's quite a stretch to state that Stanford bears no fault whatsoever.

Not sure I agree with this reasoning. This is the same legislature that passed a law targeting private schools like Stanford for legacy admissions, with the Varsity Blues scandal as the supposed stimulus, as per the bill's author Phil Ting. But legacy admissions really had nothing to do with Varsity Blues cases.

Now, the Katie Meyer bill seems like a good law. But I sincerely doubt it would have averted her tragic suicide. If Stanford had sent that same letter, with an extra paragraph regarding her being entitled to an independent advisor during potential disciplinary proceedings, would it have changed anything? I'm skeptical. And the bill only applies to public universities, so it doesn't even apply to Stanford! That last bit seems a particular head scratcher to me.

[Mick]

My own position is that if the University's actions spurred a law now known as "Katie Meyer's Law" (Assembly Bill 1575) that literally changed the student discipline process for all California universities...it's at least a little bit at fault. It's quite a stretch to state that Stanford bears no fault whatsoever.

Not sure I agree with this reasoning. This is the same legislature that passed a law targeting private schools like Stanford for legacy admissions, with the Varsity Blues scandal as the supposed stimulus, as per the bill's author Phil Ting. But legacy admissions really had nothing to do with Varsity Blues cases.

Now, the Katie Meyer bill seems like a good law. But I sincerely doubt it would have averted her tragic suicide. If Stanford had sent that same letter, with an extra paragraph regarding her being entitled to an independent advisor during potential disciplinary proceedings, would it have changed anything? I'm skeptical. And the bill only applies to public universities, so it doesn't even apply to Stanford! That last bit seems a particular head scratcher to me.

In reverse order:

1) It doesn't only apply to public universities, it applies to California universities receiving any form of public funding.

2) Stanford was known to have limited, discouraged or prevented representation. If, as you say, it wouldn't have changed anything, why didn't they include it? And frankly...every alleged criminal in America receives a Miranda warning in which they are proactively told (not just handed a written letter) that they are entitled to representation.

Many years ago, I worked with an accounting firm in which the (fired) partner essentially was bribed to sign off on a public company's false financial statements. Not surprisingly, he was found out, and the firm sought legal and PR representation. Every one of the candidate PR firms attempted to inflate the problem to (presumably) inflate their role and inflate the potential fee. The firm was petrified, some of the board was talking about dissolution -- corporate suicide.

One of the PR firms told the board straight out: "Yes, you have a problem. But it's not a big problem, it's a little problem. And here's why..." That firm still operates today as a multi-billion dollar, Top Ten accounting firm.

Had an advocate pulled Katie aside and said "Yes, you have a problem, but it's not a big problem, it's a little problem, and here's why..." in all likelihood, she would be alive today, or at least her chances for survival would be infinitely increased.

3) I agree, the Ting law doesn't have anything to do with the Varsity Blues scandal, it was based separately on perceived privilege of alumni legacies. The Katie Meyer law was named directly after Stanford student Katie Meyer who committed suicide when receiving a quasi-legal document threatening expulsion and restricting legal representation. That's about as direct a link as exists.

Three other thoughts: 

1) While college students have a lower overall suicide rates than same-age peers, high-achievement environments can be associated with more anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts. The environment is more dangerous at Top 20 schools, in other words. If a kid gets kicked out of SCU, she goes to San Jose State or somewhere else with little damage. If a student gets kicked out of Stanford, it reverberates throughout their lives.

2) There are no large-scale suicide data sets among college students, but The Big 10 schools did a study from 2009 to 2018 which indicated 5.6 suicides per 100,000 students, and another research project cited 7.0 suicides per 100,000 students at four-year colleges (645 campuses surveyed, 622 suicides over a six year period). The NCES reports 10.8 million undergrads as of fall, 2021, and you'll see an estimate of 1,100 college student suicides per year at all colleges, both two- and four-year.

It was reported by the Stanford Daily that Stanford had four student suicides in just over a year. With 17,000 graduate and undergrad students, that's 21-25 per 100,000 per year, 3x to 4x the national averages. In other words, with three student suicides already behind Katie Meyer, I would have hoped Stanford would have been exceptionally careful about student mental health and not threatening them or eliminating lifelines, so to speak.

3) An April 2022 ASSU study found that nearly 60% of students who sought Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) therapists were unable to do so within the time frame they needed and over 1/3rd of students found CAPS to be extremely or somewhat inaccessible. The Stanford Daily reported that CAPS was struggling to recruit new staff members and had experienced staff departures. It's improved considerably since Katie's suicide.
Critiques of Stanford's expanded mental health services.

If Stanford wasn't partially culpable, why implement any changes/improvements at all?

[Mick]

My own position is that if the University's actions spurred a law now known as "Katie Meyer's Law" (Assembly Bill 1575) that literally changed the student discipline process for all California universities...it's at least a little bit at fault. It's quite a stretch to state that Stanford bears no fault whatsoever.

Not sure I agree with this reasoning. This is the same legislature that passed a law targeting private schools like Stanford for legacy admissions, with the Varsity Blues scandal as the supposed stimulus, as per the bill's author Phil Ting. But legacy admissions really had nothing to do with Varsity Blues cases.

Now, the Katie Meyer bill seems like a good law. But I sincerely doubt it would have averted her tragic suicide. If Stanford had sent that same letter, with an extra paragraph regarding her being entitled to an independent advisor during potential disciplinary proceedings, would it have changed anything? I'm skeptical. And the bill only applies to public universities, so it doesn't even apply to Stanford! That last bit seems a particular head scratcher to me.

In reverse order:

1) It doesn't only apply to public universities, it applies to California universities receiving any form of public funding.

2) Stanford was known to have limited, discouraged or prevented representation. If, as you say, it wouldn't have changed anything, why didn't they include it? And frankly...every alleged criminal in America receives a Miranda warning in which they are proactively told (not just handed a written letter) that they are entitled to representation.

Many years ago, I worked with an accounting firm in which the (fired) partner essentially was bribed to sign off on a public company's false financial statements. Not surprisingly, he was found out, and the firm sought legal and PR representation. Every one of the candidate PR firms attempted to inflate the problem to (presumably) inflate their role and inflate the potential fee. The firm was petrified, some of the board was talking about dissolution -- corporate suicide.

One of the PR firms told the board straight out: "Yes, you have a problem. But it's not a big problem, it's a little problem. And here's why..." That firm still operates today as a multi-billion dollar, Top Ten accounting firm.

Had an advocate pulled Katie aside and said "Yes, you have a problem, but it's not a big problem, it's a little problem, and here's why..." in all likelihood, she would be alive today, or at least her chances for survival would be infinitely increased.

3) I agree, the Ting law doesn't have anything to do with the Varsity Blues scandal, it was based separately on perceived privilege of alumni legacies. The Katie Meyer law was named directly after Stanford student Katie Meyer who committed suicide when receiving a quasi-legal document threatening expulsion and restricting legal representation. That's about as direct a link as exists.

Three other thoughts: 

1) While college students have a lower overall suicide rates than same-age peers, high-achievement environments can be associated with more anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts. The environment is more dangerous at Top 20 schools, in other words. If a kid gets kicked out of SCU, she goes to San Jose State or somewhere else with little damage. If a student gets kicked out of Stanford, it reverberates throughout their lives.

2) There are no large-scale suicide data sets among college students, but The Big 10 schools did a study from 2009 to 2018 which indicated 5.6 suicides per 100,000 students, and another research project cited 7.0 suicides per 100,000 students at four-year colleges (645 campuses surveyed, 622 suicides over a six year period). The NCES reports 10.8 million undergrads as of fall, 2021, and you'll see an estimate of 1,100 college student suicides per year at all colleges, both two- and four-year.

It was reported by the Stanford Daily that Stanford had four student suicides in just over a year. With 17,000 graduate and undergrad students, that's 21-25 per 100,000 per year, 3x to 4x the national averages. In other words, with three student suicides already behind Katie Meyer, I would have hoped Stanford would have been exceptionally careful about student mental health and not threatening them or eliminating lifelines, so to speak.

3) An April 2022 ASSU study found that nearly 60% of students who sought Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) therapists were unable to do so within the time frame they needed and over 1/3rd of students found CAPS to be extremely or somewhat inaccessible. The Stanford Daily reported that CAPS was struggling to recruit new staff members and had experienced staff departures. It's improved considerably since Katie's suicide.
Critiques of Stanford's expanded mental health services.

If Stanford wasn't partially culpable, why implement any changes/improvements at all?

[dabigv13]

Re your point #1, I think you are incorrect. The public funds mechanism was the punishment mechanism for Ting's bill but I don't think it is a part of AB1575 the Katie Meyer law.

Per the Stanford Daily-

As a result of the Meyers’ advocacy, California Assembly member Jacqui Irwin, who represents the 42nd Assembly District, in which the Meyers live, authorized ‘Katie Meyer’s Law’, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1575, in the California State Legislature. The law states that students at California public colleges and universities are allowed to select an adviser to help them navigate disciplinary processes. It was passed unanimously through the California State Legislature before being signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28, 2024.  

Though AB 1575 applies automatically to all public universities, Stanford, a private institution, is not necessarily required to uphold the state law. Stanford has maintained that it supports its students and their mental health, but has disagreed with the “assertion that the university is responsible for [Katie Meyer’s] death”.

https://stanforddaily.com/2025/09/29/rep...gislation/

I read the bill text just now.

66284. (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Public postsecondary educational institution” means a community college, a campus of the California State University, or a campus of the University of California.

I'm not an expert in this, so I could be wrong.

Re this-

Had an advocate pulled Katie aside and said "Yes, you have a problem, but it's not a big problem, it's a little problem, and here's why..." in all likelihood, she would be alive today, or at least her chances for survival would be infinitely increased.

When would that have happened? Didn't Meyer commit suicide the night she got the email?

[dabigv13]

Re your point #1, I think you are incorrect. The public funds mechanism was the punishment mechanism for Ting's bill but I don't think it is a part of AB1575 the Katie Meyer law.

Per the Stanford Daily-

As a result of the Meyers’ advocacy, California Assembly member Jacqui Irwin, who represents the 42nd Assembly District, in which the Meyers live, authorized ‘Katie Meyer’s Law’, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1575, in the California State Legislature. The law states that students at California public colleges and universities are allowed to select an adviser to help them navigate disciplinary processes. It was passed unanimously through the California State Legislature before being signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28, 2024.  

Though AB 1575 applies automatically to all public universities, Stanford, a private institution, is not necessarily required to uphold the state law. Stanford has maintained that it supports its students and their mental health, but has disagreed with the “assertion that the university is responsible for [Katie Meyer’s] death”.

https://stanforddaily.com/2025/09/29/rep...gislation/

I read the bill text just now.

66284. (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Public postsecondary educational institution” means a community college, a campus of the California State University, or a campus of the University of California.

I'm not an expert in this, so I could be wrong.

Re this-

Had an advocate pulled Katie aside and said "Yes, you have a problem, but it's not a big problem, it's a little problem, and here's why..." in all likelihood, she would be alive today, or at least her chances for survival would be infinitely increased.

When would that have happened? Didn't Meyer commit suicide the night she got the email?

[Mick]

Re your point #1, I think you are incorrect. The public funds mechanism was the punishment mechanism for Ting's bill but I don't think it is a part of AB1575 the Katie Meyer law.

Per the Stanford Daily-

As a result of the Meyers’ advocacy, California Assembly member Jacqui Irwin, who represents the 42nd Assembly District, in which the Meyers live, authorized ‘Katie Meyer’s Law’, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1575, in the California State Legislature. The law states that students at California public colleges and universities are allowed to select an adviser to help them navigate disciplinary processes. It was passed unanimously through the California State Legislature before being signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28, 2024.  

Though AB 1575 applies automatically to all public universities, Stanford, a private institution, is not necessarily required to uphold the state law. Stanford has maintained that it supports its students and their mental health, but has disagreed with the “assertion that the university is responsible for [Katie Meyer’s] death”.

https://stanforddaily.com/2025/09/29/rep...gislation/

I read the bill text just now.

66284. (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Public postsecondary educational institution” means a community college, a campus of the California State University, or a campus of the University of California.

I'm not an expert in this, so I could be wrong.

Re this-

Had an advocate pulled Katie aside and said "Yes, you have a problem, but it's not a big problem, it's a little problem, and here's why..." in all likelihood, she would be alive today, or at least her chances for survival would be infinitely increased.

When would that have happened? Didn't Meyer commit suicide the night she got the email?

Same as in a criminal case. You get the warning when you are under suspicion. She should have had some access to an advocate immediately. I suspect there was a reason that Stanford sent it to her at 7 p.m. when there was no access to any support. Why not send it during working hours?

It is worth noting that Judge Chung dismissed six of the eight claims. And you're right about AB1575, it's only for publicly funded schools, not private schools that receive public funds. And private schools, per CA Supreme Court, must only provide "fair procedure" rather than due process. Lucky for Stanford and USF and SCU and Pepperdine and USC...they need only provide a modicum, a veneer of fairness. And representation of an advocate, facing one's accusers, cross-examining -- none of those are required at private schools. Great for Stanford...and yet, Katie Meyer's Law requires colleges to allow students facing disciplinary action to have a designated advisor (and requires schools to train those advisors). If Stanford bears no culpability, how does that law get made and get passed?

[Mick]

Re your point #1, I think you are incorrect. The public funds mechanism was the punishment mechanism for Ting's bill but I don't think it is a part of AB1575 the Katie Meyer law.

Per the Stanford Daily-

As a result of the Meyers’ advocacy, California Assembly member Jacqui Irwin, who represents the 42nd Assembly District, in which the Meyers live, authorized ‘Katie Meyer’s Law’, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1575, in the California State Legislature. The law states that students at California public colleges and universities are allowed to select an adviser to help them navigate disciplinary processes. It was passed unanimously through the California State Legislature before being signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28, 2024.  

Though AB 1575 applies automatically to all public universities, Stanford, a private institution, is not necessarily required to uphold the state law. Stanford has maintained that it supports its students and their mental health, but has disagreed with the “assertion that the university is responsible for [Katie Meyer’s] death”.

https://stanforddaily.com/2025/09/29/rep...gislation/

I read the bill text just now.

66284. (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Public postsecondary educational institution” means a community college, a campus of the California State University, or a campus of the University of California.

I'm not an expert in this, so I could be wrong.

Re this-

Had an advocate pulled Katie aside and said "Yes, you have a problem, but it's not a big problem, it's a little problem, and here's why..." in all likelihood, she would be alive today, or at least her chances for survival would be infinitely increased.

When would that have happened? Didn't Meyer commit suicide the night she got the email?

Same as in a criminal case. You get the warning when you are under suspicion. She should have had some access to an advocate immediately. I suspect there was a reason that Stanford sent it to her at 7 p.m. when there was no access to any support. Why not send it during working hours?

It is worth noting that Judge Chung dismissed six of the eight claims. And you're right about AB1575, it's only for publicly funded schools, not private schools that receive public funds. And private schools, per CA Supreme Court, must only provide "fair procedure" rather than due process. Lucky for Stanford and USF and SCU and Pepperdine and USC...they need only provide a modicum, a veneer of fairness. And representation of an advocate, facing one's accusers, cross-examining -- none of those are required at private schools. Great for Stanford...and yet, Katie Meyer's Law requires colleges to allow students facing disciplinary action to have a designated advisor (and requires schools to train those advisors). If Stanford bears no culpability, how does that law get made and get passed?

[2006alum]

She sought care at the University's Sports Psychology Clinic in November 2021 and reported to a psychiatrist that she was experiencing increased depression symptoms and suicidal thoughts and was prescribed Concerta to address that. Concerta's side effects include suicide ideation which may be present for months after discontinuation of the medicine. Katie couldn't get a refill because of insurance issues, and had no refills after November 2021. Stanford's psychologist and psychiatrist failed to monitor her refills. 

I think you included this to support her parents' legal case, but to me it undermines it, unless there was a claim for medical malpractice. She already self-reported suicidal ideation, so unless we think someone should have 5150'd her and failed to, I think Stanford's actions, most immediately the disciplinary email, were at most a precipitating cause, but not the proximate cause, of her death. 

I do think the entire situation was a genuine tragedy, and I'm glad the law was passed, as it seems like more guardrails here are a good thing. But as a lawyer myself, this case always seemed weak, and I can't help but feel like the parents need to find a villain in a situation where there wasn't one. May her memory be a blessing, which thankfully, it really has seemed to be.

[2006alum]

She sought care at the University's Sports Psychology Clinic in November 2021 and reported to a psychiatrist that she was experiencing increased depression symptoms and suicidal thoughts and was prescribed Concerta to address that. Concerta's side effects include suicide ideation which may be present for months after discontinuation of the medicine. Katie couldn't get a refill because of insurance issues, and had no refills after November 2021. Stanford's psychologist and psychiatrist failed to monitor her refills. 

I think you included this to support her parents' legal case, but to me it undermines it, unless there was a claim for medical malpractice. She already self-reported suicidal ideation, so unless we think someone should have 5150'd her and failed to, I think Stanford's actions, most immediately the disciplinary email, were at most a precipitating cause, but not the proximate cause, of her death. 

I do think the entire situation was a genuine tragedy, and I'm glad the law was passed, as it seems like more guardrails here are a good thing. But as a lawyer myself, this case always seemed weak, and I can't help but feel like the parents need to find a villain in a situation where there wasn't one. May her memory be a blessing, which thankfully, it really has seemed to be.

[old spanish trail]

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault.  Thankful we have a new administration

I agree, Bob.

[old spanish trail]

Wow I so disagree. The university was certainly at fault.  Thankful we have a new administration

I agree, Bob.

[jonnyss]

Stanford did what it intended to do. It sent an after-hours e-mail to a student under stress threatening withholding of diploma and expulsion pointing to an internal process in which she was pre-judged guilty in which she was not allowed an advocate or lawyer, despite multiple Stanford alumni in prior years recommending that Stanford have advocates and/or lawyers available for students undergoing a disciplinary process. It was against the wishes of the Stanford football player in question who allegedly SA'd a minor. Stanford's communications framed Meyer's action not as protective of the minor in question, but as malicious. Stanford did not inform her parents, because getting a parent involved would have complicated and perhaps impeded Stanford's actions against a student that they preferred to be cowed and intimidated into acceding to whatever end result Stanford preferred. The e-mail threatened Meyer's future...it did exactly what Stanford wanted in a five-page, single-spaced, formal letter. Katie expressed significant distress to Stanford staff. Stanford escalating a minor altercation (spilling coffee, which resulted in no reported injuries) into a formal violation involving physical injury. The university disregarded the football player's lack of formal complaint and his desire for resolution without punishment, instead proceeding with charges that placed Katie's academic and athletic future at risk. Stanford knew or should have known that a high‑achieving, perfectionist senior, close to graduation and team captain, would be especially vulnerable to an abrupt threat of expulsion or degree loss. And ultimately, Stanford didn't discipline a football player who allegedly SA'd a minor but formally disciplined the team captain who was attempting to protect that minor.

Meyer informed the University that she had been stressed out for months and that she was terrified that an accident would destroy her future. She sought care at the University's Sports Psychology Clinic in November 2021 and reported to a psychiatrist that she was experiencing increased depression symptoms and suicidal thoughts and was prescribed Concerta to address that. Concerta's side effects include suicide ideation which may be present for months after discontinuation of the medicine. Katie couldn't get a refill because of insurance issues, and had no refills after November 2021. Stanford's psychologist and psychiatrist failed to monitor her refills. She had no drugs in her system at the time of her death. At the time that Meyer received the notice, the Office of Community Standards and Stanford's Counseling and Psychological Services were closed. She was told to provide exonerating evidence by  2/28, but was not allowed to communicate with witnesses or related parties. That night, Meyer took her own life.

Stanford had a history of allegations of student-rights violations stretching back to at least 2013, according to the Student Justice Project, a coalition of Stanford University students, their parents, and alumni who sought to educate the Stanford community about student rights violations. It was further noted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's 2019-2020 report, which evaluated fundamental fairness of disciplinary proceedings at 53 prominent colleges and universities across the country that Stanford's presumption of innocence was "limited." Stanford's own evaluation committee the Committee of 12 found the OCS process to be "overly punitive," "not education" and causing harm to its students in April, 2021.

There were eight formal causes of action in the original complaint, which constituted institutional bullying, for which Stanford can be justly proud. That's what institutions do, they throw their considerable weight behind a process designed to threaten and intimidate. Not a legal process, mind you...just one that adheres to University standards. Inadequate student protections in discipline: The lawsuit and later public debate helped spur “Katie Meyer’s Law,” which requires California institutions receiving public financial‑aid funding to ensure students have an advisor during disciplinary proceedings. The complaint’s underlying premise is that Stanford’s pre‑reform system lacked sufficient procedural and emotional safeguards.

There was a settlement, but the financial terms were not disclosed. One cannot definitively state that there was no financial settlement.

My own position is that if the University's actions spurred a law now known as "Katie Meyer's Law" (Assembly Bill 1575) that literally changed the student discipline process for all California universities...it's at least a little bit at fault. It's quite a stretch to state that Stanford bears no fault whatsoever.

some of the many ways in which stanford was at fault:

mis-diagnosis: depression in an athlete who is aggressive in sports (watch the "zip-it" video of the national championship) and later accused of throwing coffee on an athlete suggests either bipolar illness or chronic traumatic encephalopathy. no evaluation for either. 

mis-prescribing: depression (unipolar or bipolar) is treatable most (true, not all) of the time. the correct first-line medications are antidepressants &/or mood stabilizers. NOT stimulants like concerta

in addition, suicidal ideation requires an urgent 3-part risk assessment:
1) medication review and adjustment: not done
2) agreement between clinician and patient about who the patient will call on for support should suicidal ideation increase or suicidal intent arise. that is almost always a family member, typically a parent in the case of a college student. stanford asserted publicly that they "did not have permission to contact the parents." they quite carefully did not assert that katie refused permission. apparently the clinician never requested permission. plus, exigent circumstances override confidentiality. 5150 is a back-up if no family is available to watch the patient. they absolutely should have contacted the family. not done.
3) anticipation of upcoming stress and preparation for support for that time. not done.

there could be many reasons why the family and attorneys chose to sue the university administration rather than sue the clinicians for malpractice. for example, the family may have wanted to change university practices rather then to punish clinicians. that does not mean no malpractice occurred and no malfeasance by the university occurred.

administration knew she was in distress yet did not (after obtaining katie's permission) contact her clinicians. egregious.

stanford sports psychology markets the clinic as experts in not only psychology but also sports and stanford yet asserts they had no idea of the investigation of katie. lazy (if true).

stanford apparently did not conduct a root-cause evaluation after previous athlete suicides as required by the joint commission on hospital accreditation. apparently did not conduct a root-cause evaluation after katie's suicide.

[jonnyss]

Stanford did what it intended to do. It sent an after-hours e-mail to a student under stress threatening withholding of diploma and expulsion pointing to an internal process in which she was pre-judged guilty in which she was not allowed an advocate or lawyer, despite multiple Stanford alumni in prior years recommending that Stanford have advocates and/or lawyers available for students undergoing a disciplinary process. It was against the wishes of the Stanford football player in question who allegedly SA'd a minor. Stanford's communications framed Meyer's action not as protective of the minor in question, but as malicious. Stanford did not inform her parents, because getting a parent involved would have complicated and perhaps impeded Stanford's actions against a student that they preferred to be cowed and intimidated into acceding to whatever end result Stanford preferred. The e-mail threatened Meyer's future...it did exactly what Stanford wanted in a five-page, single-spaced, formal letter. Katie expressed significant distress to Stanford staff. Stanford escalating a minor altercation (spilling coffee, which resulted in no reported injuries) into a formal violation involving physical injury. The university disregarded the football player's lack of formal complaint and his desire for resolution without punishment, instead proceeding with charges that placed Katie's academic and athletic future at risk. Stanford knew or should have known that a high‑achieving, perfectionist senior, close to graduation and team captain, would be especially vulnerable to an abrupt threat of expulsion or degree loss. And ultimately, Stanford didn't discipline a football player who allegedly SA'd a minor but formally disciplined the team captain who was attempting to protect that minor.

Meyer informed the University that she had been stressed out for months and that she was terrified that an accident would destroy her future. She sought care at the University's Sports Psychology Clinic in November 2021 and reported to a psychiatrist that she was experiencing increased depression symptoms and suicidal thoughts and was prescribed Concerta to address that. Concerta's side effects include suicide ideation which may be present for months after discontinuation of the medicine. Katie couldn't get a refill because of insurance issues, and had no refills after November 2021. Stanford's psychologist and psychiatrist failed to monitor her refills. She had no drugs in her system at the time of her death. At the time that Meyer received the notice, the Office of Community Standards and Stanford's Counseling and Psychological Services were closed. She was told to provide exonerating evidence by  2/28, but was not allowed to communicate with witnesses or related parties. That night, Meyer took her own life.

Stanford had a history of allegations of student-rights violations stretching back to at least 2013, according to the Student Justice Project, a coalition of Stanford University students, their parents, and alumni who sought to educate the Stanford community about student rights violations. It was further noted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's 2019-2020 report, which evaluated fundamental fairness of disciplinary proceedings at 53 prominent colleges and universities across the country that Stanford's presumption of innocence was "limited." Stanford's own evaluation committee the Committee of 12 found the OCS process to be "overly punitive," "not education" and causing harm to its students in April, 2021.

There were eight formal causes of action in the original complaint, which constituted institutional bullying, for which Stanford can be justly proud. That's what institutions do, they throw their considerable weight behind a process designed to threaten and intimidate. Not a legal process, mind you...just one that adheres to University standards. Inadequate student protections in discipline: The lawsuit and later public debate helped spur “Katie Meyer’s Law,” which requires California institutions receiving public financial‑aid funding to ensure students have an advisor during disciplinary proceedings. The complaint’s underlying premise is that Stanford’s pre‑reform system lacked sufficient procedural and emotional safeguards.

There was a settlement, but the financial terms were not disclosed. One cannot definitively state that there was no financial settlement.

My own position is that if the University's actions spurred a law now known as "Katie Meyer's Law" (Assembly Bill 1575) that literally changed the student discipline process for all California universities...it's at least a little bit at fault. It's quite a stretch to state that Stanford bears no fault whatsoever.

some of the many ways in which stanford was at fault:

mis-diagnosis: depression in an athlete who is aggressive in sports (watch the "zip-it" video of the national championship) and later accused of throwing coffee on an athlete suggests either bipolar illness or chronic traumatic encephalopathy. no evaluation for either. 

mis-prescribing: depression (unipolar or bipolar) is treatable most (true, not all) of the time. the correct first-line medications are antidepressants &/or mood stabilizers. NOT stimulants like concerta

in addition, suicidal ideation requires an urgent 3-part risk assessment:
1) medication review and adjustment: not done
2) agreement between clinician and patient about who the patient will call on for support should suicidal ideation increase or suicidal intent arise. that is almost always a family member, typically a parent in the case of a college student. stanford asserted publicly that they "did not have permission to contact the parents." they quite carefully did not assert that katie refused permission. apparently the clinician never requested permission. plus, exigent circumstances override confidentiality. 5150 is a back-up if no family is available to watch the patient. they absolutely should have contacted the family. not done.
3) anticipation of upcoming stress and preparation for support for that time. not done.

there could be many reasons why the family and attorneys chose to sue the university administration rather than sue the clinicians for malpractice. for example, the family may have wanted to change university practices rather then to punish clinicians. that does not mean no malpractice occurred and no malfeasance by the university occurred.

administration knew she was in distress yet did not (after obtaining katie's permission) contact her clinicians. egregious.

stanford sports psychology markets the clinic as experts in not only psychology but also sports and stanford yet asserts they had no idea of the investigation of katie. lazy (if true).

stanford apparently did not conduct a root-cause evaluation after previous athlete suicides as required by the joint commission on hospital accreditation. apparently did not conduct a root-cause evaluation after katie's suicide.

[BostonCard]

I would be wary of trying to make any diagnosis on patients who I have not seen and examined, and I would caution against armchair diagnosing.  Other than what has been reported publicly, we do not have enough information to know whether the diagnosis was correct or not, whether the treatment plan was deficient, whether there was or was not enough information for her treating physicians to suspect that she might be a threat to herself or others.

I know even less about law, and have less information about what processes and procedures are in place, whether they were followed, or whether their deficiency contributed to the outcome.

I do know that University disciplinary procedures are generally fraught and a lot of electronic ink has been spilled about the often times conflicting position that Universities find themselves between requirements to comply with various civil rights statutes and the fact that Universities are not designed to be (or equipped to be) courts of law.

I’m incredibly sorry that anyone, let alone such an accomplished student and athlete would take their own life and I am heartbroken for her family.  I am glad that the episode will hopefully lead to positive change going forward.

BC

[BostonCard]

I would be wary of trying to make any diagnosis on patients who I have not seen and examined, and I would caution against armchair diagnosing.  Other than what has been reported publicly, we do not have enough information to know whether the diagnosis was correct or not, whether the treatment plan was deficient, whether there was or was not enough information for her treating physicians to suspect that she might be a threat to herself or others.

I know even less about law, and have less information about what processes and procedures are in place, whether they were followed, or whether their deficiency contributed to the outcome.

I do know that University disciplinary procedures are generally fraught and a lot of electronic ink has been spilled about the often times conflicting position that Universities find themselves between requirements to comply with various civil rights statutes and the fact that Universities are not designed to be (or equipped to be) courts of law.

I’m incredibly sorry that anyone, let alone such an accomplished student and athlete would take their own life and I am heartbroken for her family.  I am glad that the episode will hopefully lead to positive change going forward.

BC