[2006alum]

imo notifying a student in the evening after 7pm is indeed bad practice. counseling and psychological services is closed. 

Fair, but the article indicates that Meyer had already been notified of an investigation about a possible violation several days before the written notice. So this didn't come out of nowhere. And I guess I am struggling to think that the mere emailing of a notice of a hearing is such an adverse event that the university must provision the availability of psychological services at the same moment of the notice.

stanford is playing tricky in its response. the parents say the university failed to conduct any meaningful investigation of the football player. the university aggressively disagrees, saying they were the ones that initiated a title 9 investigation; the title 9 investigators didn't pursue. just how does that invalidate the parents' complaint?

Well, I'd put it the other way: what does the university's investigation of the football player have to do with whether Meyer herself violated the honor code? Is the idea that she was justified in throwing hot coffee on him because the university wouldn't investigate him? I'm afraid I'm not seeing any relevance here as to whether Stanford's written notice was sufficiently reckless - absent a whole lot more - to warrant liability for wrongful death.

[2006alum]

imo notifying a student in the evening after 7pm is indeed bad practice. counseling and psychological services is closed. 

Fair, but the article indicates that Meyer had already been notified of an investigation about a possible violation several days before the written notice. So this didn't come out of nowhere. And I guess I am struggling to think that the mere emailing of a notice of a hearing is such an adverse event that the university must provision the availability of psychological services at the same moment of the notice.

stanford is playing tricky in its response. the parents say the university failed to conduct any meaningful investigation of the football player. the university aggressively disagrees, saying they were the ones that initiated a title 9 investigation; the title 9 investigators didn't pursue. just how does that invalidate the parents' complaint?

Well, I'd put it the other way: what does the university's investigation of the football player have to do with whether Meyer herself violated the honor code? Is the idea that she was justified in throwing hot coffee on him because the university wouldn't investigate him? I'm afraid I'm not seeing any relevance here as to whether Stanford's written notice was sufficiently reckless - absent a whole lot more - to warrant liability for wrongful death.