[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?