[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.