02-26-2020, 01:43 PM
Quote:[Eitan Weiner] found unresponsive in a campus fraternity house in January died from an accidental overdose of fentanyl
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/02/...r-confirms
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Student found dead at fraternity
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/02/...r-confirms
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Quote:[Eitan Weiner] found unresponsive in a campus fraternity house in January died from an accidental overdose of fentanyl
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/02/...r-confirms
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
02-26-2020, 02:39 PM
Tragic. Scary, too, after reading the article.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
Tragic. Scary, too, after reading the article.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
05-07-2021, 09:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2021, 09:26 AM by ColoradoTree.)
To be clear, this is not a new student death, but following up on this story from last year.
Dean Mona Hicks issued a decision on March 22, 2021 expelling Theta Delta Chi for six years (and thus reallocating the house, though whether to a different Greek house, a row house, or a new theme dorm is yet to be decided), finding that the fraternity violated three policies:
1. possession of marijuana (though it was found only in the deceased student's room)
2. possession of percocet (also only found in his room--these were the pills the deceased apparently ordered from the internet, were delivered to him, and which led to his death--i.e., no other students had any pills)
3. the failure by the deceased student and his suitemates to report the presence of the pill bottle
https://news.stanford.edu/today/2021/03/...-decision/
I've gotten a version of the events that led to the student's death from current members of Theta Delt (I was in Theta Delt back in the day), and it paints the picture of a personal tragedy, but not an organizational failure, though I'm hesitant to put too much stock in one side's version of events. It feels a bit morbid to post the details here, so I won't, but I thought you would all be interested in the aftermath of the story from last year.
But as a lawyer, the procedure here interests me. A university investigator interviewed witnesses and then presented that testimony to a 5-member Organization Conduct Board (OCB) made up of three students and two faculty members, who found the above violations but recommended a sanction of community service, education, and random searches (indicating that they likely believed the violations to be technically true, but not warranting significant organizational punishment). The Dean of Students then accepted the findings but imposed a more severe sanction. The findings of violation are now apparently set in stone, but Theta Delt can appeal the sanction to Vice Provost Susie Brubaker-Cole, and has done so. They note perceived irregularities and failure to follow rules in the university's process, and they also note that if the failures by Theta Delt members here were so severe as to warrant expulsion of the fraternity, that at least some individual members would have been charged with violations of university policies, but none have (at least yet).
I'm not close enough to the situation to offer an informed take on what has happened or what should happen next. (And even if Theta Delt remains housed, they have to know they're on the very thinnest of ice with the university, after past attempts to remove the house were beaten back--not for alcohol, if memory serves, but for effectively being lazy and not doing much of anything to justify preferential housing.) I keep coming back to the obvious--that a promising young man died from overdose and that is a devastating tragedy. And with opioid abuse being a national epidemic, I hope Stanford adopts (or has adopted) better training policies on recognizing signs of abuse and providing for intervention prior to something like this happening again. This will not be the last overdose death Stanford sees.
Dean Mona Hicks issued a decision on March 22, 2021 expelling Theta Delta Chi for six years (and thus reallocating the house, though whether to a different Greek house, a row house, or a new theme dorm is yet to be decided), finding that the fraternity violated three policies:
1. possession of marijuana (though it was found only in the deceased student's room)
2. possession of percocet (also only found in his room--these were the pills the deceased apparently ordered from the internet, were delivered to him, and which led to his death--i.e., no other students had any pills)
3. the failure by the deceased student and his suitemates to report the presence of the pill bottle
https://news.stanford.edu/today/2021/03/...-decision/
I've gotten a version of the events that led to the student's death from current members of Theta Delt (I was in Theta Delt back in the day), and it paints the picture of a personal tragedy, but not an organizational failure, though I'm hesitant to put too much stock in one side's version of events. It feels a bit morbid to post the details here, so I won't, but I thought you would all be interested in the aftermath of the story from last year.
But as a lawyer, the procedure here interests me. A university investigator interviewed witnesses and then presented that testimony to a 5-member Organization Conduct Board (OCB) made up of three students and two faculty members, who found the above violations but recommended a sanction of community service, education, and random searches (indicating that they likely believed the violations to be technically true, but not warranting significant organizational punishment). The Dean of Students then accepted the findings but imposed a more severe sanction. The findings of violation are now apparently set in stone, but Theta Delt can appeal the sanction to Vice Provost Susie Brubaker-Cole, and has done so. They note perceived irregularities and failure to follow rules in the university's process, and they also note that if the failures by Theta Delt members here were so severe as to warrant expulsion of the fraternity, that at least some individual members would have been charged with violations of university policies, but none have (at least yet).
I'm not close enough to the situation to offer an informed take on what has happened or what should happen next. (And even if Theta Delt remains housed, they have to know they're on the very thinnest of ice with the university, after past attempts to remove the house were beaten back--not for alcohol, if memory serves, but for effectively being lazy and not doing much of anything to justify preferential housing.) I keep coming back to the obvious--that a promising young man died from overdose and that is a devastating tragedy. And with opioid abuse being a national epidemic, I hope Stanford adopts (or has adopted) better training policies on recognizing signs of abuse and providing for intervention prior to something like this happening again. This will not be the last overdose death Stanford sees.
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2021, 09:26 AM by ColoradoTree.)
To be clear, this is not a new student death, but following up on this story from last year.
Dean Mona Hicks issued a decision on March 22, 2021 expelling Theta Delta Chi for six years (and thus reallocating the house, though whether to a different Greek house, a row house, or a new theme dorm is yet to be decided), finding that the fraternity violated three policies:
1. possession of marijuana (though it was found only in the deceased student's room)
2. possession of percocet (also only found in his room--these were the pills the deceased apparently ordered from the internet, were delivered to him, and which led to his death--i.e., no other students had any pills)
3. the failure by the deceased student and his suitemates to report the presence of the pill bottle
https://news.stanford.edu/today/2021/03/...-decision/
I've gotten a version of the events that led to the student's death from current members of Theta Delt (I was in Theta Delt back in the day), and it paints the picture of a personal tragedy, but not an organizational failure, though I'm hesitant to put too much stock in one side's version of events. It feels a bit morbid to post the details here, so I won't, but I thought you would all be interested in the aftermath of the story from last year.
But as a lawyer, the procedure here interests me. A university investigator interviewed witnesses and then presented that testimony to a 5-member Organization Conduct Board (OCB) made up of three students and two faculty members, who found the above violations but recommended a sanction of community service, education, and random searches (indicating that they likely believed the violations to be technically true, but not warranting significant organizational punishment). The Dean of Students then accepted the findings but imposed a more severe sanction. The findings of violation are now apparently set in stone, but Theta Delt can appeal the sanction to Vice Provost Susie Brubaker-Cole, and has done so. They note perceived irregularities and failure to follow rules in the university's process, and they also note that if the failures by Theta Delt members here were so severe as to warrant expulsion of the fraternity, that at least some individual members would have been charged with violations of university policies, but none have (at least yet).
I'm not close enough to the situation to offer an informed take on what has happened or what should happen next. (And even if Theta Delt remains housed, they have to know they're on the very thinnest of ice with the university, after past attempts to remove the house were beaten back--not for alcohol, if memory serves, but for effectively being lazy and not doing much of anything to justify preferential housing.) I keep coming back to the obvious--that a promising young man died from overdose and that is a devastating tragedy. And with opioid abuse being a national epidemic, I hope Stanford adopts (or has adopted) better training policies on recognizing signs of abuse and providing for intervention prior to something like this happening again. This will not be the last overdose death Stanford sees.
Dean Mona Hicks issued a decision on March 22, 2021 expelling Theta Delta Chi for six years (and thus reallocating the house, though whether to a different Greek house, a row house, or a new theme dorm is yet to be decided), finding that the fraternity violated three policies:
1. possession of marijuana (though it was found only in the deceased student's room)
2. possession of percocet (also only found in his room--these were the pills the deceased apparently ordered from the internet, were delivered to him, and which led to his death--i.e., no other students had any pills)
3. the failure by the deceased student and his suitemates to report the presence of the pill bottle
https://news.stanford.edu/today/2021/03/...-decision/
I've gotten a version of the events that led to the student's death from current members of Theta Delt (I was in Theta Delt back in the day), and it paints the picture of a personal tragedy, but not an organizational failure, though I'm hesitant to put too much stock in one side's version of events. It feels a bit morbid to post the details here, so I won't, but I thought you would all be interested in the aftermath of the story from last year.
But as a lawyer, the procedure here interests me. A university investigator interviewed witnesses and then presented that testimony to a 5-member Organization Conduct Board (OCB) made up of three students and two faculty members, who found the above violations but recommended a sanction of community service, education, and random searches (indicating that they likely believed the violations to be technically true, but not warranting significant organizational punishment). The Dean of Students then accepted the findings but imposed a more severe sanction. The findings of violation are now apparently set in stone, but Theta Delt can appeal the sanction to Vice Provost Susie Brubaker-Cole, and has done so. They note perceived irregularities and failure to follow rules in the university's process, and they also note that if the failures by Theta Delt members here were so severe as to warrant expulsion of the fraternity, that at least some individual members would have been charged with violations of university policies, but none have (at least yet).
I'm not close enough to the situation to offer an informed take on what has happened or what should happen next. (And even if Theta Delt remains housed, they have to know they're on the very thinnest of ice with the university, after past attempts to remove the house were beaten back--not for alcohol, if memory serves, but for effectively being lazy and not doing much of anything to justify preferential housing.) I keep coming back to the obvious--that a promising young man died from overdose and that is a devastating tragedy. And with opioid abuse being a national epidemic, I hope Stanford adopts (or has adopted) better training policies on recognizing signs of abuse and providing for intervention prior to something like this happening again. This will not be the last overdose death Stanford sees.
19 Jan 2022 update on this story
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/fami...e930f.html
Quote:The family of Eitan Weiner, a Los Altos High School graduate who died of an overdose at a Stanford University fraternity house, filed a wrongful death lawsuit just before the two-year anniversary of his death.
The suit filed by Weiner’s mother, father and sister alleges that Stanford failed to take seriously the threat of fentanyl-laced Percocet circulating in Santa Clara County at the time. It also names several students and the Theta Delta Chi (TDX) fraternity, alleging they did not take the necessary actions to prevent Weiner’s death on Jan. 17, 2020.
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/fami...e930f.html
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
19 Jan 2022 update on this story
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/fami...e930f.html
Quote:The family of Eitan Weiner, a Los Altos High School graduate who died of an overdose at a Stanford University fraternity house, filed a wrongful death lawsuit just before the two-year anniversary of his death.
The suit filed by Weiner’s mother, father and sister alleges that Stanford failed to take seriously the threat of fentanyl-laced Percocet circulating in Santa Clara County at the time. It also names several students and the Theta Delta Chi (TDX) fraternity, alleging they did not take the necessary actions to prevent Weiner’s death on Jan. 17, 2020.
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/fami...e930f.html
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
01-19-2022, 01:51 PM
I'm sure the article is far from the complete picture, but sounds like "Stanford" called paramedics and the decedent declined treatment. The supplier admitted shipping the drugs to him directly.
It will be interesting to see how this resolves.
It will be interesting to see how this resolves.
01-19-2022, 03:15 PM
(01-21-2020, 06:27 AM)martyup Wrote: That statement seems to rule out suicide.
The family has filed wrongful death lawsuits against Stanford and named individuals
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/fami...e930f.html
(01-21-2020, 06:27 AM)martyup Wrote: That statement seems to rule out suicide.
The family has filed wrongful death lawsuits against Stanford and named individuals
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/fami...e930f.html
The comments in the comments section of the Chron's article are... illuminating.
Well, Stanford has a lot of money, a lot more than the people who supplied the drugs and would seem to be actually culpable. Not sure how any school could prevent a student from taking illegal drugs with impurities.
What's curious to me is this-
Inability to speak or move seems to be in tension with the capacity to refuse medical care. That's not something to sue Stanford about, but I'm curious what the paramedics saw and their decision making process.
From my college days I am familiar with instances of people being really drunk, having paramedics called to the dorm, and then the person refusing treatment and preferring to sleep it off. Now if the paramedics asked, did he take any drugs, and everyone disclaimed knowledge or denied that, would seem those people maybe could have some responsibility.
End of the day though, if you're making the decision to take prescription drugs from an unknown source and something goes wrong, well that sucks but sometimes life doesn't afford second chances.
What's curious to me is this-
Quote:TDX’s resident assistant learned that Eitan had lost the ability to speak or move in the early evening hours of Jan. 15. The RA called 911 at the direction of the dean, but Eitan declined further medical care when first responders arrived.
Inability to speak or move seems to be in tension with the capacity to refuse medical care. That's not something to sue Stanford about, but I'm curious what the paramedics saw and their decision making process.
From my college days I am familiar with instances of people being really drunk, having paramedics called to the dorm, and then the person refusing treatment and preferring to sleep it off. Now if the paramedics asked, did he take any drugs, and everyone disclaimed knowledge or denied that, would seem those people maybe could have some responsibility.
End of the day though, if you're making the decision to take prescription drugs from an unknown source and something goes wrong, well that sucks but sometimes life doesn't afford second chances.
Well, Stanford has a lot of money, a lot more than the people who supplied the drugs and would seem to be actually culpable. Not sure how any school could prevent a student from taking illegal drugs with impurities.
What's curious to me is this-
Inability to speak or move seems to be in tension with the capacity to refuse medical care. That's not something to sue Stanford about, but I'm curious what the paramedics saw and their decision making process.
From my college days I am familiar with instances of people being really drunk, having paramedics called to the dorm, and then the person refusing treatment and preferring to sleep it off. Now if the paramedics asked, did he take any drugs, and everyone disclaimed knowledge or denied that, would seem those people maybe could have some responsibility.
End of the day though, if you're making the decision to take prescription drugs from an unknown source and something goes wrong, well that sucks but sometimes life doesn't afford second chances.
What's curious to me is this-
Quote:TDX’s resident assistant learned that Eitan had lost the ability to speak or move in the early evening hours of Jan. 15. The RA called 911 at the direction of the dean, but Eitan declined further medical care when first responders arrived.
Inability to speak or move seems to be in tension with the capacity to refuse medical care. That's not something to sue Stanford about, but I'm curious what the paramedics saw and their decision making process.
From my college days I am familiar with instances of people being really drunk, having paramedics called to the dorm, and then the person refusing treatment and preferring to sleep it off. Now if the paramedics asked, did he take any drugs, and everyone disclaimed knowledge or denied that, would seem those people maybe could have some responsibility.
End of the day though, if you're making the decision to take prescription drugs from an unknown source and something goes wrong, well that sucks but sometimes life doesn't afford second chances.
01-19-2022, 06:00 PM
Is suing your boss grounds for termination?
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
01-19-2022, 06:20 PM
(01-19-2022, 05:54 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Well, Stanford has a lot of money, a lot more than the people who supplied the drugs and would seem to be actually culpable. Not sure how any school could prevent a student from taking illegal drugs with impurities.
What's curious to me is this-
Quote:TDX’s resident assistant learned that Eitan had lost the ability to speak or move in the early evening hours of Jan. 15. The RA called 911 at the direction of the dean, but Eitan declined further medical care when first responders arrived.
Inability to speak or move seems to be in tension with the capacity to refuse medical care. That's not something to sue Stanford about, but I'm curious what the paramedics saw and their decision making process.
From my college days I am familiar with instances of people being really drunk, having paramedics called to the dorm, and then the person refusing treatment and preferring to sleep it off. Now if the paramedics asked, did he take any drugs, and everyone disclaimed knowledge or denied that, would seem those people maybe could have some responsibility.
End of the day though, if you're making the decision to take prescription drugs from an unknown source and something goes wrong, well that sucks but sometimes life doesn't afford second chances.
Read the complaint. Obviously, just allegations. But it tells a pretty compelling story.
(01-19-2022, 05:54 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Well, Stanford has a lot of money, a lot more than the people who supplied the drugs and would seem to be actually culpable. Not sure how any school could prevent a student from taking illegal drugs with impurities.
What's curious to me is this-
Quote:TDX’s resident assistant learned that Eitan had lost the ability to speak or move in the early evening hours of Jan. 15. The RA called 911 at the direction of the dean, but Eitan declined further medical care when first responders arrived.
Inability to speak or move seems to be in tension with the capacity to refuse medical care. That's not something to sue Stanford about, but I'm curious what the paramedics saw and their decision making process.
From my college days I am familiar with instances of people being really drunk, having paramedics called to the dorm, and then the person refusing treatment and preferring to sleep it off. Now if the paramedics asked, did he take any drugs, and everyone disclaimed knowledge or denied that, would seem those people maybe could have some responsibility.
End of the day though, if you're making the decision to take prescription drugs from an unknown source and something goes wrong, well that sucks but sometimes life doesn't afford second chances.
Read the complaint. Obviously, just allegations. But it tells a pretty compelling story.
Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
01-19-2022, 07:33 PM
(01-19-2022, 06:50 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint. Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.
Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct website. It will guide you to the online portal. You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.
(01-19-2022, 06:50 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint. Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.
Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct website. It will guide you to the online portal. You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.
01-19-2022, 08:02 PM
Found the case but couldn't pull up any documents from it. Would be curious for a link or a summary.
(01-19-2022, 07:33 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-19-2022, 06:50 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint. Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.
Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct website. It will guide you to the online portal. You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.
if I go here
https://portal.scscourt.org/search
and put in "Amir" for first name and "Weiner" for last name it takes me to the docs
clicking on "view case", then "events" and then "complaint" takes me to a 28 page document with details
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(01-19-2022, 07:33 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-19-2022, 06:50 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint. Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.
Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct website. It will guide you to the online portal. You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.
if I go here
https://portal.scscourt.org/search
and put in "Amir" for first name and "Weiner" for last name it takes me to the docs
clicking on "view case", then "events" and then "complaint" takes me to a 28 page document with details
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
01-19-2022, 09:38 PM
I read the better part of the complaint. The fact remains that the student ordered the drugs himself and got them through the mail. He could have done that in any residence anywhere.
These are smart young adults. The fact that Stanford can be hypocritical, or not follow its rules, doesn't change that. If this was something done to him by another student or staff, the arguments would be more compelling.
If kids get obese from the all you can eat cafeteria meals, is Stanford liable for that?
These are smart young adults. The fact that Stanford can be hypocritical, or not follow its rules, doesn't change that. If this was something done to him by another student or staff, the arguments would be more compelling.
If kids get obese from the all you can eat cafeteria meals, is Stanford liable for that?
I read the better part of the complaint. The fact remains that the student ordered the drugs himself and got them through the mail. He could have done that in any residence anywhere.
These are smart young adults. The fact that Stanford can be hypocritical, or not follow its rules, doesn't change that. If this was something done to him by another student or staff, the arguments would be more compelling.
If kids get obese from the all you can eat cafeteria meals, is Stanford liable for that?
These are smart young adults. The fact that Stanford can be hypocritical, or not follow its rules, doesn't change that. If this was something done to him by another student or staff, the arguments would be more compelling.
If kids get obese from the all you can eat cafeteria meals, is Stanford liable for that?
01-19-2022, 10:10 PM
Thanks, for some reason there was no events tab to open on my phone but I found it on desktop mode.
From the complaint, it sounds like there were two events, on Jan 15th paramedics were called and he refused care, and then on the 17th he was found dead in the bathroom.
How is Stanford supposed to discipline the students if the evidence of drug use was hidden? How would the RA know that the passed out student who had enough capacity to refuse medical care had consumed any fentanyl?
There are many lawyers on the board who would know better than I how much trouble Stanford could be in here, but I just don't see how Stanford is responsible in any way for this unfortunate kid's poor decisions.
From the complaint, it sounds like there were two events, on Jan 15th paramedics were called and he refused care, and then on the 17th he was found dead in the bathroom.
I don't find the argument persuasive that because a local DA announced percocet laced with fentanyl was found in the area, that the university has any responsibility for telling their students about that. It's not stipulated that the DA informed Stanford of anything.
Lot of internal contradictions in the facts stipulated by the complaint-
Lot of internal contradictions in the facts stipulated by the complaint-
Quote:In the early evening hours 0f January 15th, TDX’s Resident Assistant(“RA”) Tim Michael, a student and member 0f the TDX fraternity who is employed by Stanford, learned that Eitan had 10st both speaking and motor functions. Both are symptoms of a Fentanyl overdose.
40.The RA contacted Stanford’s Residence Dean(“RD”) assigned t0 the TDX house to report the situation. The RD directed the RA to dial 9-11.The RD, however, did not take any immediate actions, instead suggesting that the RA contact the “0ncall” RD. This anemic response violated Stanford’s Residential Education policies.
41.When first responders arrived, Eitan declined further medical care. At the same time, and contrary to the Fundamental Standard and Stanford’s other policies and procedures, as well as TDX’s policies and procedures, and state and federal law, Defendants Dill De-Sa, Khattak, and Mitchell actively concealed evidence and misled first responders and others regarding the presence 0f controlled substances within the TDX house, the distribution 0f controlled substances from the TDX house, and their and Eitan’s use of controlled substances.
42.Stanford took no further action even though the distribution, dispensation, possession, 0r use of a controlled substance is considered an “egregious” Violation 0f campus policy and may result in disciplinary sanctions up to and including expulsion
How is Stanford supposed to discipline the students if the evidence of drug use was hidden? How would the RA know that the passed out student who had enough capacity to refuse medical care had consumed any fentanyl?
There are many lawyers on the board who would know better than I how much trouble Stanford could be in here, but I just don't see how Stanford is responsible in any way for this unfortunate kid's poor decisions.
Thanks, for some reason there was no events tab to open on my phone but I found it on desktop mode.
From the complaint, it sounds like there were two events, on Jan 15th paramedics were called and he refused care, and then on the 17th he was found dead in the bathroom.
How is Stanford supposed to discipline the students if the evidence of drug use was hidden? How would the RA know that the passed out student who had enough capacity to refuse medical care had consumed any fentanyl?
There are many lawyers on the board who would know better than I how much trouble Stanford could be in here, but I just don't see how Stanford is responsible in any way for this unfortunate kid's poor decisions.
From the complaint, it sounds like there were two events, on Jan 15th paramedics were called and he refused care, and then on the 17th he was found dead in the bathroom.
I don't find the argument persuasive that because a local DA announced percocet laced with fentanyl was found in the area, that the university has any responsibility for telling their students about that. It's not stipulated that the DA informed Stanford of anything.
Lot of internal contradictions in the facts stipulated by the complaint-
Lot of internal contradictions in the facts stipulated by the complaint-
Quote:In the early evening hours 0f January 15th, TDX’s Resident Assistant(“RA”) Tim Michael, a student and member 0f the TDX fraternity who is employed by Stanford, learned that Eitan had 10st both speaking and motor functions. Both are symptoms of a Fentanyl overdose.
40.The RA contacted Stanford’s Residence Dean(“RD”) assigned t0 the TDX house to report the situation. The RD directed the RA to dial 9-11.The RD, however, did not take any immediate actions, instead suggesting that the RA contact the “0ncall” RD. This anemic response violated Stanford’s Residential Education policies.
41.When first responders arrived, Eitan declined further medical care. At the same time, and contrary to the Fundamental Standard and Stanford’s other policies and procedures, as well as TDX’s policies and procedures, and state and federal law, Defendants Dill De-Sa, Khattak, and Mitchell actively concealed evidence and misled first responders and others regarding the presence 0f controlled substances within the TDX house, the distribution 0f controlled substances from the TDX house, and their and Eitan’s use of controlled substances.
42.Stanford took no further action even though the distribution, dispensation, possession, 0r use of a controlled substance is considered an “egregious” Violation 0f campus policy and may result in disciplinary sanctions up to and including expulsion
How is Stanford supposed to discipline the students if the evidence of drug use was hidden? How would the RA know that the passed out student who had enough capacity to refuse medical care had consumed any fentanyl?
There are many lawyers on the board who would know better than I how much trouble Stanford could be in here, but I just don't see how Stanford is responsible in any way for this unfortunate kid's poor decisions.
01-19-2022, 10:18 PM
(01-19-2022, 07:33 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-19-2022, 06:50 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint. Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.
Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct website. It will guide you to the online portal. You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.
I read it cover to cover, but didn't see much that wasn't already in the news reports. Can you highlight what you have in mind? At worst it seemed like they alleged the fellow students conceiled the drug use from emergency responders, and the Residence Dean referred the matter to the on-call dean. But all of that happened two nights before he actually overdosed, and the night of that incident, the complaint seems to be totally silent about anyone else's involvement (presumably because there wasn't any). What am I missing?
(01-19-2022, 07:33 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-19-2022, 06:50 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint. Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.
Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct website. It will guide you to the online portal. You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.
I read it cover to cover, but didn't see much that wasn't already in the news reports. Can you highlight what you have in mind? At worst it seemed like they alleged the fellow students conceiled the drug use from emergency responders, and the Residence Dean referred the matter to the on-call dean. But all of that happened two nights before he actually overdosed, and the night of that incident, the complaint seems to be totally silent about anyone else's involvement (presumably because there wasn't any). What am I missing?
(01-19-2022, 10:18 PM)2006alum Wrote:(01-19-2022, 07:33 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-19-2022, 06:50 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint. Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.
Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct website. It will guide you to the online portal. You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.
I read it cover to cover, but didn't see much that wasn't already in the news reports. Can you highlight what you have in mind? At worst it seemed like they alleged the fellow students conceiled the drug use from emergency responders, and the Residence Dean referred the matter to the on-call dean. But all of that happened two nights before he actually overdosed, and the night of that incident, the complaint seems to be totally silent about anyone else's involvement (presumably because there wasn't any). What am I missing?
1. Stanford had notice of an on campus drug issues
2. Stanford had notice the issue was particularly acute within the Greek system
3 Stanford had notice that the frat in question had major issues for years but failed to take action
4 Stanford had notice of the Santa Clara County warning on counterfeit Percocet laced with Fetyanal and the devastating impact as a result.
5 Stanford had notice of the potential overdose two days earlier.
Yet Stanford took no action and violated its own policies in doing so.
Don’t know if any is true. But the issue is notice and inaction.
(01-19-2022, 10:18 PM)2006alum Wrote:(01-19-2022, 07:33 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-19-2022, 06:50 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.
That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint. Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.
Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct website. It will guide you to the online portal. You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.
I read it cover to cover, but didn't see much that wasn't already in the news reports. Can you highlight what you have in mind? At worst it seemed like they alleged the fellow students conceiled the drug use from emergency responders, and the Residence Dean referred the matter to the on-call dean. But all of that happened two nights before he actually overdosed, and the night of that incident, the complaint seems to be totally silent about anyone else's involvement (presumably because there wasn't any). What am I missing?
1. Stanford had notice of an on campus drug issues
2. Stanford had notice the issue was particularly acute within the Greek system
3 Stanford had notice that the frat in question had major issues for years but failed to take action
4 Stanford had notice of the Santa Clara County warning on counterfeit Percocet laced with Fetyanal and the devastating impact as a result.
5 Stanford had notice of the potential overdose two days earlier.
Yet Stanford took no action and violated its own policies in doing so.
Don’t know if any is true. But the issue is notice and inaction.
what jumps out to me is that a student r a asked for assistance from a faculty r d, who punted the issue rather than make sure any responsible adult evaluated the student (and presumably called for medical assistance). if i am reading correctly, the earlier situation called for a medical evaluation, but no one insisted on that eval. an unresponsive individual is a danger to himself and, by statute, cannot refuse medical evaluation.
what jumps out to me is that a student r a asked for assistance from a faculty r d, who punted the issue rather than make sure any responsible adult evaluated the student (and presumably called for medical assistance). if i am reading correctly, the earlier situation called for a medical evaluation, but no one insisted on that eval. an unresponsive individual is a danger to himself and, by statute, cannot refuse medical evaluation.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »