[Goose]

I am sure there was a legal opinion from one of the many Stanford attorneys that it was "safer" to proceed that way. Many of the strange seemingly inexplicable bureaucratic regulations and procedures Stanford are the results of such opinions. The sad thing is that the abundance of caution often fails to deliver the desired immunity from lawsuits. Sometimes too the cure is arguably worse than the disease.

I've heard from some Stanford employees that lawyer opinions had much more influence under the previous President...

I have heard that as well. Unfortunately IMO it will take quite some time to actually change the culture. This abundance of caution is not a new thing. MTL didn't create it, but he apparently continued it. It must be said Stanford is a great target for lawsuits. It can be presented as an elitist uncaring organization with buckets of money oppressing the "little guy". That unfortunately works with juries. IMO the University has to realize that many of its attempts to mitigate liability actually increase it. By attempting to address the issue, the University has implicitly acknowledged it is responsible for the problem. There is therefore no way the University can argue otherwise. Worse still, Stanford's "solutions" sometimes do indeed make the problem worse.

[Goose]

I am sure there was a legal opinion from one of the many Stanford attorneys that it was "safer" to proceed that way. Many of the strange seemingly inexplicable bureaucratic regulations and procedures Stanford are the results of such opinions. The sad thing is that the abundance of caution often fails to deliver the desired immunity from lawsuits. Sometimes too the cure is arguably worse than the disease.

I've heard from some Stanford employees that lawyer opinions had much more influence under the previous President...

I have heard that as well. Unfortunately IMO it will take quite some time to actually change the culture. This abundance of caution is not a new thing. MTL didn't create it, but he apparently continued it. It must be said Stanford is a great target for lawsuits. It can be presented as an elitist uncaring organization with buckets of money oppressing the "little guy". That unfortunately works with juries. IMO the University has to realize that many of its attempts to mitigate liability actually increase it. By attempting to address the issue, the University has implicitly acknowledged it is responsible for the problem. There is therefore no way the University can argue otherwise. Worse still, Stanford's "solutions" sometimes do indeed make the problem worse.