11–20 of 52 posts
Unfortunate suicide rates are up. Blame the school president? I guess some scapegoat must be found.
Unfortunate suicide rates are up. Blame the school president? I guess some scapegoat must be found.
> Two Stanford faculty are currently suing the University after their son, Eitan Weiner, died in a fraternity bathroom. The lawsuit alleges Eitan “died as a result of Stanford's knowing and intentional failure to follow its own policies and procedures.”
Regardless of whether this is related to an above average suicide rate, this looks bad. I’m quite surprised the administration tolerates it.
edit: I’ll add that I have personal experience with a (former) university staffer who was (a) corrupt, (b) egregiously failing to do their job, and (c) otherwise behaving, on the job, in a manner that was likely criminal and also could have exposed the university to substantial liability and bad PR if anyone had pressed the point. I’m not about to discuss details on HN, but one might conclude that, when a given employee is a bad apple, that they may well be problematic in ways that extend beyond that ways that are obvious to their bosses.
There was not, to my knowledge, an established way for students to blow the whistle on staff with whom they interacted. If there had been, then the situation could hopefully have been somewhat improved.
> In May 2021 WSCUC, Stanford’s accreditation regulator, launched a formal investigation into President Tessier-Lavigne’s administration.
> In an unsigned and undated letter, President Tessier-Lavigne’s administration lied repeatedly to WSCUC investigators.
> President Tessier-Lavigne’s administration forged and destroyed critical case notes and fired a low-level administrator that spoke out against the administration’s misconduct.
Why is it on HN's frontpage?
A lot of the article discusses the conflict of interest of her side business but I didn't personally see any points that led me to believe she actually caused people to kill themselves.
> On March 1, 2022, Stanford student Katie Meyer died by suicide. During that time, Dean Caldera was running a raffle for her side consulting business.
What is the writer trying to imply, exactly? Are they suggesting that there is something inappropriate about the raffle? Or was the timing of raffle inappropriate? Or was it the consulting business itself that was improprietous? If you have a point to make, just plainly state it, and then back it up with facts. Don't make vague innuendos and try to lead the reader to make connections that don't exist. No one has time for that.
[1] https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/05/where-do-stanford-stude...