Stanford’s President and Provost Must Resign
theymustresign.substack.com
theymustresign.substack.com
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.
> 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.
The consulting business in improprietous. The raffle was inappropriate. All of this is inappropriate.
[1] https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/05/where-do-stanford-stude...
Real question.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-sil...
[2] https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/04/29/students-urge...
I don't think whatever argument you are trying to make is very well thought out. From what I can tell, you have some sort of model where you think that living in the Palo Alto area makes people go crazy/kill themselves, possibly in a way that is associated with the institutional policies of the schools in the area.
If you don't see why that sort of speculation is both stupid and dangerous, I don't think it's worth me continuing to engage. There are any number of explanations for what you observe that don't involve blaming institutions for causing suicides.
I live in the area and am quite aware of what happened around Caltrain- many people die on the caltrain tracks every year. Having a grade-crossing railroad in the middle of a dense suburban area is crazy.
That's really up to the police to decide, isn't it? There's a lot of important info being omitted about this example.
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.
> 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.
I'm trying to understand what's meant by that, and I can't find anything referencing it online.
It's taking basic responsibility.
Somewhere between being a line manager and a director, you lose the ability to blame other people for your organization's failures. It's why you get paid the big bucks.
Nounage in the wild!
Of course in prior administrations there was no such office, and a much lesser rate of student stress and depression. Different situation.
Sure the President is ultimately responsible. But not for the deaths - for not pressing reforms fast enough?
I read the article, I'm not sure why you aren't sure you read the article.
There are numerous, specific complaints about specific actions, conflicts of interest, and misconduct, not just a general "not pressing reforms fast enough".
Edit: I don't claim to know the truth behind these allegations, but the allegations themselves are quite clearly more the "not pressing reforms fast enough" and trying to cast them in that light does not appear to be good faith discussion.
My whole comment was intended to convey that the furor sounds like generalized criticism of a President, almost unrelated to the specific problems that occurred. All too common nowadays, to just fling criticism and claims around and hope something sticks, with no honest attempt to connect to the tragedy.
Sure conflicts of interest are concerning. How does that get a student into a bathroom with a drug overdose? And so on.
> In sum, 1) An internal Stanford document finds repeated failure by Stanford staff, 2) Both Giammalva and Madarasz quietly depart Stanford, 3) Giammalva has been accused of past misconduct, and 4) the Dean overseeing all this, Lisa Caldera, has been the subject of an ethics complaint. Despite this, President Tessier-Lavigne’s administration released a public statement in January 2022 chastising the lawsuit from two Stanford faculty over their dead son and called any criticism “unfounded.”
> These are no isolated incidents. On March 7 2019 Stanford cyclist Kelly Caitlin died by suicide in what was her second suicide attempt that year. Between the first suicide attempt and the second one, Stanford denied Kelly access to two psychologists she requested on campus.
> President Tessier-Lavigne’s administration responded in an unsigned letter that I believe was designed to mislead regulators. The letter lies about the date of certain events, lies about the materiality of events, lies about the nature of events, lies by omission, and created a fiction to deceive regulators.
> Not only did President Tessier-Lavigne’s administration deceive WSCUC regulators, but the two and only original investigative case notes that provided a direct glimpse into the matter were destroyed and forged.
So, take the contrast between the difficulty that students have getting help from her when it is her main job to help them, vs how easy it is to her "side hustle" clients to reach her:
> On the intake form for Caldera College Consulting, customers can suggest time availability Monday-Sunday in the Morning, Midday, Afternoon, and Evening. On Instagram Dean Caldera has also shared a direct deposit link to her Venmo bank account so customers have “an easy way to connect to my services.”
vs:
> Mental health at Stanford is an afterthought. The administration’s neglect is single-handedly responsible for my breakdown. I spent 45 minutes on hold with [Stanford] during an emergency trying to get help before my parents rushed to get me.
> I got upset and hung up on the crisis line. They didn’t call back or follow up in any way.
> “No help when we needed it — had to fly out from the East Coast to save my son myself.”
If that isn't independently verifiable, I'm going to ignore the rest of this complaint, as (based on several details) it looks like a person with a personal vendetta is trying to make a larger case than exists.
There is a personal vendetta for sure, but also probably some underlying sketchiness from the Stanford administration that prompted said vendetta.
In short: this individual is not operating on level and is attempting to make stanford's administration look more evil than they actually are. The statements about lies are literally only believed by this one individual.
> 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.”
You talking about a different site? This place has a huge amount of VC Propaganda.