Hacker News Reader

There's quite a bit more in the story, such as this from an alumni attorney helping students anonymously accused of cheating on an exam:

The students knew Ottilie ran his own law practice and reached out for his counsel. Ottilie agreed to take the students’ case pro bono and worked with two other alumni lawyers on their defense—recreating seating charts and finding over a dozen witnesses who were willing to testify to their innocence.

Ottilie said he turned up at multiple hearings for the students only to be told by university officials he was not allowed to speak on their behalf, but could advise them from behind the scenes.

After five months of a judicial process that Ottilie describes as “biased against the students,” all three of his clients were acquitted of the charges. But the experience exposed a deep flaw in the university’s treatment of its student body, Ottilie told me.

“In the process of working with those students, we discovered that Stanford. . . was denying them of their procedural due process rights at literally every step of the process,” he said.

I get that there are process concerns here (and that people think the rules Stanford is enforcing are dumb). But the stakes seem very low: we're talking about procedural due process protecting the rights of fraternities to host parties with alcohol.

But the stakes seem very low: we're talking about procedural due process protecting the rights of fraternities to host parties with alcohol.

No? The quote is in reference to a lawyer defending students accused of cheating on an exam and facing an administrative process with no presumption of innocence or right to a proper defense. A process which could permanently destroy their college education and career prospects.

Here we're talking about a case where students were, in 2012, accused of cheating on a bio test, and not found guilty. Meanwhile: cheating is absolutely rampant --- and has presumably only gotten much, much worse since 2012.

I've seen people cheat first hand dozens of times and know that a jury would find them not guilty. Legal standards are very high

The standards should be high in any situation where you can significantly harm a person's life trajectory, even if not in a criminal court. Getting kicked out of Stanford for cheating could definitely derail a person's life.

The overwhelming majority of high-achieving students can't get in to Stanford to begin with, so it's hard for me to understand how being asked to leave Stanford could be ruinous.

People get expelled for cheating and it can impact the rest of their lives

I think the core bit you've missed is: Stanford explicitly selects for perfectionists by requiring extremely high standards of (most) students. Those students have spend several years working very hard to get in, aware that even the slightest mis-step can cost them everything they've worked for. But they're surrounded by people trying to help them get in.

Then they get to Stanford and discover that the university administration is actively hostile, it's looking for reasons to get rid of imperfect students, or students that can be blamed for imperfection (anyone running a group of students that has a problem).

But that's all of life, too, isn't it? If you host a party in real life that serves alcohol to minors and get caught, you'll face more annoying consequences than a 1 year party moratorium. And, as I said, I'm pretty sure that if you deliberately dump a cup of coffee onto a coworker, you'll be fired instantly.

Two things: college is supposed to be an opportunity to learn from mistakes so making the normal consequence of any mistake the end of your career goes against that. Historically the decent young men of Stanford were able to get drunk, pull dumb stunts, embarrass themselves, then graduate and join "real life". The recent decision that sexual assault should be taken off the list of allowable "dumb stunts" is still working its way through the system, and right now we seem to be at the "major overreaction" stage.

Secondly, part of the idea of Stanford and other elite schools is to create social links so that even quite serious mistakes aren't career-ending. The idea that "your first business will fail, and that's ok" is necessary because almost all new businesses do fail. Society needs that, and since the US can't have a social safety net, we need that group of rich kids with rich friends to provide at least some people who can afford those failures.

We can argue about whether the victim of the coffee-dumping was wrong to think it was a minor thing, but hopefully we can all agree that the death penalty was a bit harsh for that offense?

I don't accept either of these premises.

Stanford students are adults (indeed, many of them aren't even young adults). It is not principally the mission of Stanford to insulate its students from consequences. We just had a story here earlier today where HN is up in arms (somewhat reasonably so) because of Stanford's refusal to visit consequences on students who protested an odious speaker. Here the consequences we're talking about are even sillier: it's the right to host official school-sanctioned parties with alcohol service. Who gives a shit?

Second, it indeed may be a subtextual benefit of Stanford that attendance cements your status among an elite (this touches on the "human capital" vs. "signaling" debate). But to whatever extent that's the case, it's a bad thing. Stanford attendance is an unimaginably rarified privilege. If Stanford's disciplinary process happens to mute some of the status benefit of making it in, so much the better.

I don't have much to say about the coffee-cup case, which is very sad, and which fortunately doesn't occupy much of the attention of this article the way the frat party case does. So: let's just focus our attention on the frat party. And in response to it, I'd just remind you of the scene in The Social Network, where the Winklevii attempt to escalate to the president of Harvard their concerns about Zuckerberg stealing the idea for ConnectU. Retaining lawyers to fight sanctions against underage drinking is that, but like 6 times dumber.

Wait, I don't think even the article is complaining that students can't host frat parties. It's about students having to deal with months of legal proceedings as a consequence when they potentially break a rule.

Your characterization of frat parties as being an asinine issue is true and exactly the reason for concern here. Legal proceedings are super shitty to go through. Your whole life basically gets mentally put on hold. If the issue in question is such a non-issue, why should it cause students to have to face that?

I think he was saying that the banning of parties with alcohol for a frat house accused of serving alcohol to minors is a mild punishment and not a notable event. I don't think he was saying that frat parties serving alcohol to minors is a non-issue. It's a pretty serious crime when you're not on a campus.

You're right, I misread. That negates my second paragraph.

Again though, the article is not complaining about parties being banned, but about the process surrounding that decision:

Dealing for months with lawyers and campus investigators drove Paulmeier, typically enthusiastic and motivated, into what he calls an “exhausted, burnt-out depression.” He told me he had gone through “a state of mental and physical exhaustion and collapse.”

Paulmeier was doing graduate-level coursework before the investigation. But by the end of spring 2022, he ended up with three incomplete classes. Normally a student who earned mostly As and Bs, he said he started his senior year in the fall by failing a class for the first time in his life.

His grades dropped so precipitously he was placed on academic probation and was in danger of failing out. Worst of all, one of his academic advisors wrote him a sympathetic letter urging him “in the strongest terms” to withdraw his honors thesis, which explored how elite colleges can reform their admissions processes to attract more students like him.

From what I understand, what happened was:

* Paulmeier hosted a party which he claims adhered to the rules.

* Allegations were made that rules were broken.

* His frat was placed on probation, along with several other frats.

* The university proceeded with a months-long investigation, throwing the weight of their legal team at the students, with actual lawyers doing lawyer things.

So basically, either accept the allegations, or go through months of legal crap. And this is going to be the standard process for resolving code of conduct disputes across the board, all the way up to and including matters involving academic suspensions (the coffee cup girl). I dunno, do we really want universities to be run this way?

The "coffee cup girl" threw a cup of hot coffee at another student. It wasn't a small thing.

> college is supposed to be an opportunity to learn from mistakes

Where did you read that? I think you're quoting your own expectations. Certainly, people should be allowed to learn from mistakes (at all stages in life), but college is not designed to shield you from consequences. Now, I don't know what dumb stunts you're referring to (stealing the opposing team's pig mascot like in a movie?) but if any stunt causes actual harm, there will be consequences.

> We can argue about whether the victim of the coffee-dumping was wrong to think it was a minor thing, but hopefully we can all agree that the death penalty was a bit harsh for that offense?

The University bears zero responsibility for her death. Unless you are suggesting that any investigation must be preceded by a mental health evaluation in case the individual has suicidal predispositions.

SouthPark-There is a time and place for everything. And that is college.

> But they're surrounded by people trying to help them get in.

Do you mean helicopter parents? Or referring to the administration?

I understood it as meaning a social and academic environment that is supporting them in getting into Stanford.

I mean supportive parents, and very likely also a supportive school and supportive community. "led a youth group" on the application doesn't arise in isolation, any more than high grades in external exams come from homeschooling (they can in both cases, but you're in the 0.1% of the 1% who get into Stanford territory).

This isn't an issue of a student being "imperfect". The issue is actual criminality. Throwing hot coffee at someone is an assault.

People have been arrested for throwing coffee at cashiers.

Maybe I'm wrong, but a misdemeanor (or a meeting between the students if acceptable to both, except apparently it was an administrator and not the coffee-dampened football player who filed the complaint) might have been preferable to a 5-page single-spaced letter threatening a final-semester senior with expulsion.

"Where'd you go to school?" "7 semesters at Stanford, finishing as captain of the women's soccer team, then they expelled me a month before graduation for throwing coffee on someone who'd sexually assaulted one of my teammates."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure misdemeanor charges with a fine and maybe community service would've been preferable to threats of expulsion from VERY EXPENSIVE school you were about to graduate from. All the time, all the money, all the student loans, but no degree.

Good thing Stanford apparently makes its money on research. What are the odds ANY of the women on the soccer team she was captain of ever give money to the school as alums?

You don't appear to be responding to anything I wrote, other than apparently agreeing it was a criminal issue.

The "coffee-dampened" student was physically injured [1], according to the university. The fact that this act of violence was done on account of disagreeing with the outcome of a sexual assault proceeding does not make it less serious - quite the contrary, the fact that this was retaliation over the outcome of a proceeding makes it far more serious as it risks igniting a cycle of further escalation and retaliation. Would you have been so nonchalant if the accused was found responsible, and he poured coffee on his accuser because he felt the outcome of the proceeding was incorrect? If not, then the accused deserved the same protection from accusers dissatisfied with the outcome of sexual misconduct proceedings.

1. https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-fam...

The university was being actively hostile towards Meyer? It seems unambiguous to me that the hostility originated with Meyer. One does not accidentally spill coffee and it just happens to land on the person your friend unsuccessfully accused of harassment out of the 10k+ students on campus. According to the university, this resulted in physical injury [1]. This isn't just the university trying to "get rid of imperfect students". Violent retaliation on account of dissatisfaction with the outcome of a sexual assault proceeding is a very significant transgression. If the university didn't sanction Meyer it would set the precedent that pouring boiling water on classmates is tolerated behavior - do you want the friends of men found responsible of sexual assault pouring boiling water on accusers if they feel the outcome was unjustified, in the same vein as what Meyer did? It's unfortunate that the university's actions seem to have prompted Meyer to take her life, but that does not mean their actions were wrong.

That said I do agree with a lot of what the article wrote. I was an undergrad at Stanford 2011-2015. The university was ramping up its control on social life around that time. Slav house was shut down my junior year, and they were already starting to tighten the reigns on band and greek life. I'm not sure what the outcome of this will be. Perhaps students will start to socialize more off campus, but that's not really feasible without a car (and the attended risks of driving under the influence).

1. https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-fam...

I think the issue is making mountains out of molehills.

If you have ever been subject to the faceless institutional processes judicial, or non-judicial, they can be weaponized in a way that forgets there is a human on the receiving end. We need to be careful when things go overboard with applying the letter of the law and forgetting the spirit of it which is about justice.

Sometimes, the punishment is the process.

> Stanford now has more than 10,000 administrators who oversee the 7,761 undergraduate and 9,565 graduate students—almost enough for each student to have their own personal butler. (There are about 2,290 faculty members.) These bureaucrats make up an increasingly powerful segment of the university population, as they expand their portfolio and send the message that all conflict should be adjudicated by them. (OCS reports for the 2022–2023 school year have not yet been released.)

This bothered me, and this series of occurences in Academia sounds exactly like what is happening with medicine these days.

A bunch of administrators that are not educators ((or physicians) , or professional law enforcement, or judges, or prosectuors, all having professional, and advanced legal educations )) that desperately are in need of work to justify their raison d'être.

My claim is that this article seems to be about Stanford making molehills out of molehills.

> But an adjudication process doesn't seem like a disproportionate response to an assault, however minor.

It’s a cup of coffee that wasn’t hot or scalding and wasn’t reported by the student but by an administrator. It’s a multi month process including outside counsel hired by the university.

It sounds entirely disproportionate in the first place. This seems like a stupid and wasteful unjust kangaroo court that was designed by people to create more work for themselves to hire more people and lawyers for make work. It doesn’t seem designed to deliver justice so what is the point.

Stanford received federal funds and a system having processed this dumb likely has other faults that should be addressed if they wish to continue receiving funds.

The article is basically saying “Stanford is really stupid” and based on this article, I agree. I don’t go to Stanford and never will do it doesn’t directly affect me other than I’m generally interested in reducing the price of college.

(1) The coffee assault apparently caused a physical injury.

(2) If you dumped so much as a cup of cold water on someone in a workplace, you'd be out on your ass that day.

I honestly don't understand what we're even debating here. This isn't middle school. These are adults, in one of the most selective institutions on the planet.

Yes. They should have left this to the police and courts and, if she gets convicted, or pleads guilty, expel her.

This also ensures there’s a proper public record for future schools or employers.

I don’t know why the author of this piece tried to wave away a felony assault. And I’m saddened that a woman who got in to Stanford doesn’t believe in due process, but instead opts for vigilante justice based on a rumor. We reap what we sow.

Zero is the number of workplaces that would wait for a police report before terminating someone for throwing a beverage. The unreality of these kinds of message board discussions when it comes to getting the police involved to settle disputes always throws me. I mean, get a police report if you want to press charges, but Stanford is under absolutely no obligation to involve the police before threatening expulsion.

Of course she should have been expelled. (And her parents are real pieces of sh* for suing the school. They should be apologizing for their daughter who made the school unsafe.)

But the Police should have been involved too. This woman needed to have her viscousness memorialized and put on public record.

Yikes, dude.

The article and references does not describe any injury from the coffee. Not from the football player’s account, nor from any medical treatment.

College isn’t a workplace. And even in a workplace it depends on the circumstances. In my workplace, super regulated, if a third party claimed that someone threw coffee on someone else, no one is getting fired that day. And if they were then it would be a pretty huge wrongful termination lawsuit. The only thing that gets you “out on your ass” is if you are an immediate threat to others. So maybe if it was scalding coffee that resulted in hospitalization and the person was still on the loose throwing coffee.

But like someone else said, throwing coffee is a crime. Let the police do their job. We don’t need extra judicial investigations for reasons.

You get that there are additional sources of information beyond what the author of this article provides, right? It's not cheating to go look things up.

> transpose this setting to a workplace and there would be no adjudication at all, only an immediate termination.

One only wishes, and maybe now days that is true, but even 10 years ago this wasn't a sure thing, especially if the aggressor was at a high level in the company.

Senior year my dorm was slapped with a one month party prohibition because we had an unsanctioned party the night before school started. It was slightly annoying, but also provided the obvious theme for the permitted, sanctioned, registered party held one month later.

The rules have been changing, though. At the time, nobody was responsible for enforcing the law on drinking age except the drinker. I think the article has more appeal for people whose past fun is being stolen.

Sometimes the process is the punishment.

considering the bent of this publication towards conservatives I think you are in fact getting it, you're just not primed for outrage

I didn't realize underage drinking was part of the conservative party platform.

Did you miss this? https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/brett-kavanaugh-...