> Dean Caldera also runs a side consulting business offering “individualized college admissions assistance” for upwards of $4,000 an applicant.
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.
That's a conflict of interest and grounds for termination. If you worked for a company, and had a side business to teach suppliers how to sell to that company, you'd be fired.
At my Big Corp (tm) we just let someone go because he offered a service to coach vendors on 1) How to get on our supplier list and 2) our internal criteria for vendor selection. He also charged for the service and as IT Ops head had a great deal of say over how this worked internally.
I'm not familiar with this situation, but this is such an immaturely written post. For example, the third bullet point in the summary is:
> 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.
I thought it was pretty clear in what it is saying- not vague at all. Dean Caldera, who is responsible for suicides on campus, has been using her role as a Dean to enrich herself. It is very possible that had she focused on her actual job that some of these suicides may have been prevented.
The consulting business in improprietous. The raffle was inappropriate. All of this is inappropriate.
Sounds like they laid out facts. The Dean had a job to do but was also doing a side hustle. It's not vague to me. If you're giving a poor performance to your well-paid first job, you shouldn't be taking 2nd job.
this document isn't a "laid out facts". This is a document written to cloak truth and make you believe something, without sufficient evidence. I learned all these tricks in my rhetoric education.
Stanford apparently puts a significant number of students in a locked ward at Stanford Hospitals for attempting or discussing suicide.[1] But Stanford refuses to disclose statistics on that.
Those are 5150s. It's done when a person is considered an immediate risk. it's not just stanford that does this- it's a federal law. I know a person at berkeley who was suicidal and she was regularly 5150d (often shortly after she stopped taking her meds). if you're trying to use this as a point that "stanford=bad", please be aware that mental health issues are extremely serious and there is likely another explanation for what you consider to be nefarious data-hiding.
Obviously there are two sides to the story, but we’ve seen horrible and deep corruption in large, respected academic institutions before, so it’s certainly plausible that this essay is substantially correct. Eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_sca...
>In another case, a student used the word “suicide” over 100 times in an essay. That student later died and the death was classified “an accident” by President Tessier-Lavigne’s administration.
That's really up to the police to decide, isn't it? There's a lot of important info being omitted about this example.
Stanford has its own police department. So they investigated themselves and decided the most convenient thing for them was the truth. They also didn't address, at all, the fact that the "accident" could have been prevented. The way the RA/RD handled that situation would have gotten him immediately fired at the school where I was an RA, and that's before even touching on the other lawsuit against him.
"President Tessier-Lavigne’s administration might be playing a role in causing student deaths."
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.
Her job is to prevent deaths- it's literally why they hired her. By focusing on her side hustle she has neglicted her own job, which has lead to a statistically large increase in deaths. This has been brought up to the administration and they've ignored it. That sounds like the administration is "playing a role"- by not addressing the problem they are letting it grow.
Even without the deaths if these parts of the allegations are correct, it seems like a firing is in order:
> 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.
Does anybody have any references for this statement: "In an unsigned and undated letter, President Tessier-Lavigne’s administration lied repeatedly to WSCUC investigators."
I'm trying to understand what's meant by that, and I can't find anything referencing it online.
Readit News
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.
Deleted Comment
> 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...
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.
Dead Comment
> 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.