3 ms·

This is a good clarification. To be more accurate, I should have said that they chose to spend significant resources investigating the coffee and did not spend

This is a good clarification. To be more accurate, I should have said that they chose to spend significant resources investigating the coffee and did not spend resources investigating the sexual assault. In that the accusation of sexual assault didn’t result in any emails and potential degree withdrawals. Imagine if they had just referred the “assault” accusation to the police. I expect the student would not have killed herself.

dandare 4y ago
> they chose to spend significant resources investigating the coffee and did not spend resources investigating the sexual assault. You made this up again, did you?
- prepend 4y ago
  This is a curious statement and you’ve made it twice. Did you read the article that describes how the university acted toward one student and not another. Do you think they spent equal or similar resources on the two events? What do you think I’m making up?
  - bumby 4y ago
    I'm guessing here, but I think there issue may be: >"Imagine if they had just referred the “assault” accusation to the police." But the previous comment (and mentioned link) says: >"the University reported this allegation to the Title IX Office and the police" I.e., they did refer it to both the school administration and the police. It was apparently not found to be worth pursuing. For more context: "Mostofi also addressed the allegation that a football player sexually assaulted another player on the women’s soccer team. Mostofi wrote that the University reported this allegation to the Title IX Office and the police, but the Title IX Office did not pursue the matter as “the criteria for moving forward with an investigation were not met.”[1] To be generous to the OP, they may be wondering why you are implying they should continue to spend resources on something they already investigated and found without merit. We shouldn't be investigating as part of a dog-and-pony show. [1] https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/25/parents-of-katie-meyer-file-wrongful-death-lawsuit-against-stanford/ https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/25/parents-of-katie-meyer-...

dandare 4y ago

> they chose to spend significant resources investigating the coffee and did not spend resources investigating the sexual assault. You made this up again, did you?

prepend 4y ago
This is a curious statement and you’ve made it twice. Did you read the article that describes how the university acted toward one student and not another. Do you think they spent equal or similar resources on the two events? What do you think I’m making up?
- bumby 4y ago
  I'm guessing here, but I think there issue may be: >"Imagine if they had just referred the “assault” accusation to the police." But the previous comment (and mentioned link) says: >"the University reported this allegation to the Title IX Office and the police" I.e., they did refer it to both the school administration and the police. It was apparently not found to be worth pursuing. For more context: "Mostofi also addressed the allegation that a football player sexually assaulted another player on the women’s soccer team. Mostofi wrote that the University reported this allegation to the Title IX Office and the police, but the Title IX Office did not pursue the matter as “the criteria for moving forward with an investigation were not met.”[1] To be generous to the OP, they may be wondering why you are implying they should continue to spend resources on something they already investigated and found without merit. We shouldn't be investigating as part of a dog-and-pony show. [1] https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/25/parents-of-katie-meyer-file-wrongful-death-lawsuit-against-stanford/ https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/25/parents-of-katie-meyer-...