The whole point of literally all executive positions is to be the designated scapegoat. Or, more precisely, you are specifically responsible for mitigating events outside your control.
If the governing body has failed to follow through on its own policies, over multiple years, that has resulted in poor outcomes, firing the head of government isn't finding a scapegoat.
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.
Not sure we read the same article. New processes and offices to help with student stress - a response to increased stress and chance of suicide. That wasn't done vigorously enough to prevent all incidents.
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.”
I'm trying to track down the truthfulness of the claims that Stanford's administration lied to its accreditor.
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.
> 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.”
Lots of blame for a bathroom overdose etc. Somebody didn't respond properly to the process - but not the President. As observed elsewhere, a President's job is to be scapegoat, which is correct and I agree with.