[dlandis]

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.

[tedivm]

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.

[joshuahaglund]

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.

[dekhn]

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.

[dopamean]

I don't think they're just implying it. They say in the post that it seems that Caldera's side hustle is getting in the way of doing her actual job.