By Dave Price
Daily Post Editor
Julie Lythcott-Haims should have leveled with the voters two years ago about why she left her job as a dean at Stanford following a relationship she had with an undergraduate.
According to an online essay the undergrad published last week, the young woman’s parents complained to Stanford officials about the relationship, and soon thereafter Lythcott-Haims resigned.
Nobody is saying Lythcott-Haims broke the law. Apparently, she didn’t even violate any Stanford policies about faculty having sex with students, though those rules have since been tightened up.
But her judgment is terrible. Her relationship with the female undergraduate reeks of recklessness, selfishness and an inability to control one’s impulses. As a dean, you’re supposed to be a role model to students.
A parenting expert?
The undergraduate said that when she revealed the year-long affair to her parents, they were horrified and felt Lythcott-Haims had been grooming their daughter. Lythcott-Haims writes books about parenting. What parent would trust Lythcott-Haims’ advice after learning about this sordid affair? What parent would want their child’s first romantic relationship to be with somebody twice their age?
Lythcott-Haims also erred by keeping the reason why she left Stanford a secret before the 2022 council election when she was elected. Voters had a right to know why a candidate lost a high-profile job, so they could decide if she should hold another top-level job. Council members make decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods of their constituents. Candor is part of the job of a council member.
Poor judgment
In the 2022 race, her lack of good judgment became obvious when she began to lash out at Palo Altans following her poor performance in a candidate debate. In one instance, she smeared Palo Alto Planning Commissioner Doria Summa as being associated with Jim Crow.
One of her more recent misjudgments was her decision to enter the primary for Congress. She couldn’t win but running for office can be an ego trip to some people. Unfortunately, she pulled enough Palo Alto votes to cause longtime local public servant Joe Simitian to lose to two South Bay politicians. Palo Alto has now lost its congressional seat to San Jose or Campbell.
If she can’t exercise good judgment in her personal life, she won’t make solid decisions for the public either. When it comes to public servants, character matters. Lythcott-Haims should step down from City Council.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays in the Daily Post.
Olivia’s essay was beautifully written. In the comments section a woman named Emily tells how she was targeted by Julie Lythcott-Haims. If true, this affair with Olivia wasn’t a one-off.
Agreed.
It is completely unacceptable that during Lythcott-Haims two campaigns (1 won, 1 lost) she continued to cover-up her Stanford past while making sure we knew she served in a prestigous positon as a Dean.
Instead of being honest, she engaged in a long term cover-up, profiting from her hypocritical books and speaking gigs until Olivia Haas told on her.
Voters never knew who they were voting for. Would she have been elected to Council had we known?
Misleading Palo Alto voters is serious? What to do if she won’t resign? Will Council censure her? And would that be too little, too late?
Finally, finally, finally the truth is out about the character of Julie Lythcott-Haims. Ms. Lythcott-Haims has used in news and bio’s about being a Stanford Dean for all these years, and now the truth is told. Why did Ms. Lythcott-Haims state why she was told to resign from Stanford. Ms. Lythcott-Haims is a Palo Alto city council member and why did Stanford University state in the news why Ms. Lythcott-Haims resigned from Stanford. Ms. Lythcott-Haims used being a Stanford Dean to propel her up. Very sad what Ms. Lythcott-Haims did do this young vulnerable student and Ms. Lythcott-Haims husband knew about this grooming of this woman and did nothing.
As reported by this and other news outlets, Julie Lythcott-Haims wants the rules changed to collect speaking fees, which was never the case prior for council members. A conflict of interest.
California State election commission favors changing rule to allow councilwoman to collect speaking fees
Why didn’t Stanford say anything? Her credibility was largely her Stanford Dean past and she wasn’t even allowed on the campus?
Stanford’s long and sorry history of cover-ups and blaming the victims instead of the perpetrators needs to be explored. Those officials quoted in the Stanford Daily report about the “hero dean” leaving need to be questioned and not be allowed to hide behind their “no comments.”
Their history of cover-ups goes back decades — as far back as the 70s and 80s when students were advised by their peers to report rape and other crimes directly to the police and never to Stanford security because their reports would be covered up.
All this story needs is a swimming pool, two Swedish graduate students, and everyone being black out drunk.
Who cares?
What part of two consenting adults are people missing in this story? That’s not bad judgement, that’s par for the course.
Did she wake up broke, lost, and sticky? No?
Mind the gap.
Which two consenting adults? She sure wasn’t able to consent. And because he was too drunk to sustain an erection, he penetrated her with sticks, branches, leaves and whatever else he found on the ground.
That’s what his father had the “sensitivity to describe as “15 minutes of action” and in 15 minutes one can sure shove a lot into an incapacitated person, no?
“Did she wake up broke, lost, and sticky? No? ”
I think you mean broken. Maybe you should talk to my friend the emergency ward nurse about all the debris they had to pull out of her that health care professionals feared had punctured her organs and thus would prevent her from ever having kids.
Not sure if branches, sticks and other debris are “sticky” but as for who cares, many people other than the above poster do.
Maybe he — and it could only be a male — would volunteer to have foreign objects penetrate him and report back after 15 minutes of that.
I am a feminist with a strong background in women’s studies, counseling, and human sexuality. I am known for my directness. And unlike the average feminist, I don’t automatically leap to a woman’s defense. I hold them accountable for their misdeeds. She deserves to scorned for her actions. Let’s not give her a pass.
I’ll bet that some of her supporters in the 2022 campaign knew all about this, and didn’t think her behavior was inappropriate. To them this May-December affair is perfectly ok. But they kept it secret knowing normsl people would think it’s perverted. Even if you’re a defender of hers, like Larry Klein, you’ve got to admit that keeping this secret was dishonest.
My theory: The Dean was the “Dean of Discipline.” I’ll ask the question on everyone’s mind. Did they have a BD/SM style relationship?
There’s more to this story. Ask around.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Journalists, keep digging.
It would be smart if Julie came out with the rest of the story now, rather than seeing it spill out in the local press.
JLH in her public apology praised her wonderful partner for his support. As this partner endorsed and even joked about this immoral and amoral relationship, they are both two immoral peas in the same amoral pod.