Julie Lythcott-Haims allegedly left university after her affair with undergraduate was reported to administration
byGennady Sheyner
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Before Julie Lythcott-Haims became a best-selling author, a coveted speaker and a member of the Palo Alto City Council, she had spent more than a decade at Stanford University as a dean of freshmen and associate vice provost, experiences that she occasionally recalls in her memoirs and lectures.
Her writings do not dwell on the circ*mstances of her departure from Stanford University. This week, however, a former Stanford University student published an essay that describes her prolonged affair with her college dean — a “school celebrity” who she said left Stanford shortly after her parents learned about the affair and anonymously complained to the university.
The writer, Olivia Swanson Haas, does not name Lythcott-Haims in her essay, which was published on the website Autostraddle and which is titled, “I had an Affair with my College Dean.” But the details of the affair, which took place more than a decade ago, left little doubt about the identity of the former dean. Haas described the dean as someone who completed her MFA after leaving Stanford and then published a book that became a New York Times bestseller.
When asked about the essay by this publication, Lythcott-Haims acknowledged that the story is about her and called her actions from that time “inappropriate.”
Haas, who graduated from Stanford University in 2011, described her relationship with the dean as a close friendship that turned physically intimate. It began when she was a 22-year-old senior and “the kind of young person who craved attention from powerful people.” When the relationship turned physically intimate, Haas wrote that she was “convinced I was in love and so I lived a double life.”
“It was a lot for a young person, especially in this particular collegiate environment —going through the pomp and circ*mstance of senior year, meanwhile secretly sleeping with one of the most public figures on campus,” wrote Haas, who did not respond to an inquiry from this publication.
Haas wrote that she and the dean first slept together in a rustic cabin hours south of campus. They also enjoyed getaways at a luxury hotel near the campus and a motel two miles away, she wrote. Haas had aspired at the time to be an actress and she described the dean’s attention as “like a special spotlight.”
“We told ourselves she was teaching me how to love myself, how to act on my desires,” Haas wrote. “This is what love looks like, we said, and I became adept at anticipating her desires — which I fulfilled, eagerly. She was my audience; I was her secret star.”
The affair continued after Haas graduated and moved to New York City. She continued to receive letters and poems from the dean about how much she missed her. As she juggled side gigs in Manhattan, “the potency of her desire fed my hunger to believe I was special,” Haas wrote.
“In the absence of my self-love, her attention reassured me that anxiety and financial stress were just the backstory of my character’s future triumph,” Haas wrote.
At one point, the dean flew to visit her and brought her a bouquet of irises before they traveled to a cottage upstate for the weekend. The cottage, she wrote, was “the kind of dreamy place I had only ever seen in movies.”
Haas, who had a boyfriend at the time, ultimately decided to confess her affair to him and to break off the relationship, according to the essay. She then moved back to California and told her parents about the affair.
“They were horrified,” Haas wrote. “Suddenly words like manipulated and abuse of power were being used and shame started to calcify in the parts of me that had desired her — tremendous embarrassment — as I began to see my great love story through a very different lens. I had felt like such an adult, living this beautiful, sexy adventure of intimacy and growth, swirling in a soft glow. But I told my parents and in an instant it was now closing time at a grimy bar — blinding fluorescent lights revealing makeup caked on cheeks sweaty from too many cheap shots.”
Stanford University declined to comment on the circ*mstances of Lythcott-Haims’ departure or on any other aspects of the story. When asked about the university’s policy on relationships between deans and students, Luisa Rapport, the university’s director of media relations, said in an email that Stanford’s policy “prohibits consensual relationships between undergraduates and faculty or certain staff roles, including deans, coaches, advisers and others.”
The university’s current policy, which was adopted in 2013, states that because of the “relative youth of undergraduates and their particular vulnerability in such relationships, sexual or romantic relationships between teachers and undergraduate students are prohibited — regardless of current or future academic or supervisory responsibilities for that student.”
“Because of the potential for conflict of interest, exploitation, favoritism and bias, such relationships may undermine the real or perceived integrity of the supervision and evaluation provided,” the policy states. “Further, these relationships are often less consensual than the individual whose position confers power or authority believes. In addition, circ*mstances may change, and conduct that was previously welcome may become unwelcome. Even when both parties have consented at the outset to a sexual or romantic involvement, this past consent does not remove grounds for a charge based upon subsequent unwelcome conduct.”
The prohibition on romantic relationships between professors and students also applies to deans, coaches and other senior administrators, who according to the university “have broad influence on or authority over students and their experience at Stanford.”
“For this reason, sexual or romantic relationships between such staff members and undergraduate students are prohibited,” the policy states. “Similarly, relationships between staff members and other students over whom the staff member has had or is likely in the future to have such influence or authority are prohibited.”
Haas wrote in her story that a few weeks after she told her parents about the affair, her mom told her that she had anonymously informed the university about the dean’s actions.
“As a result, the dean would be leaving,” Haas wrote. “This was profoundly upsetting because I felt, at the time, that I had ruined her life — that I was entirely responsible. Stuck in the liminal space of regret, I returned again and again to my memories with her, haunted by my own choices, still reeling from attachment withdrawals.”
Haas wrote that over the coming months, she watched Stanford officials and her peers celebrate the dean’s “commitment to authenticity and commend her bravery for pursuing this calling.”
“Meanwhile, I was drowning from the distress of ending the relationship and my own inability to launch a creative life as I hydroplaned across heartbreak and a newfound anger,” she wrote.
In communications with this publication, Lythcott-Haims did not dispute any of the details in Haas’ account, including her allegation that Lythcott-Haims left Stanford because of the anonymous complaint about the affair. She told this publication that she had departed Stanford voluntarily but declined to say whether the relationship played a role in her decision to leave the university.
In the years since the relationship ended, Haas described her shift in how she viewed the relationship. With the cultural conversation about consent shifting, she wrote that she didn’t see herself in the “clear-cut wrongness of the stories that made headlines.”
“Yes, she should have known better,” she wrote. “And yet, I had agency. She showed poor judgment. And I made poor choices. She misused her power. She made me feel beautiful. For years, I thrashed between the simplicity of right and wrong, lost in paradox, needing to cast a villain. How do you reconcile a story that exists in the gray space between love and abuse? She has done much good for many people. She did something inappropriate with me. I eagerly sought her affection. I was very young.”
She wrote that a few years ago, the dean emailed to ask for forgiveness and tell her that she’s been ashamed of her conduct.
“I shouldn’t have been in a romantic relationship with you. I shouldn’t have done any of that given my position and I am deeply sorry,” the email stated, according to Haas.
Haas wrote that she and the dean got in touch after the email and had, until recently, lived within a few miles of each other. According to her story, the dean told her that she supports her telling the story of the affair “because she knows it’s quite a thing, what happened.”
“I am sorry, too. For all the ways I have abused myself. For hurting her. I do not wish her harm,” Haas wrote.
Lythcott-Haims said in a statement to this publication that Haas’ memories and feelings about her experience in the relationship are valid.
“We’d been writing and recording music together and got to a point where we expressed love for each other. That is where it should have ended. I should not have taken it further,” Lythcott-Haims said in a statement. “While I was not in a position of authority over her grades or academic status at the university, being in a relationship with a student was inappropriate when it happened 13 years ago, and it would be inappropriate now.
“A year after the relationship started, it ended. I resigned from my position. I focused on learning from my mistakes and doing the work necessary to repair where repair was possible,” she continued.
“I apologized privately to Ms. Haas years ago. Now I want to publicly apologize to her for my actions and their impact on her. I also apologize to my former colleagues and students who had the right to expect better of me. And to members of my extended family for whom the public airing of this matter may be difficult.
I am grateful for the support of my amazing partner and our adult children, and for the grace that has been shown to me along the way.”
Gennady SheynerStaff Writer, Palo Alto Weekly / PaloAltoOnline.com
Gennady Sheyner covers local and regional politics, housing, transportation and other topics for the Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Online and their sister publications. He has won awards for his coverage...More by Gennady Sheyner
108 Comments
Very creepy to read the language of an abuser – “…she was teaching me how to love myself, how to act on my desires,” …
There were rumors going around during Lythcott-Haims city council campaign that she left Stanford under sketchy circ*mstances.
Yes she did.Log in to Reply
She was 22, an adult for many years.
Log in to Reply
No the brain is still developing. The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. Reality is Julie Lythcott-Haims was an educator and in a position of power. Just like an employer should not sexually make advances on his/her employee due to imbalance of power, an educator taking advantage of their position of power to develop and have an emotional and sexual affair with a student is completely inappropriate. This is disgusting at the very core.
Log in to Reply
Many in Palo Alto questioned why would JLH leave her cushy job. Bombshell. Her ego is massive. She used her power and is not the person she presented to constituents. I did not vote for this reckless person. Wake up people.
Log in to Reply
I did not vote for her either, she is a fraud. Nothing she said made common sense to me. People in this city wear blinders due to her position at Stanford and the fact that she is a minority. I could see past that.
Log in to Reply
Below is a url to the Stanford policy Lythcott-Haims violated at the time.
That she profits from books telling parents how to raise their kids (pub. 2015), and young people how to live is hypocritical and exploitative. I doubt she would have been elected had voters known in 2022.
Here’s a faculty member comment posted elsewhere:
JULY 11, 2024
I’ve been Stanford faculty for many years. It is true that Stanford’s sexual harassment policy did not explicitly forbid all undergrad-faculty relationships until 2013 (shortly after the relationship described above, and I suspect changed in part because of it). However, starting in 2002, there was a very notable exception: Any member of the Stanford community who was in a relationship with someone over whom they had a supervisory or evaluative role needed to disclose the relationship to the university and recuse themselves from that supervisory role (e.g. faculty or student switches out of a shared course, student changes labs, etc…). Due to the inherent nature of an undergraduate dean and associate vice provost’s responsibilities, it would have been impractical at best to recuse themselves from a supervisory role over an undergrad. So if the dean did indeed claim the relationship wasn’t in violation of university policies, she was either wrong or lying.https://stanfordmag.org/contents/new-rules-on-relationships (https://stanfordmag.org/contents/new-rules-on-relationships)
Log in to Reply
Please send this info to the male faculty and administrators at Stanford who have kept their jobs in spite of having relationships with students under their purview. This is long a known issue at Stanford and other universities, in fact even two Stanford presidents have been involved with undergrads, who have relationships with students under 22 years old. In this case, a faculty member having a relationship with a 22-year old woman, who, notably, says she is drawn to the powerful, begs the question of who pursued whom. More importantly, the application of this rule just to gay women of color, and not the white men who are similarly involved in such relationships, is wrong. Perhaps the parents were more concerned about their daughter’s sexuality than her relationships, as they convinced her the relationship was inappropriate. I stand in support of Julie Lythcott-Haims.
Log in to Reply
I’m disgusted we bought her books, and have attended her parenting talks to PAUSD parents (even up to last year) and voted for her into our City Council, as a trusted member of society. She wrote a parenting book based on her time as Dean of Stanford, all the while, she carried on an affair with a student. She is not one to speak on parenting given this glaring betrayal as educator
Log in to Reply
Ms Haas’ Moth story recounting this is also available online.
Log in to Reply
Many of the details of Ms. Lythcott-Haims separation from Stanford were leaked at the time. Those of us who knew why she left had no choice but to stay quiet out of respect for the family.
It will be interesting to see if Palo Alto believes that #metoo and abuse of power only applies to men. Ms. Lythcott-Haims has said she believes in equality, I hope she receives a great deal of equality and is forced to resign from City Council.Log in to Reply
This is not #metoo nor close to it.
Log in to Reply
Since Stanford did nothing to punish this breach, she went on to preach to parents about how to raise their children. She is a predator and she needs to resign from the Palo Alto City Council and quit capitalizing off her behavior and false facade,
Log in to Reply
Your comment is slanderous. She’s not a predator, nor do any of the facts support this conclusion. Words matter.
Log in to Reply
The victim here literally says that JLH was “grooming” her.
I struggle to understand how JLH, then in her mid-40s and extremely well-versed in feminist ideology, could not understand how this is ripe for abuse. JLH was a star on campus and literally twice the victim’s age. This was a student, barely out of her teen years, who had never even had a relationship with a woman before.
And JLH *knew*. She knew the issues. She knew it’s extremely problematic. She knew it creates an awfully blurry area with consent. And she did it anyway.
Log in to Reply
It is a truthful comment- and judging from all your comments you are someone close to her trying to damage control. And it would be naïve to think this is the first time she did this.
Log in to Reply
BTW- I voted for JLH and urged my neighbors to vote for her. And I would definitely feel the same if this were a male Stanford faculty member.
Log in to Reply
I don’t even know her. I am a native to Palo Alto and I live here, but I’m not interested in local politics. I am wary of those who want to take any civil servant down.
Log in to Reply
perhaps the question you should be asking is why would anyone who voted for her continue to support someone being in a position of power again on the city council making decisions for families who reside in a city, given she already betrayed her trust as educator and dean at a higher education/institution.
How much ego must one have to then go and write a book on her Dean experience when she was fired from her post, because of her betrayal at manipulating a student and using her position of power to abuse a student? The imbalance of power means it was an abuse of a student. Perhaps it took the student 11 years to publish her story, but time doesn’t erase the horror of what she did. She needs to step down and resign.
This story seems a little dramatic. Lythcott-Haims did break Stanford’s rules because she couldn’t “recuse herself” from her relevant duties and probably shouldn’t have dated an undergraduate at all given her role, but that seems like the extent of her wrongdoing. Aside from those facts, A 44-year old woman can choose to have a consensual relationship with a 22-year old college student. I don’t agree that “yucky feelings” afterward constitute a reason to smear someone. I like Julie and her politics and will still vote for her if she continues to run.
Log in to Reply
“Local Wisdom” appears to be an oxymoron (at least the wisdom part) if someone is willing to vote for a groomer (as stated by the victim) and sexual predator who abuses their power over young impressionable students. Sad that we have people in this town who will vote for an abusive sexual predator.
See AlsoMiwok, Stanford’s monumental outdoor sculpture by di Suvero, moves to a new home – Stanford ArtsStanford Dean's Letter Is Great, but Disrupters Should Be PunishedStanford Names Business School Dean Jonathan Levin Its New PresidentKathleen Sullivan: Stanford's new law dean - Harvard Law SchoolLog in to Reply
I think there should also be an apology to the Voters in Anna Eshoo’s district. Had this candidate been transparent about these events, it’s quite possible she might not have run nor siphoned as many votes off other candidats (esp. Joe Simitian). All because of one’s ego 🙁
Log in to Reply
She’s a gifted educator who had a consensual romantic relationship with a 22-year old adult.
Log in to Reply
Have you taken classes from her?
Log in to Reply
Do you believe all our city council members are driven by ego? If JLH is the only one, perhaps you should look at what drives this believe of yours so selectively.
Log in to Reply
I wouldn’t care less about PA CC (not my town 🙂 ). In this case her ego drove her decision to view her relationship has no big deal and not worthy of noticing to the voters.. I din’t vote for her in the first place but folks who have in the House race deserved to be informed (and make their own judgment as adults).
Log in to Reply
I believe anyone who runs for any office by nature has confidence, this doesn’t constitute ego unless all our CC are driven by ego.
Log in to Reply
I agree with SRB above. Lythcott-Haims was running to be our U.S. Representative. Imagine if she had won and then this bombshell came out. That’s the last distraction the Dems need in Congress next year.
Log in to Reply
Just wait for Newsom’s past to catch up with him. JLH is not a threat to our Democracy.
Log in to Reply
“. I don’t agree that “yucky feelings” afterward constitute a reason to smear someone. ..”
Not sure about that. I have “yucky feelings” about JHL’s willingness to smear people and groups falsely and with no apology after caught — hardly a model for parenting or civil service.
I’m specifically referring to when she falsely accused another CC candidate of being a racist and perpetuating Jim Crow policies, her neighbors of being racist, and PASZ of “being the loudest voice in the room” — a truly laughable claim since its funding is a drop in the bucket vs YIMBY (a global organization), PAF, Peninsula For Everyone, etc etc. — all of which JHL well knows because it’s been documented and reported.
As a first–time candidate her political contributions were by far the largest in absolute dollars from deep-pocketed organized groups and from deep-pocketed backers based outside Palo Alto.
And who can forget her saturation ad campaign from “shadow” groups claiming to have no relationship to the candidates featured (except for the first series before they went back into the shadow so we really know who they are/were).
She ran for US Congress as an inexperienced freshman CITY Council member knowing she had no chance of winning and thus sabotaging Joe Simitian who has been a truly dedicated civil servant to this community for decades leaving us with 2 candidates who don’t care about Palo Alto.
Log in to Reply
A black woman is exactly who should be calling out racism on the part of city officials. Our community benefits from real conversations about the disenfranchisem*nt of people of color, and the latent beliefs that cause it.
Log in to Reply
Sure but only if the accusations are true.
By the same token, should only accountants comment on laughably false lies about funding when any fool can look up who the best-funded lobbyists are?
Lying is lying regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc.
Log in to Reply
On the contrary, she has notably not lied.
Log in to Reply
Agree 100. A grifter. At many other people’s expense.
First, I applaud Olivia Swanson Haas for her bravery in telling her story. The world thanks you for revealing the truth.
Second, Soooo many obvious issues and ugliness in this very creepy story. Julie groomed and took advantage of an undergraduate student as a Stanford Dean, clearly violating Stanford policy. Just wow. Olivia’s parents must’ve been horrified they were paying quarter a million dollars for their kid to have this experience at Stanford! Then Julie continued preaching to unsuspecting parents, many who fawned over her on her Talk Show circuit, about how to “raise an adult” when she herself did not behave like an ethical adult abusing her power by having a sexual relationship with someone’s college kid 20 years her junior! As the commenters above state, Julie was known for (and documented) hurling insults at other people when she herself had plenty of skeletons in her closet that clearly would’ve stopped her political aspirations before they got started. The list goes on and on.
As someone who went to university with Julie, and interacted with her personally, I was well aware of her ego (and other issues) and never voted for her. I tried to warn other people that things were not what they seemed. Sadly, because so many people in Palo Alto are driven by identity politics, fundraisers and supporters were duped (or willfully ignored clear red flags) and voted for her anyway. I hate to say I told you so, but wow was I vindicated. It will be interesting to see how City Council handles a groomer and sexual predator who took the place of basically anyone else who could’ve represented Palo Alto voters in a transparent, honest, ethical manner.
Lastly, the fact that Julie with next to zero public service experience and mostly experience as a “climber”, personally sabotaged Joe Simitian’s campaign, a longtime dedicated public servant, siphoning off fundraising support and votes from him, is unconscionable.
Time for Julie to step down. PA City Council deserves better.
Log in to Reply
What we really need is a council prepared to deny the interests of developers in favor of the citizenry.
Log in to Reply
PA c. 1976…“She’s a gifted educator who had a consensual romantic relationship with a 22-year old adult.”
JLH is a good person, and is flawed like the rest of us. Despite your comment, this is indeed close to the #metoo cases where a power/Influence differential was abused. She broke the rules of the university and was caught, so don’t negate that with your statement. It does shed light on her character as a professional and as a role model/parent, and as someone who kept the silence for so long, but no doubt she has learned and improved since then. Glad it is out in the open so all those involved can put it behind them.
Log in to Reply
I disagree that #metoo is about abuse of power, in that every woman would then be a #metoo. Every man, too. #metoo is about gender equality and sexual threat and violence.
Log in to Reply
the #metoo is about abuse of power where someone in position of power (this is not exclusively limited to men) uses their position of power, to sexually harass or sexually abuse women (who are in a lower position of power).
Just because you’re a woman who is black doesn’t mean you’re given a pass for abusing your position of power to sexually manipulate and abuse a woman in lower position of power.You can blow as much smoke up our skirts, but Palo Altans are smarter than the smoke and gas lighting you’re trying to do. JLH is the very essence of what the #metoo movement is about, and she should not be in public service.
Log in to Reply
This is so disgusting; she needs to be recalled. Grooming behavior like this is never appropriate.
Log in to Reply
The relationship was not grooming, that is a misunderstanding of the word. Grooming involves children.
Log in to Reply
Whatever the circ*mstances and history of this story, and how it became known now, a major difference from other “celebrities and public officials” is that the response has not been: “deny, deny, deny” but an open acknowledgment of what occurred. Judgments about it are up to individual views but her willingness to speak about it is quite unusual.
Log in to Reply
That’s true. Of course, she is *far* more educated on what to say, so I’d expect a better response. She is ALSO far more educated on why this is an abuse of power and blurs consent. Yet, she did it anyway.
The reality is that this student was vulnerable and JLH knew it. She did it anyway.
Log in to Reply
Agree
Log in to Reply
“JLH is a good person, and is flawed like the rest of us. Despite your comment, … It does shed light on her character as a professional and as a role model/parent. Glad it is out in the open so all those involved can put it behind them.”
Re role model/parent, since when do role models/parents find ego-centrism and lies to be ideal behavior??
As a Harvard-trained attorney she knew what the rules were re CC outside income before she ran but later demanded an exception be made after the fact just for her.
Her entitled demands for preferential treatment and fact-free attacks speak volumes about her personal character and approach to policy-making.
Log in to Reply
Palo Alto City Council is an unpaid position, and all CV members have careers, except those with the resources to mot work. This is by design, though we could pay them.
Log in to Reply
Please excuse typos.
Log in to Reply
Online Name….you misinterpreted what I meant. ” It does shed light on her character as a professional and as a role model/parent. ” relates to her not being professional and not being the best role model she could be.
Log in to Reply
Apologies for the misinterpretation. I was surprised at all the comments where her backers were urging us to ignore everything because her policies are justification enough for their continued support and jumped the gun.
Log in to Reply
If you’re referring to me, I’m neither a supporter nor affiliated with her campaigns.
Log in to Reply
I missed that chapter in her book (How to Raise an Adult) explaining how to prepare your daughter to be groomed for sexual exploitation by older adults.
Log in to Reply
A 22-year old can’t be groomed, as grooming refers to those underaged and pursued by adults for sexual relationships
Log in to Reply
You’re 100 percent wrong. Adults can be groomed, especially vulnerable adults. Just google it. Grooming can happen when there is a power differential within a relationship, which the abuser exploits for their own gratification. Grooming is a form of abuse that involves manipulating someone to make them more vulnerable to exploitation. It can happen in person or online, and can involve romantic partners, friends, family, employers, co-workers, or anyone else you have a relationship with. Groomers use a variety of tactics to gain access to people, build trust, and gain control over them. These tactics can include:
•Manipulation: Flattery, compliments, gifts, lies, threats, or coercion
•Isolation: Keeping victims away from others they trust
•Online grooming: Also known as “catfishing”, this involves creating fake profiles and pretending to be someone else
Grooming can lead to physical and sexual abuse, emotional manipulation, financial abuse, or radicalization. It can start out feeling special and intoxicating, but can make victims feel trapped and unable to leave.
Some signs of grooming in adults include:
•Withdrawing or seeming troubled
•Volatile emotions
•Using or wearing something new
•Spending more time on the phone or online
•Talking about a new “friend”, “boyfriend”, or “girlfriend”Log in to Reply
Can’t wait to read JLH’s next book, “All is forgiven in the name of love.”
Log in to Reply
JLH has a character flaw. She basked in the adoration of the magi gaze from her lover knowing full well the affair was inappropriate. CC member JLH attacked Doria Summa accusing the planning commissioner of being a Jim Crow racist in the campaign. She is a bully. JLH has no emotional intelligence or respect for boundaries. She thought the cachet from Stanford and success as an author would keep her status intact. Now her house of cards is blowing up in a Sirocco but this hot wind does not come from the Mediterranean. Her fall from grace was self inflicted. Many voters wondered why would JLH leave her Stanford position with high salary and status? They felt there had to be a shadow on her departure but did not know the circs. Now we know.
Log in to Reply
We all have character flaws, you and me included.
.Log in to Reply
There is no house of cards. We are a society who loves to demonize others without looking at our own flaws and poor decisions.
Log in to Reply
Unbelievable comment! JLH had a sexual relationship with a student, it’s abuse of power, yet you sweep it under the rug? Another book smart liberal; you people amaze me. I was never impressed with JLH, she didn’t get my vote. Her book claims parents should allow their children to fail so they learn. Yet, how many Stanford students were allowed to fail? They wouldn’t be at Stanford if they were allowed to fail. That advice is a conflict of interest and bad parenting advice. I was in a group Zoom call with JLH serving in her City Council position and she started picking her nose. I was appalled, did she not remember she was on camera? She should be removed from office, although I’m not holding my breath.
Log in to Reply
The fact that someone who turns 18 is considered an adult is wrong and this shows exactly why. Hertz, Avis, etc. don’t allow someone to drive a rental car until 25 for good reason.
The law says 18 is considered adulthood leads to abuse of various kinds. Many 18 year olds are still in high school. Many 18 year olds have never had a job. Many 18 year olds cannot function without their parents assistance.
At 22 very few of us can consider ourselves mature, with very few life experiences and to a large extent very few opportunities for personal growth. Independence is not maturity. Experience is developed over time. Brains are not fully developed at 18, or 22. Anyone under 25 is still maturing.
Log in to Reply
Car companies won’t rent to those under 25 for their own self-interest, I.e. insurance premiums would be excessive. It’s strictly business. The difference in maturity between 18 and 22 is vast.
Log in to Reply
OK, our brains aren’t fully developed at 22. OK, JLH did a really stupid thing. That said, why has Haas waited 13 years to publish her story? A late vendetta? A need for publicity?
She only makes herself look bad, first at 22 (when she really should have known better, even if her brain wasn’t fully developed) and now at 35, because her florid prose sounds like something out of a True Confessions magazine: “In the absence of my self-love, her attention reassured me that anxiety and financial stress were just the backstory of my character’s future triumph.”
Log in to Reply
Romance novelist wannabe came to mind as soon as I read her “florid” prose. That being said, there were many things about JLH that made me think opportunistic as soon as she started her CC campaign. A complete turn off for me.
Log in to Reply
Blaming the victim for not coming forth sooner, really? It was not a stupid thing JLH did, it was unethical and violated Stanford policies.
Log in to Reply
I can’t believe it. I heard her speak after she published her book trying to teach us how to educate our kids.
It is true that we all have flaws, but if you have skeletons in your closet than don’t play the morale preacher on so many issues.
Is there a way to recall her? What is the procedure? She has lost any credibility in my eyes.Log in to Reply
To recall someone after an election, signatures need to be collected and a recall election done. This cost taxpayers tremendous amounts of money.
But it would take someone of wisdom, sound judgement and true altruistic nature to do what is best in public service. When a politician grabs the reigns of power for their own ego, hubris and ambition, then good luck trying to remove them power
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/recalls/recall-procedures-guide.pdf
Log in to Reply
Love the hypocrisy of telling other parents how to raise their children. I feel sorry for her kids.
Log in to Reply
Residents should expect moral behavior and character in council members. She should resign but if does not Council should censure her and remove her from any committees or other responsibilities. It was an abuse of power. It was quit or be fired.
I urge readers to imagine this story if one of the male council members did this – what would the reaction be? We have the right to expect more from our leaders. We had an ARB member resign over an issue with a flower pot at an abandoned house. This is a much more serious issue. Just because the federal level of government has changed doesn’t mean we should accept things like this at the local level.
Log in to Reply
A 44-year old man having a relationship with a 22-year old woman is hardly even remarkable, here or anywhere.
Log in to Reply
I assume she will advertise/write a new book about this exploitive relationship, and that it was a positive learning experience allowing her to evolve to a better human being.
Log in to Reply
I am shocked! A politician with something sexual in their past! Who would have thought?
Log in to Reply
The Haas family is a long standing Family in California history. They have contributed to many of the great pieces of societal enjoyment in the city- Art and Museums. I suspect that there is more to the story here concerning predator relationships. Very unsettling.
Log in to Reply
Where is the moral compass? How can you hold yourself to such a high public standard while leasing a double life. Abuse of power on college campuses has traditionally been a problem for older men with female students. It’s so disappointing. This was not a small error of judgment. This was grooming, taking advantage of a student, and just plain wrong. Stanford, this a big stain on your reputation. Julie Lythcott Haims, how will you spin this for your next book?
Log in to Reply
In her blog JLH just admitted the affair, yet maintains it didn’t violate policy because she didn’t have a supervisory role over Haas. Not so.
Given she was Dean of Freshman Students, Dean of Undergrads, and Assoc Vice Provost, she had a broad supervisory role over undergrad students including Haas. She further violated the policy by not notifying Administration as required that she was having sex with an undergrad.
Lythcott-Haims wants us to think she’s now being candid and taken responsibility, but she has not, given her slight-of-hand trying to convince us she didn’t violate policy (she did) in order to minimize her culpability.
The affair lasted a year, ended by Haas, not JLH, after the complaint was filed in 2012. JLH then left Stanford supposedly to get a mfa, though Stanford has a renown mfa writing program – why not just get it there? Because given the timing it seems Stanford took action on the complaint and showed her the door.
Staying closeted until her 2022 campaign for city council (when in Palo Alto it could get her more votes) is hardly a a good example of honesty or transparency for young people or anyone else.
For someone whose brand is candid transparency, this cover-up is neither and utterly self-serving.
Log in to Reply
I wouldn’t refer to a gay person as being “closeted” for anything other than not coming out about their sexuality. This is latent bias.
Log in to Reply
Do you assume that because you weren’t aware of her sexuality before 2022 that she was closeted? She was not.
Log in to Reply
“Dean Julie” was indeed a beloved figure on campus… and she was Dean of FRESHMEN—the administrator who met with parents and families at the start of orientation weekend and assured them, in essence, “you can trust me with your kids.” For many of us who were away from home for the first time, she was a quasi-parental figure. Regardless of Stanford’s rules (or lack thereof) at the time, this was absolutely an abuse of power, and it was wrong.
I give JLH credit for acknowledging that and for apologizing directly to Olivia Haas. But I am still angry at this betrayal of trust by a public figure that I’ve voted for and admired. And as the comments on this piece make unfortunately clear, the folks who oppose her political stances will be using this to make hay for a long time. As objectionable as I find their opportunistic behavior, I’m also frustrated at JLH for hurting the worthy causes she has championed with her irresponsible behavior. To have run for Congress with this skeleton peeking out of the closet was the height of hubris—and surely contributed to the undesirable choices the voters in CA16 currently face. And to have spent the last two decades building a career as an authority on how to support and empower young adults demonstrates to me a lack of self-awareness and a fundamental selfishness. To let people come to depend on and look up to you—to encourage and invite that—when you know that you have and will let them down… I am deeply shaken, saddened, and upset by this revelation.
Log in to Reply
JLH was a beloved figure on campus precisely because she championed young people and encouraged them to find their own path. She’s admitted to wrong doing. She didn’t violate any policies, rules or laws. Olivia was not a child.
Who among you commenters don’t have skeletons in your closet or haven’t done things inappropriate. Does this make you less capable or qualified to do your job?
And regarding running for Congress. She didn’t take big money. She ran a grass roots campaign funded by individual donors who believed in her ability to get things done in Congress. Does who we sleep with consensually inhibit our ability to get sh*t done and rally around what is right in how people are treated and what rights people have? She also didn’t even come close to winning and didn’t have anything to do with the choices that remain. Those were voter decisions.
Millions of parents, children and families have benefitted from her vast knowledge and expertise. None of this negates that. Her willingness to admit and take responsibility for her actions is an admirable trait.Log in to Reply
Yes. JHL checked the Stanford policies which said “faculty and staff” shouldn’t engage in relationships with undergrads and consciously decided “staff” didn’t apply to her.
After the girl’s mother reported this to Stanford and JHL was forced out, they explicitly added the word “deans” so it read “faculty, staff and deans.”
As Haas wrote, they hid their relationship because they both knew she could get fired for violating school policies and JHL — a Harvard-educated lawyer — decided the rules didn’t apply to her just as decided the Fair Political Practices regs re CC candidates didn’t apply to her **before** she launched her campaign and then filed suit to negotiate an exemption.
I would have loved to watch her Stanford negotiations where she got them to say she left to devote herself to her Creative Writing passion and get her MFA — shades of the old “leaving to spend more time with the family and stamp collection.”
Log in to Reply
so strange. At Stanford, you’re either faculty or staff. Dean would technically be “staff” if they are not faculty. Crazy JLH would think the law doesn’t apply to her. That is a bit narcissistic to think common rules and laws don’t apply to her.
Log in to Reply
Absolutely disgusting. And to think I read her book and voted for her!! Definitely an abuse of her power and influence on this young woman’s life. Yes, she was an adult at 22, but clearly Julie used her position to get closer to this student. I read the essay and was even more shocked at Julie’s family dynamics with her husband supposedly accepting this. For those of you that say this is none of our business, well, it is because she is out there claiming to be an expert on how to raise children to be adults… Again, disgusting and morally reprehensible.
Log in to Reply
Who paid for the “rustic cabin on a coastal mountain road hours south of campus” where the two slept together for the first time, when Haas was a Stanford undergraduate and Stanford admissions associate and Lythcott-Haims was Stanford’s dean of freshman and Stanford’s dean of undergraduate advising?
Log in to Reply
For those who want to see what Ms Haas has to say in her own words – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh-3tXVidYM. Maybe this kind of thing would be acceptable to a past generation, but we’ve gotten to a point as a society where it’s no longer acceptable regardless of gender. The article in the post today was interesting in who they had commenting. Larry Klein and Liz Kniss, who are clearly from that prior generation, just hemmed and hawed. Klein focused on legality rather than ethic standards. LaDoris Cordell was clear, saying she was disapponted and expected better. And that’s really what the crux – what kind of leaders should we expect to have.
Log in to Reply
LeDoris is correct.
Log in to Reply
Does JLH thinks she gets a free pass because she is 1) black or 2) female?
It’s sickening to think she not only posed herself as an “expert” on parenting and raising functional adults (when she was in the active act of damaging a young woman and manipulating her for her own emotional and sexual needs), but to think JLH then took public money to run a campaign election where we voted her in, so she could sit on various mental health committees for youth for the City of Palo Alto, is a slap in the face to parents and youth alike.Who does she think she is that the law doesn’t apply to her?
Log in to Reply
“The article in the post today was interesting in who they had commenting. Larry Klein and Liz Kniss, who are clearly from that prior generation, just hemmed and hawed. ”
Actually Liz Kniss did more than that when she said, “Former Mayor Liz Kniss said that she is waiting to see how Lythcott-Haims responds, or if more stories will come out.
“Right now, I feel like I’ve just started to peel the egg and haven’t seen what’s on the inside yet,” Kniss said. “No one has said anything more than sort of like, ‘OMG.’””
So one could well respond:
OMG, MS Kniss, did you miss the meat of the online comments in the same way you missed Palo Alto’s traffic problems?? OMG, we know what’s inside and that your “values” are showing.
@Palo Alto Voter nailed it saying “And that’s really what the crux – what kind of leaders should we expect to have.”
Log in to Reply
And violated Title 9.
Log in to Reply
While it was between two adults, it is definitely unethical considering that JLH was married at that time. The 22 year old while an adult was probably enamored by the star dean. JLH should have known better than to engage with this student. It reeks of exploitation, power imbalance and is Stanford’s own version of the Clinton Lewinsky affair. As an aside and as a parent myself, I view all these so called parenting experts with a lot of skepticism and distrust.
Log in to Reply
She had an affair with an undergraduate while in a paid position (and a position of trust) at Stanford. Doesn’t matter the student was 22. She shouldn’t have been allowed to just resign/separate from Stanford. This is disgusting, unprofessional behavior and no, “everyone” dies NOT do this and there should be consequences.
At a minimum, do NOT vote for Ms. Lythcott-Haimes for any political office.
I am sorry she is currently onthe Palo Alto City Council
Ethics, anyone…?Log in to Reply
I agree with SRB’s comments above: she may well have cost Joe Smitian the election. Which is a damn shame.
I voted for JLH and she’s probably the City Council member whose views most closely resemble mine on the big issues. It pains me to say it but she needs to resign.
Log in to Reply
I voted for JLH and she’s the City Council member whose views on the big issues most closely mirror my views. Even so, I feel strongly she needs to resign.
(And also, I agree with SRB’s comments above – she may well have cost Joe Smitian the election. Which is a damn shame.)
Log in to Reply
Agree with all of this. As an old timer who has seen his work, I voted for Simitian, and I hope he continues seeking higher office.
Log in to Reply
I was told by good authority that Title 9 violations (here) come with a 10-year ban from Stanford campus. That ban was applied to JLH when she resigned.
Log in to Reply
A 22-year-old woman (Olivia Swanson Haas) is taken advantage of. A 44-year-old Stanford Dean of Freshman (Lythcott-Haims) engages in an ongoing abuse of power. And gets a pass.
A 22-year-old woman gets blind drunk and is taken advantage of (Chanel Miller). But a 19 year old Freshman (Brock Turner) gets the book thrown at him, for one drunk indiscretion.
All these women elide responsibility for what happened. But the one young male, along with Judge Aaron Perkins, get their lives destroyed.
Log in to Reply
The Brock Turner case has always troubled me. His “victim” a 22-year old woman who already started drinking significantly before she even left her own house, then continued drinking strongly at the party where she and Brock met, then a major gap of information as to how the two went outside together, and then the rape.
I have always felt that the woman was equally guilty of the situation, but in the public eye, the 19-year old young male student became the one who committed this evil.
She was Eve; he was Adam!
Log in to Reply
She was unconscious and unable to give consent. He knew she was unconscious. This is lack of consent. Yikes.
Log in to Reply
Brock Turner raped Chanel Miller. This could not be more different. It’s illegal to have sex with someone who cannot consent. Get educated and shut up, you fool. – Rape Survivor
Log in to Reply
Just for the record, by the laws on the books at the time, Turner committed sexual assault, not rape.
And I agree it’s weird consuming alcohol to the point of blackout excuses women’s behavior but not men’s.
Log in to Reply
Brock Turner raped Chanel Miller. This could not be more different. It’s illegal to have sex with someone who cannot consent. Get educated and shut up, you fool. – Rape Survivor
Log in to Reply
it’s ironic. Judge Perkins didn’t have inappropriate sexual power relationships with people under him, that he was to mentor and guide. He didn’t manipulate and groom a young women while in a position of power, to serving his sexual and emotional needs. JLH did that, but she gets a pass because she is a black woman? She gets to write a book on raising young adults, speak at parenting talks on how to raise children, teens and young adults? She gets to sell a book and become a NYT best selling author? She gets to serve on city council and sit on various committees that affect youth mental health and wellness?
Oh the irony is so deep it’s laughable.
Log in to Reply
Ask yourself how the public would be reacting if it had been a 44-year-old male Dean. They’d have his head on a stick right now.
Another thing remains undiscussed. Perhaps you would agree that Haas was batting her eyelashes at the Dean.
Take-away: confirms that (all 3) women bear no responsibility whatsoever for their actions.
Meanwhile, Dauber papers this incident over with platitudes.
The important thing is to minimize any damage to Stanford’s brand, and endowment.
Log in to Reply
I am not at all impressed with JLH’s reply to the essay – she makes it sound like she chose to leave and reflect and grow and atone, vs. being forced out for inappropriate behavior. A little revisionist history there to make herself sound more noble and less… caught.
There are other posts that have come up on the original essay, and some quickly been pulled back down, from other female students of the time suggesting the same dean connected to them in ways that felt like they could be inappropriate and that felt off (invitations to hikes, lunch etc. after multiple meetings, extra attention) – not saying that is necessarily problematic but it does raise the possibility this type of relationship was not a one-off. We don’t know, but as with generations of power imbalanced relationships, they are sometimes part of a pattern.
Log in to Reply
I feel very sad about this whole situation.
Both human beings have good qualities and good minds. Lesbian relationships…no problem; age differences…no problem.
I am absolutely sure Ms. Lythcott-Haims knew she was wrong in feeding her relationship with Ms. Haas. But like Adam and Eve in paradise, she could not fight against her own strong desires. That does not excuse her at all from this wrong doing.
As humans we can make terrible mistakes if the situation presents itself. We all need to look at ourselves and understand our own weaknesses before we judge others.
Log in to Reply
you’re forgetting the glaring fact of the complete imbalance of power dynamics. That is why people in higher power who are counseling people that trust them should not be starting intimate physical sexual relationships with them.
It is not about gender or age gap. This is about power imbalance. A trusted educator in a position of trust as Dean of Stanford, broke the trust she was given and used that position to start a relationship with a student. That is a problem. That is grooming.
There is no Palo Alto parent who has a kid entering college, that will approve of any educator in a position of power over their child, approve of a sexual relationship between their child and the educator.
Then to continue it throughout her year at Stanford?
Freshman year is such a vulnerable year for students.Something is seriously wrong with JLH to have the hubris to think she is the go-to authority on “how to raise an adult” .. perhaps narcissistic is the word we are grappling with.
How many people did she fool into buying her book, while peddling her job position as “former Dean of Stanford incoming Freshmen” as the her reason for being the authority on life in raising adults? All the speaking engagements she did, all the paid speaking engagements she did.. peddling her 2 cents.
Log in to Reply
None of the articles on this topic mention that Lythcott-Haims served as Special Assistant to University President John Hennessey before becoming Dean of Students. Another reason for Stanford maintaining a hypocritical silence on her departure.
Log in to Reply
Yes, it’s totally hypocritical that Stanford allowed Julie to leave quietly, and she was not publically outed or fired (unless that was at the victim’s or her parents’ request). The previous Univ of Mich President had a relationship with a subordinate staff member and was publically pillaried, nationally and internationally, and lost his job in the most dramatic fashion even though they were “consenting adults”. Was Stanford’s double standard allowing a DEAN with power over undergraduates who was a sexual predator to leave “quietly” because she is a woman and a minority? Based on that action, it appears Stanford protects groomers and sexual predators who “don’t fit the narrative”. I’m sure Julie’s next book will present all kinds of sick excuses. Narcissists like Julie are dangerous to those they groom and society in general. To all the Julie apologists, there are consequences in life, and it’s her turn to experience consequences for her actions.
Log in to Reply
I wonder if Stanford did a thorough audit on JLH’s time at Stanford to see if she had any other inappropriate relationships with other students? Or was Stanford more than too quick to close the book and chapter on JLH and let her off the hook easily?
For that matter, you have to wonder, with all the youth committees JLH has been involved in thus far as city council member, how many more youth activities and youth JLH has groomed relationships with youth or young women beneath her? How many more women have been affected.
Usually sexual predators who prey on people younger or more powerless than themselves, often have a pattern, and she really should be audited. It’s unconscionable for the City of Palo Alto to allow JLH to continue working as a city councillor.
Sexual predators who groom people for their own sexual needs continue to do this and it’s an isolated incident… it’s just the first time we are hearing about it. And usually, sexual predators tend to involve themselves in volunteer work where young people are found in abudance.
Log in to Reply
JLH presented to Palo Altans and the world with Stanford’s blessing a false narrative. Would JLH have been elected to city council if her scandal was known? Would she have had the hubris to run for congress if her secret and Stanford’s deal were known? Given her narcissistic nature she probably would have done. She operates in her own universe according to her rules. A Harvard graduate of law then chooses to run for city council crying foul re: FPPC rules. She felt she is EXCEPTIONAL unlike all politicians in the state of CA who must adhere to the rules. Did JLH run on a whim or did the Kniss pro developer faction propose her run for council? Her ego said affirmative even though she had no public service experience in our city. She stated at the last forum that she did not know that Palo Alto has an airport. Then Kniss mentored her mentee in getting a lawyer re: FPPC case as Kniss was only too familar with her own violation of campaign ethics. Now Kniss is still trying to figure out if anything was amiss with JLH’s betrayal. JLH not satisfied with her role as a city council member ran for congress. Again, no one except Stanford, the lover, the lover’s parents and a small cadre knew of JLH’s unprofessional and egregious behavior. Not only was she not ready to serve on the council but certainly she was absurdly posturing to be a candidate for congress. Her selfish and bold action has played a role in preventing the honorable Santa Clara County Supervisor for District 5 Joe Simitian from gaining a place on the ballot in November.
JLH’s parents paid off her credit card debts when she was in school and tried to teach her to live within her limits. There are grave consequences for unethical behaviour. Once one’s reputation is stained it is hard to repair.Log in to Reply
There are many comments that are right on so I won’t add to the general feeling of hypocrisy and failure of trust,but I have to comment on the writing that exposed the relationship. I know it is not PA Online or the NYT author, but the Stanford student’s words: “it was now closing time at a grimy bar — blinding fluorescent lights revealing makeup caked on cheeks sweaty from too many cheap shots.” It is only missing,”Suddenly, a shot rang out.,”
Log in to Reply
She has paraded herself as an educator who is teaching us how to raise our children and now serving in a selfless role as a public servant. No one who has groomed a child or youth, and betrayed their duty as an educator not to abuse their position of power for their own sexual and emotional purposes should ever be in a position making decisions on city council. She should resign now. The City of Palo Alto should not tolerate someone who has groomed and had an affair with a student, while being in a position of educator. This is absolutely disgusting.
Log in to Reply
so Lyidia Kou instead of saying JLH should resign and demanding she resign because she betrayed public trust and lacked serious judgement, and even worked on Youth committees as City Council members (including mental health for youth – even all the while showing JLHs lacked judgement when it came to mental health and youth by grooming a young woman for her own personal sexual needs)…. Lydia Kou wants Palo Alto voters to spend money and do a public recall effort to get JLH to resign?
Get real. At this point, not only should JLH resign, but every Council who doesn’t have the backbone to represent the Palo Altan voter who has been betrayed by JLH, and supports JLH should resign along with her.
Every single council person who doesn’t demand JLH resign, should also resign. And Palo Altans should remember who supports JLH on city council and never vote those people back in. Ever. They do not deserve a single iota of our vote any longer or loyalty.
Start with Greer Stone and he should resign. While recalling JLH, we should also recall the Mayor of Palo Alto who doesn’t have the spine or backbone to do what is required of true leadership.
Log in to Reply
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
