They are damned lucky their charter wasn't pulled by the University or their National. Here is a bit more of the story as reported Jan 12. I can't believe that the Tri Delta
Chapter Risk Manager planned this little party
I am incensed, but not that surprised, that the football players involved have had no charges brought against them to date.
STANFORD DAILY - January 12, 2004
Seven plead no contest in Tri-Delt incident
By Michael Miller & Shirin Sharif
Desk Editor , Desk Editor
Monday, January 12, 2004
Seven Stanford students pleaded no contest on Friday to a misdemeanor charge of providing alcohol to minors in a case that sparked a University investigation into the Delta Delta Delta sorority. The sorority chapter has been placed on temporary suspension, pending the University’s findings.
The charge resulted from a police investigation that looked into hazing, sexual assault and providing alcohol to minors during a Big Sister/ Little Sister pledge event on May 7, 2003. No other charges were filed. At the event, four freshman football players hosted a power hour, where four sorority pledges drank a shot of beer every minute for an hour, according to the police report. The alcohol was purchased by five sorority members.
According to the police, the football players, Julian Jenkins, Marcus McCutcheon, Terrall “T.J.” Rushing and Gerald Commissiong, picked up the four girls that night and took them to Jenkins’ room in Larkin. There, behind a closed door, the four girls drank for an hour and danced for a few minutes before going to the restroom to throw up.
A week later, police received a call from one of the girls who alleged that she was coerced into sexual acts later that night, while the other three girls were still in the restroom. A police investigation into the charges continued, and the Santa Clara County District Attorney decided to charge all suspects with providing alcohol to minors.
“Sometimes there are different levels of responsibility,” said Supervising Deputy District Attorney Jay Boyarsky. “Sometimes it’s most fair to pick a charge or a crime that everyone committed.” The football players served the alcohol and the sorority members assisted in transporting and purchasing the alcohol, according to the police report.
“This doesn’t mean there may not have been other acts or things that occurred that night that were obnoxious or disappointing or frightening or bad in many ways,” Boyarsky said. “This is not a question of do we think it happened, it has to be: Can we prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?”
The sorority members charged in the case were [names removed as requested]. [Name removed as requested] was identified as the risk manager for the sorority in the police report, though there were no alcohol monitors at the Big Sister/ Little Sister event because big sisters were supposed to be anonymous to their little sisters.
[Names removed as requested] declined to comment when reached by phone. The other students charged could not be reached.
The University is continuing a separate investigation into the Tri-Delt incident and may come to different conclusions. According to a sorority statement, Tri-Delt will be reviewed for possible violations of the alcohol and health and safety policies of the University and the executive board policies of Tri-Delt. The University has assigned its own investigator to the case, which will be brought to the Organizational Conduct Board in the next few weeks.
The current temporary suspension that has been placed on the sorority prohibits any gatherings in the house of more than five people with alcohol present.
According to Assistant Athletic Director Gary Migdol, the Athletic Department has imposed no penalties against the football players.
The no contest pleas, which came after a few hours of discussion among the many lawyers in the case, are equivalent to guilty pleas according to Boyarsky, and carried fines from $250 to nearly $1,000 and 24 to 50 hours of community service. McCutcheon and Rushing were not present and waited to discuss the plea bargain with their lawyers before a later hearing.
[Name removed as requested], who arranged the power hour, [Names removed] agreed to fines of $912.50 and community service, a larger penalty than the $250 or less the other parties agreed to pay.
The case, referred to as the “Stanford 9” by the courtroom clerk, was a compromise, according to Boyarsky.
“I see it as a compromise because based on what the Stanford police department brought us there were a range of charges we could have brought. It was a compromise in terms of what were those involved in the event charged with.”
Boyarsky said that for this charge, the range between minimum and maximum penalties was small, and providing alcohol to minors yields no jail time.
“The defendants who weren’t in the dorm room might see themselves as victims, but bad things can happen when alcohol is involved,” Boyarsky said. “It should serve as a cautionary tale at Stanford.”
While the court case has ended, the University investigation continues.
According to Nanci Howe, the assistant dean and director of student activities, one of the major differences between the police and University investigations is that the OCB reviews problematic group behavior, while the police focus on individual behavior.
“The police and University are separate entities,” said Morris Graves, associate dean of students, not specifically speaking about the incident. “Something may not violate California state law, but it could still violate University policy.”
For example, the University Greek Guide specifies that hazing is “any activity or situation in which pledges or actives are expected to commit an unlawful act or violate the Fundamental Standard or Honor Code. Almost anything that pledged members are required to do that initiated members don’t is hazing. Ask yourself if you could explain a questionable activity to your parents, the parents of a pledge, a University official or a judge. If you don’t think you could, then it is probably hazing.”
The OCB uses four criteria when determining the sanctions, such as alcohol probation or suspension, for problematic behavior. These include past precedent for similar cases, the severity of the violation, the pattern and history of the group’s behavior and what the group has done to accept responsibility and address the situation.
If the OCB finds that the incident is egregious, it can choose to forward the case to the Greek Housing Review Board, which could place the sorority on a housing probation or suspension.
“Chapter members are cooperating with the investigation, as it is top priority to ensure the safety and well being of all Tri-Delt members in addition to the entire Stanford community,” the sorority said in a statement. “Tri-Delt will continue to strive for the excellence for which it was recently recognized in a letter of commendation by the University.”
Although the exact dates have not been set, the case and two others still pending OCB review from last spring is expected to be completed by the end of February, according to Graves.
“Our ultimate goal is to keep these things from happening and to protect the students, University and community from harm,” said Graves. “We must hold folks accountable and uphold the University standards and values.”
Article URL:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?p...ticle&id=12695