Four Pomona students have been charged with multiple violations of the student code, including hazing, as a result of a party they held at their off-campus residence during dry week. At the party, several students got alcohol poisoning, and the college is attempting to hold the hosts responsible.

On Saturday, September 4, a party was thrown by Stephen Dunkle ’00, Peter Johnston ’00, Jonathan McCumber ’00, and Teague Shelley ’00 at their residence on Moreno Street, in conjunction with the men’s soccer initiation.

According to Dean of Students Ann Quinley, "It was the first time [in my experience] that an off-campus party produced a number of students coming back to campus with serious alcohol poisoning".

Of the students who became sick, one required hospitalization. Quinley added that almost every RA had to be called on to care for the others.

Although the alleged infractions of the student code took place in an off-campus setting, the school has claimed jurisdiction over the matter.

To support the claim, Dean of Campus Life Matt Taylor cited a line of the Preamble of the Student Code. It reads, "When an activity occurs off campus, it is the responsibility of the Vice President and Dean of Students to determine whether College jurisdiction will be asserted."

Quinley cited the same passage in explaining why she felt the college has a right to take action. "These are college students violating the code," she explained. "It doesn’t say that you have to be standing on the college grounds in order to do so."

Neither Dean could recall whether there has been any precedent in punishing students for similar off-campus behavior.

Quinley noted that while there may have been a number of off-campus parties in which students got sick, this was the most significant in terms of illness and number affected that had been brought to her attention. For an incident of this magnitude, she felt that action had to be taken.

The hosts of the party have each been charged with violations of Article III, Sections 4, 10 and 19 of the Student Code. These articles list "proscribed conduct," under which the charges of hazing, violating the alcohol policy, and threatening the health or safety of a student.

The code defines hazing as "an act or situation which endangers . . .the mental or physical health or safety of a student . . . for the purpose of initiation, admission into, affiliation with or as a condition for continued membership in a group or organization."

However, the hosts of the party claim that they do not constitute any such "group or organization."

When asked how the students could thus be charged with such a violation, Taylor replied, "We have to go with the evidence that we’ve got, which was that these were the hosts of the party."

When asked if anyone else would be charged alongside the hosts, Quinley was hesitant. "We are having conversations about others. There could possibly be more charges."

The second charge is a violation of Pomona’s alcohol policy, listed in the code as "Use, possession, sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages except as expressly permitted by law and by College regulations." This policy extends to all students, whether on campus or off.

The third section of code reads, "Other conduct or actions in which the College can demonstrate a clear and distinct interest which threatens . . . the health, safety, or well-being of any member of the college community."

Quinley said that at school parties, bartenders are told not to serve students who are visibly drunk, and with this precaution, they avoid endangerment. By allowing their guests to drink to the point of physical endangerment, Quinley contended, the hosts were in violation of the student code.

Student guests at the party have argued that it was the soccer team, not the hosts, who hazed and endangered the health of the students who got sick.

"The soccer team was making freshmen [soccer players] drink for initiation," said Vicky Choi ’01.

The students who were charged felt that the hazing charge was unfounded. Said Johnston, "It seems like they put the hazing charge in there because they can’t really charge the soccer team and they want someone to scapegoat."

Johnston’s housemate Dunkle agreed. "I’m not really sure where [Dean Quinley is] coming from on the hazing charge," said Dunkle. "We didn’t provide anyone with hard alcohol, and we didn’t make anyone drink."

He also noted that the soccer team, minus its freshmen, is planning to come forward to accept responsibility for the alcohol poisoning that occurred.

At this time, a Judiciary Board meeting is pending, and the respondents are meeting with Dean Quinley to discuss the charges. If those accused disagree with the statements that the college has asserted, a hearing will take place in which students on the council will determine the validity of the charges.