JIO finds Acacia, TEP responsible for code violations

The Judicial Inquiry Office has found the Acacia and Tau Epsilon Phi fraternities collectively responsible for a sexual harassment case and three hazing incidents, respectively, University officials said yesterday. A finding of collective responsibility means that the house as a whole can be held liable for a University policy violation and can be punished as a whole. The last reported finding of collective responsibility of a fraternity by the JIO was Psi Upsilon. Psi U was ultimately kicked off campus. Interim JIO Jane Combrinck-Graham said yesterday that she had turned her findings in both cases over to the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, but has not yet submitted a recommendation for sanctions against either fraternity. She added that the penalties for both fraternities could range from probation to revocation of the fraternity's charter, as mandated by University policy. "I have received it from the JIO and there is no recommendation, just findings," OFSA Director Tricia Phaup said yesterday. "If I am unable to reach a settlement it will go to the Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Board." Acacia fraternity brothers have been charged with sexual harassment for stealing and circulating a nude photograph of a brother's girlfriend to other members of the house. The complainant, a female University student, said that during a pledging event one or several members of the spring pledge class were instructed to perform a skit in front of her boyfriend and other brothers. The pledge was to assume the position that the complainant had taken in the photo, she added. "In my opinion they are definitely responsible collectively," the complainant said last night. "This has been a long and painful process for all parties involved and I hope it will be fully resolved soon." Acacia National Executive Director Darold Larson declined to comment on the issue, and Acacia chapter president Brian Baxt did not return several telephone messages left at his home. Former JIO Constance Goodman said this summer she had found TEP collectively responsible for two incidents of hazing, but the third hazing incident was announced yesterday. TEP president Jeremy Sokolic said he had not been notified of the findings. "I don't have any official action from any University office as of yet," the Wharton senior said. Combrinck-Graham added yesterday that the three hazing incidents will be treated together. "Although there are three separate incidents they reflect a pattern of behavior -- an attitude on the part of the chapter," Combrinck-Graham said. "We may go further and single out people. I also have the alternative to single out individuals and find if they are in violation of the code of conduct and state and federal [regulations]." Phaup added yesterday that findings concerning individuals would not be referred to her office. Jonathan Seidel, the Executive Director of TEP's national office, did not return telephone messages placed at his office yesterday. The cases, which both date back to the last academic year, were handled as quickly as possible, Combrinck-Graham said. She added that the investigations were delayed for two reasons -- the summer break and the fact that she needed to become familiar with the investigations since Goodman had handled them last year. "In both cases I believe [Goodman] acted expeditiously and I acted very expeditiously," Combrinck-Graham said. "A summer intervened and a number of pieces of information did not come to this office until literally right before spring classes ended." The process the investigation will follow is detailed in the Fraternity/Sorority Advisory Board Judicial Charter. According to University policy, after the JIO completes the investigation, Phaup and Combrinck-Graham will decide if there is "reasonable cause to believe that a chapter has violated the Recognition Policy." OFSA will then attempt to forge a settlement between all of the parties, but if a settlement cannot be reached, the case will be referred to the Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Board. "The other role of the director of OFSA is to determine whether my report is founded," Combrinck-Graham added. "[Phaup] and I are now in consultation as to whether either of those chapters have violated the recognition policy."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.