Stanford submitted a short within the Santa Clara County courtroom on Friday, Could 19 opposing the Theta Delta Chi (TDX) Chapter at Stanford’s petition for writ of mandate: a authorized order issued by a courtroom that on this case tells the College to reverse the elimination of the fraternity on campus.
Stanford’s transient argues that the TDX group that filed the lawsuit lacks standing to sue. The transient additional argues that the College sanctions on TDX weren’t extreme and finally asks the courtroom to dismiss the petition for writ of mandate based mostly on these arguments.
The transient, which is Stanford’s first transient filed within the TDX case, is available in response to a short submitted by the TDX chapter at Stanford.
The native TDX chapter’s transient, a petition for writ of mandate, is spearheaded by the non-Stanford affiliated alumni group #SaveStanfordTDX (SSTDX). SSTDX, who employed the lawyer, claims to be suing on behalf of the native Stanford TDX chapter. Nonetheless, in Stanford’s transient, the College argues that SSTDX doesn’t have a enough authorized curiosity or proper to say that they’re suing on behalf of the native chapter.
SSTDX has constantly argued inside their marketing campaign that Stanford’s sanctions in opposition to TDX following the dying of fraternity member Eitan Weiner have been extreme and overly harsh.
The College declined to touch upon the importance of the case or if the College is actively accumulating extra proof in its inside investigation of the Weiner case, writing “we can’t remark or speculate on energetic authorized circumstances.”
“Stanford is dedicated to pupil security and selling protected environments the place all college students can flourish,” College spokesperson Dee Mostofi wrote.
SSTDX’s April 23 lawsuit in opposition to Stanford comes after the College eliminated TDX from campus in 2021 following a College investigation that discovered three violations of the Basic Commonplace. The investigation of TDX was associated to Weiner’s dying in January 2020 from an unintentional fentanyl overdose.
In a separate lawsuit, the Weiner household sued Stanford final yr for Weiner’s wrongful dying, alleging negligence in opposition to the College.
Not like the Weiner household case, TDX filed a writ of mandate, a procedural lawsuit. As outlined within the TDX transient, the chapter desires Stanford to reverse its determination to take away the fraternity, lifting the suspension and doubtlessly reinstating the campus fraternity home.
In Stanford’s transient arguing that the group petitioning for reinstatement doesn’t have standing to sue, the College’s attorneys claimed that the “Petitioner” — referring to SSTDX — “is a small group of alumni … and never the Native TDX Chapter (and even pupil members of that Chapter).”
In accordance with the College’s transient, solely the native TDX chapter and the scholar members concerned within the elimination of the home in 2021 have standing to sue. Additional, Stanford’s transient claims that neither SSTDX or the native TDX chapter have standing to convey this mandamus motion as they’re each unincorporated associations.
The transient goes on to argue that the native TDX chapter can’t purchase standing by “claiming to hunt reduction on behalf of potential future members,” resembling future members of the fraternity.
“Stanford’s place is actually an effort to throw us out of courtroom on a technicality and to disclaim TDX the additional use of the authorized system to hunt a simply final result to our complaints,” SSTDX spokesperson Mark Hathaway wrote in an e mail to The Each day. “Apparently, by trying to win on this specific technicality, Stanford’s lawyer-administrators are, in impact, saying that we needs to be denied the safety of the courts and pursue our grievances in opposition to Stanford immediately.”
In TDX’s transient, the native chapter argued that Stanford didn’t observe earlier insurance policies and finally made an unfair determination in opposition to the chapter with “no proof” to help the College’s findings that TDX violated the elemental commonplace.
Nonetheless, the College disputes this declare and says that no matter whether or not the native TDX chapter has standing to sue, the courtroom ought to nonetheless not reverse Stanford’s determination to take away the chapter. Within the transient, they argue that throughout the technique of investigating the native TDX chapter, the College adhered to its insurance policies and offered a good continuing.
Within the College’s transient, Stanford’s attorneys go on to argue that the proof of the native chapter’s wrongdoing is the truth is supported by the College’s Group Conduct Board panel’s findings.
“There was a tradition of illicit drug use by the Native TDX Chapter earlier than and on the time of [Eitan Weiner’s] dying,” Stanford’s transient claims.
Stanford argued of their transient that the results of the sanction had “nonexistent” results on particular person college students and solely affected the rights of the fraternity. “Affordable minds” would discover a four-year lack of fraternity recognition and housing “acceptable,” the transient argued.
Moreover, Stanford’s transient cited Vice Provost Susie Brubaker-Cole’s determination to lower the really useful interval of the fraternity’s lack of recognition from six years to 4 years, to counter TDX’s argument that the College had “retaliate[d] TDX’s train of its proper to attraction by growing sanctions.”
Stanford’s transient concludes by asking the courtroom to “dismiss the Petition for lack of standing or, alternatively, deny the reduction requested within the Petition on the deserves.”