Being forced to simulate oral sex on a cucumber, eat Spam, drink alcohol and eat one’s own vomit are among allegations of hazing brought against Tri Phi, according to an interview Wednesday with a former pledge who wishes to remain anonymous due to safety concerns.

The claims of hazing, most serious among seven charges of disciplinary misconduct, led to an administrative meeting for 24 alleged members, and all face possible expulsion from the university.

But because Tri Phi is not a recognized or supported campus organization, it cannot be tried as an organizational group. The women will have a group meeting before the Board of Review, but it will judge each woman individually, meaning it is possible to have some women found culpable and others not culpable.

If found culpable, disciplinary action for each individual would range from a minimum of suspension to a maximum of expulsion, according to three alleged members of Tri Phi sorority who wish to remain anonymous.

Jessica Retan, a sociology sophomore who claims to be a former Tri Phi member, responded to the accusations by questioning the mental stability of the two former pledges.

Alleged members of the off-campus sorority met with Vicki McNeil, associate vice president of Student Affairs, Tuesday at 3:30 p.m. According to McNeil, it was considered an informational meeting to review Loyola’s disciplinarian process as described in Loyola’s student handbook. It was not a legal hearing, but many of the accused women expressed frustration.

“They were using all legal terms, but they claimed it wasn’t a legal hearing,” Adrianne Golias said. Golias is a sociology sophomore and one of the 24 women facing discipline.

Each member was allowed to bring one adviser to the meeting, but it had to be either a parent or a faculty member. The adviser, according to McNeil, could accompany the women for support and advice, but only the women were allowed to speak. No attorney was allowed to be present.

Two former Tri Phi pledges, one a communications freshman and the other a marketing freshman, submitted the allegations of hazing to Student Affairs. A witness, to whom Student Affairs granted anonymity, and some parents also submitted accusations.

“I feel safe at home, but I can’t come back to Loyola because [the Tri Phis] are angry,” a former pledge who submitted allegations said Wednesday. She had pledged with Tri Phi for six weeks.

“The pledges asked me not to tell my parents [about the hazing] because they would be punished,” she said. “But by then, it was too late. My parents already knew.”

The university had contacted the former Tri Phi pledge’s parents to inform them of the alleged reputation of Tri Phi. Her parents wasted no time. The freshman received a phone call from her parents saying they had bought her a plane ticket home the next day. She was to pack everything she could, and the rest would be sent for later.

The freshman said she decided to pledge Tri Phi because they threw the best parties, took her out, bought her drinks and made friends with her.

“I thought they were my friends. I knew from rumors that [pledge season] would be hard, but there’s a difference between being hard and impossible,” she said. “This was impossible.”

When asked why she chose to submit allegations against the alleged members of Tri Phi, the former pledge said, “I can’t come back to a school that I love. I can’t sit back and watch what happened to me happen to other girls.”

According to McNeil, the university assumes the alleged members of Tri Phi to be not culpable until a judicial hearing determines their fate.

“We were told [at the administrative meeting Tuesday] that there doesn’t have to be evidence or proof against us,” Golias said. “All the witnesses need to do is convince the Board [of Review] that their story is true and ours isn’t.”

But McNeil said she is confident in the university procedures she has been working with for the past 16 years.

“We will handle it in a just and fair manner,” she said. “We’re not looking to make this an adversarial relationship with the students, but an educational process. Our procedures are designed to do that.”

The accused women do not express the same amount of confidence.

“The rules don’t permit students to defend themselves,” Retan said.

Golias said that each accused student will have the opportunity to cross-examine her accusers at the Board of Review hearing.

However, the accuser has the option of submitting a written statement. McNeil said the accuser need not face the alleged perpetrators. One former pledge who submitted accusations said she need not testify in person. Communication by phone is acceptable. Many of the accused women also expressed frustration that the presence of an attorney is forbidden at the proceeding.

Golias and others said that they did not receive their letters stating the date and time of the administration hearing with McNeil until March 18. They said four women received their letters March 23, and two others were hand-delivered right before the meeting.

They were told they would be given “ample time,” according to Chapter 2 of the Student Handbook relating to disciplinary procedures, and that ample time was explained to them as one week.

“Does the Student Handbook apply to the faculty and administration, or only to us students?” Retan asked.

Loyola’s administration also may have insinuated that there would be benefits for two alleged inactive members if they’d be willing to testify against the other 24 alleged members of Tri Phi, according to three of the alleged members.

The women wish to remain anonymous until disciplinarian procedures are finished, but one said that Timothy Albert, associate director of Residential Life and Judicial Affairs, told her, “If you have something to give us, we might be able to work with you.”

As of press time, Albert was unavailable for comment.

This has been the first allegation of hazing at Loyola in the past couple of years, according to McNeil.

Each member was required to submit a plea of culpable, not culpable or culpable with mitigating circumstances yesterday by 4:45 p.m.

No date as of yet has been set for the Board of Review hearing, but McNeil said it would be within the next few weeks so that the members may have the issue resolved as soon as possible.

The earliest the judicial hearing could take place is the week after next.

Chuck Alexander can be reached at [email protected].