Chris Coles and Stephan Vincenzo Out on Bail

Written by

More breaking news tonight: according to the statuses listed on their NYPD inmate records, Chris Coles and Jose Perez (Stephan Vincenzo) have been “released.” More to come soon.

We’ve heard rumors that Adam Klein was back on campus today, attending class, but we can’t confirm that yet. Spec reports that Coles is back on campus now, having been escorted by Public Safety. We’re waiting on comment from Public Safety.

Update, 1:20 AM: The Boston Herald has an interview with Harrison David’s father, a Massachusetts-based cosmetic surgeon named Dave David, in which the elder Mr. David alleges that he has been funding his son’s college tuition “since Day 1.” According to court papers reported in the New York Times and other sources, Harrison David told police upon his arrest that he was dealing drugs to pay for college. Harrison David is currently the only remaining defendant who has not yet posted bail and been released from jail. The elder Mr. David told the Herald that he plans to fly to New York today to “take care of everything and be with my son.”



  1. Surfin' UWS  

    Ok, seriously, someone explain this to me: WHY does that kid have two names?

    Because as far as hints to sketchy activities go, that's an eyebrow-raiser.

  2. Anonymous  

    hey we should all pitch in and by stephan some shampoo

  3. haha

    spec beat you guys again.

  4. Alum

    If it's true that Harrison David's dad/family wouldn't pay his tuition, then I almost feel bad that he's the only one left who hasn't been bailed out -- if his fam wouldn't pay his tuition then they probably won't bail him out...

  5. anon

    DOC says coles' court date is tomorrow...wonder if that will change

  6. Anonymous  

    does anyone know what kinds of sentences are usually handed out for these charges?

  7. cc 13  

    i just wanted to say...each of these threads has been devolving into something awful, and i think a lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves. if you didn't know these guys, then nothing in your life has changed over the past few days-your degrees still have value (don't be nutjobs), your life is still going on, you still have finals...i'm not saying you necessarily have to feel bad for these guys. they broke the law, and they're going to pay dearly for it. i'm just asking you to think about these guys' friends, who are still a part of this community just the same as you. i can only imagine what the close friends of these young men must be feeling. it's awful.

    if you hate what they did, let the law punish them. or you can even say you disapprove! but a lot of what is being thrown around in these posts is just beyond the pale. these guys are already going to suffer for what they did, you're only making it that much worse for their friends and family-who didn't do anything wrong, and who deserve our support.

    maybe this sentiment is a little preemptive in this post but i can just feel it all coming. have some human decency. seacrest out.

    • Anonymous  

      I think that a lot of people reading these posts and keeping up with the story feel the same way as you, they just don't happen to be the ones who are commenting.

      The morality and consequences of their actions really don't affect the vast majority of campus; I hope/ think that the fact that we care enough to check back belies a sense that something has happened to members of our community, and we care enough to keep up. In that same vein, for the time being, they still very much members of this community, and there are a lot of us who are pretty moderate and sane who stand behind them as humans and Columbians-- without condoning or condemning their actions.

  8. ...  

    So glad the majority of them are out. Relieved that Stephan is out.

  9. lone radical

    Does anyone care that these students were helping fuel a drug trade that has had extremely violent consequences in Colombia and Mexico? I think there needs to be more campus-wide discussion on the devastating social costs of a high.

    While other "fair-trade" campaigns are a lot harder to commit to, not selling and not doing drugs is a pretty darn easy way to be socially responsible.

    Perhaps their sentences could include community service with organizations that work with street children affected by the drug trade in Colombia.

    • how do know  

      that their drugs came from Mexico or Colombia? The weed from any hypothetical dealers I may know all comes from California. The MDMA, DMT, LSD and adderall is without a doubt made in the US.

      Also, if you actually cared about the violence the drug industry causes then you should support legalization which would decimate the drug cartels financially.

        • yes  

          but are drugs legal right now? Will they be in the foreseeable future? (and I do mean all of them in every state). Until then buying drugs, unless you’re stringently sourcing them (which is close to impossible), is morally questionable at best.
          I don’t care if the reason thousands are dead in Juarez is because of misguided policy, they are still dead.

      • charlie_the_unicorn  

        Legalizing drugs won't decimate the cartels financially. It'll just allow them to become legitimate businesses. It's true that legitimizing their business may cut down on the violence but they'll still be selling a harmful substance.

        The argument that solving the drug problem is as simple as legalizing them is an absurd one. This is akin to saying solving a homicide problem is as simple as legalizing murder. You're argument may be that drugs are not harmful but this is not true. This can be demonstrated with the legal drug alcohol (and it is a drug). It's true that there are some people who can control themselves and their own consumption but this isn't universally true. There are plenty of alcohol related deaths every year.

        If you're wondering if alcohol is legal than why not all other drugs well I can't be sure of that but I can postulate. I'm sure you'll all recall that alcohol too was once illegal and there were crime syndicates who profited from its production and sale just like there are drug cartels now. Obviously the violence related to the production and sale has gone away because of its re-legalization but the damage on the consumer end hasn't. Alcohol however is and always has been a staple of American culture. If you want to trace the origin of the American Revolution, you'll find that it started (possibly as drunken ramblings) in the backs of bars and taverns. So, alcohol is basically at the very foundation of America. Other drugs however have been stigmatized as part of the counter culture and anti-establishment movement (you can blame the hippies with their pot and lsd for that).

        Bottom line, drugs are harmful. Personally I've never had alcohol or tried any drugs and don't intend to for the rest of my life. In an ideal world for me, alcohol and all other drugs would be illegal and no one would use them. While it may seem impossible for everyone to stop using drugs, I don't believe legalizing all drugs to stop the violence is a suitable alternative. I still believe if we want to stop the drug wars we should stop the people who peddle them.

        • you sound  

          like that video I was made to watch in fifth grade. You make blanket statements without any evidence and give horrendous, sensational analogies like comparing marijuana to murder. It would take a short book to discuss all the levels on which your post is wrong.

          some quick points: Of course legalizing marijuana in the US would destroy the drug cartels. It wouldn't legitimize them at all because weed is still illegal in Mexico so they wouldn't be able to compete on an open market against the massive amounts of American growers that would emerge.

          - Not all drugs have been shown to be harmful e.g. DMT is a chemical naturally produced in the brain. In fact you take a DMT trip almost every time you go to sleep because DMT is the chemical that causes dreams. Magic mushrooms have also been shown to be less toxic than aspirin. The damage caused by other popular drugs is not that well known because due to their illegal nature, little research is done. The negative effects of many drugs though has almost certainly been overhyped by the media and the Regan administration.

          -- The "damage" done by weed can also be effectively reduced. Vaporizing weed instead of smoking it has been proven to reduce carcinogens and tar. Also because you don't smoke a pack of joints a day, a weed habit is probably healthier than a tobacco habit in the long run.

          If you need any evidence, a two second google search of DMT, Vaporizing or any other key words will easily provide it.

          • charlie_the_unicorn  

            I didn't say marijuana and murder are the same. I said the argument that we can stop illegal drug activity by legalizing drugs is absurd. To generalize it even further, this is basically saying we can stop all crime if we eliminate all laws.

            I wasn't talking about only legalizing drugs in American. I meant worldwide.... but since you brought it up... legalizing marijuana in the US would make its growth and sale a legitimate business and as you said people would start growing it because it would be legitimate. This wouldn't destroy drug cartels because as you said this only eliminates the American market leaving plenty of other places for their weed to go.... so cartel downsizing... at best.

            Ok DMT is a naturally occurring substance in animals.... sounds like a pretty bad idea to be fucking with your body chemistry but hey thats your choice. (Don't misunderstand me. I don't care what you do in your free time. You wanna do drugs and whatever thats you're choice. I was just arguing the legal points.) Asprin saves lives. Sure it can be toxic... but do you know anyone addicted to aspring? And even if the negative effects are overhyped... there are still negative effects.

            I wasn't speaking strictly of the biological repercussions of smoking weed. Yes we've all heard the shit about weed not being that bad for you and how tobacco is more toxic. But I was referring more to the stupid shit you might do while you're not in a normal state of mind.

            Again, don't get me wrong. I don't care what you do in your free time. I have friends who like to drink and one especially who loves getting high and taking hallucinogenic substances. What you do to yourself is your business. I just think it's a bit foolish to mess with your own body chemistry and drink poison.

          • Well

            Charlie, you don't stop illegal drug activity (in the sense of possession and distribution) by legalizing drugs. You stop murders, kidnappings, assaults, and other violent crimes associated with the business.

          • charlie_the_unicorn  

            ...thats what I was going for

          • Anonymous  

            i think people need to realize that weed is not legal anywhere, just decriminalized. big difference. and if you need any proof of the effectiveness of the decriminalization of weed, look at Portugal and the Netherlands.

        • Well

          Your point of view only makes sense if you're MUCH more concerned about the effects of drugs than the violence associated with the trade.

          You seem to understand what would happen if drugs were legalized: the violence and organized crime related to their distribution would go away, but people would continue to consume them. Whether the "cartel" still exists isn't that significant (I don't think they would in places where the end consumer is the U.S. --- I think they would lose out to domestic producers -- but we'll leave that for another time because it's small potatoes), because you seem to agree that it would no longer exist as an organized crime entity. The result of legalization is that you don't have violent drug cartels, you have companies selling drugs (and to the extent drugs are harmful, these companies basically operate like any other company selling harmful products - fast food, alcohol, tobacco).

          You don't like this result. I think it's dramatically preferable to the current situation. *The violence associated with the drug trade is extensive and destroys lives, communities, and countries. Do I even have to go into detail? Getting rid of this violence would be HUGE. Thousands fewer people are murdered. Millions of people no longer have to live in fear.
          *Police resources are drained by fighting the drug trade. Take away that task, and they have a lot more resources to fight the remaining violent crime and, yes, terrorism (which, incidentally, loses a lot of money when illegal drug distribution is no longer profitable)
          *Lots of people don't go to jail. They can have better, more productive lives
          *It's easier to get help for addicts, because access becomes easier if they aren't living in crime.

          These benefits are huge. They're not something to blow off because you don't think legalization is "the answer." Sure, it's not. You still have to address the user side of the problem. But why not solve the above problems if you can? Absolutely, we should do things down the road to reduce drug use (particularly cocaine and heroin). It's just as clear that we should do things to reduce drug violence, free up police resources, reduce incarceration rates, and improve addict treatment. Legalization happens to be a practical policy that could do those things, and it's irresponsible to put it off the table for ideological reasons.

          • charlie_the_unicorn  

            First off... your inclusion of fast food as a harmful product brought a smile to my face.

            As you said I do agree legalization would reduce or eliminate the violence associated with the drug trade and can definitely see the benefits it would it bring to the table.

            That being said I've said that the mark of who we are is defined by the morals and values we hold and how we choose to act upon them. Yes I might be an ideological fool and yes I may be riding my high horse a bit but I do not believe we can solve our problems by bending our morals where they become inconvenient. Who are we if we can't be held to our own standards?

            Maybe we are going about this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of dealing mainly with where the drug trail starts and battling the cartels which is proving to be a grueling ordeal we could start where the drug trail ends. You've said we should treat addiction. This is something I definitely agree with and I don't think legalization is necessary to do this. If we can stop drug users and addicts then we dry up the market. This means the cartels no longer have a place for their products to go causing a downsize in their operation, perhaps to a size more manageable for law enforcement.

            I also don't believe as some people might argue that legalization of drugs will minimize the effects they have on the user's end. If anything I believe having easier accesses to drugs will increase their usage and I cannot believe that will go anywhere good.

          • Well

            Yeah, it's ridiculous to compare fast food to drugs - it's not the same kind of moral choice, it doesn't change peoples' lives like drugs, and the physical addiction side is blown way out of proportion. And I love fast food. But it is a model of a legal industry with major public health costs.

            "That being said I’ve said that the mark of who we are is defined by the morals and values we hold and how we choose to act upon them. Yes I might be an ideological fool and yes I may be riding my high horse a bit but I do not believe we can solve our problems by bending our morals where they become inconvenient. Who are we if we can’t be held to our own standards?"

            Brother Charlie, you don't have to make your morals into laws. For example, I think cheating on your spouse is wrong (much more clearly so than using drugs). It's not illegal, and it shouldn't be. But we can still hold it as a moral value.

            Who are we if we can't have moral values other than criminal law?

            "Perhaps instead of dealing mainly with where the drug trail starts and battling the cartels which is proving to be a grueling ordeal we could start where the drug trail ends"

            There's no problem with doing this, but it's empirically extremely difficult. Whereas ending prohibition, for example, brought a quick end to Prohibition-era gangs.

            "I also don’t believe as some people might argue that legalization of drugs will minimize the effects they have on the user’s end."

            For the most part, I'm with you. More people die of heroin overdose than tainted heroin, for example.

            But legalization would make it easier to get treatment to addicts.

          • charlie_the_unicorn  

            I once gave a hug to a woman as she cried for her son (a personal friend of mine) as he lay in a box because a man decided to get behind the wheel while under the influence. I realize my stance on this issue is heavily influenced by this experience but my moral compass tells me drugs are wrong and it refuses to budge on the issue.

            However, as I said before I do have friends who drink and use drugs and it is a personal choice but I do believe we would be better off without them and with them outlawed.

            I offer a compromise: legalization of drugs in a very controlled way and only as a stepping stone for easing the drug problem and once again illegalization. You could legalize drugs but have them only available in certain places but not for take home use (drug dens if you will...) and require users to remain in that location until the effects wear off. This offers the benefits of taking away the illegal drug market weakening the cartels, establishing the manufacturing and sale of drugs as a legitimate business (might even create some jobs and help the economy), getting drugs off the streets, and keeping people under the influence from harming others. Once this is established we can more readily treat addicts as you said and once people get over their fascination with drugs re-outlaw them.

          • Well

            Charlie - that driver was under the influence of alcohol - would you like alcohol to be prohibited?

            Re: your friends who use drugs - would you like to see them arrested? If not, why should other drug users be arrested?

            I understand why you might not like drugs. I just don't think that making them illegal is a productive way to do it as long as demand exists. Historically, it's been ineffective and has increased suffering. Like many things that are legal but anti-social, I think it would be better policed by concerned friends and family, and extensive treatment networks.

            As for your proposed solution - I think you're still creating a black market, albeit a smaller market of take-home drugs. People want to use in their home environment, and this demand isn't going to go away. I also don't think it's viable to return to criminalization unless demand is so low that it really could work. And by the time demand is that low, you've already solved the problem.

        • Joe Blow  

          Charlie - I would challenge you to consider the likelihood that pharmaceutical companies (with infrastructure in place and shareholders) would take over the drug trade, eliminating the drug cartels. Sure, not all of them - but most. But government regulated facilities (as pharma already is) would provide consistent product meaning that overdoses would be much less likely. A world where drugs and alcohol are never used will never happen (which I think from your "unicorn" moniker you also concede). Legalization is outside the bounds of what most of today's culture would consider appropriate; but those of us who believe in classical liberal (ie. libertarian) ideals believe that a freer country, with minimal laws that still allow one control of one's own body is preferable to the current system. What's happening in Juarez wouldn't be happening because the profit margins would be eliminated. An educated people is preferable to a controlled people told by the government what is best for them.

          I applaud your consistency in the condemnation of drug use and the fact that you completely avoid all drugs in consequence. I don't agree with your method, but I do think it's admirable that you're not a flaming hypocrite going on and on about how awful illegal drugs are and then getting wasted on 4 Loko every weekend. :)

    • you mean...

      ColUmbia and Mexico, dont you?

  10. who  

    spec's reported that chris coles is back on campus.

    you guys should do some more reporting yourselves...

    • ..  

      why does it have to be a rivalry? spec and bwog are beneficial to the campus in their own ways, they don't need to beat each other for news. it's not fucking watergate.

    • anon  

      also i'm pretty sure NO ONE GIVES A SHIT besides the people who work on the respective publications.

      speccies, go to fucking bed. i used to work in that office and i can tell you that you are all absolutely nuts.

  11. CC 10 Alum

    BREAKING NEWS - Stephan Vincenzo is actually David Epstein's daughter.

  12. yes  

    but are drugs legal right? Will they be in the foreseeable future? (and I do mean all of them in every state). Until then buying drugs, unless you're stringently sourcing them (which is close to impossible), is morally questionable at best.

    I don't care if the reason thousands are dead in Juarez is because of misguided policy, they are still dead.

  13. Anonymous

    Someone PLEASE tell us if it's true that Adam was in class today.

  14. Klein  

    was indeed in class today. I suspect the same will be true for Coles tomorrow. Everybody has posted bail but Harrison David. Trial dates are set for January.

  15. so  

    these kids get released free just like that? wow, pays to be rich...will they face ANY consequences or just some fines and community service?

    • Anonymous

      *rolls eyes* they were released on bond (or bail). it means that if they don't show up for their court dates, sentencings, and finish their sentences, they lose out all of that money.

    • cool.  

      I really hope that you are not a student at my university, because if that is your knowledge of our judicial system you deserve to be incarcerated far more than they do for your intolerable ignorance.

    • Also?  

      Maybe people should consider that there shouldn't be anything more than fines and community service for low-level, campus drug dealers. Think for a second about how stupid what you just said was--I don't know Stephan but, from what I understand, winning the Millennium-Gates Scholarship places him pretty clearly as NOT rich, and having parents who are lawyers--well, it's not like he's our Paris Hilton; his parents, lawyers though they may be, can't buy him a jail-free card. I know you're probably a big kid now, so you should learn that Monopoly and Life--these are not equivalent games.

  16. Anonymous  

    why didnt harrisons dad just go along with the story. I get that he may wanted to defend himself, but wouldnt he be helping his son to say he wasnt paing tuition. Now his son just looks ridiculous

  17. Anonymous  

    is it me or doesn't Harrison David look like the character from Grand Theft Auto III?

  18. Anonymous

    not sure if i buy what his dad is saying. harrison david went to exeter for his freshman year in high school and but had to drop out for financial reasons

  19. charlie_the_unicorn  

    I believe there was an article stating that Stephan was the only one who doesn't come from good financial means. As stated above the fact that he was a Gates Scholar also attests to this. As I don't know and of suspects I can't comment on the state of their financial affairs but while it is true Columbia is expensive, most students receive financial aid. Even if they don't there are other means of paying tuition. Loans are a pain in the ass but they're an option but they could also get good honest jobs. The comment about selling drugs to pay for tuition is ridiculous as well. The figure often thrown around is $11,000 dollars between the five of them over the course of five months. However while people do need to realize this was only the amount exchanged when the undercover police were involved, the true amount remains unknown. And as someone has pointed out, this averages out to $440 per person per month. The true amount could not have been at "pay for tuition amounts" above this. As someone else also pointed out, this is pocket change. As far as I know, the school doesn't accept literal bundles of cash for tuition. This money was quite clearly treated as pocket change and spending money.

    Again, as I don't personally know any of the suspects I can't give a complete comment on them. However, facts revealed seem to indicate an air of pride about their business before the arrest. Some still don't seem to think they've done anything wrong. All I see is five kids playing gangster and trying to make a quick buck.

    People have been saying these kids were just good and nice kids. However, the mark of a man is not simply how he behaves but the values and morals he holds as well as how he chooses to act on them for even warlords showed love and compassion to their friends and families. The biggest personality out of these five is arguable Stephan ( Here is a boy who's admitted to seeing first hand the damage and negative consequences that come about from drug use and yet he chose to sell those very same drugs and enable the habits of those who used them. He may be a nice guy, but he certainly isn't a respectable one.

    • Anonymous  

      Not that I think these guys were using their earnings for tuition, but most students don't receive financial aid. Columbia likes to say that 50% of students receive financial assistance, but that figure includes students who receive outside scholarships and no aid from Columbia at all. So, if you get $250 from your local women's club or something and nothing else, you've received financial aid! Columbia looks wonderful and inclusive! In reality, about 30% of students receive financial aid.

    • Bundles of cash

      Columbia does accept cash, you just have to go to the Cashiering counter with it in person during business hours.

  20. doctor  

    david david david david

  21. holy crap  

    There are too many comments and I'm too drunk to read them all.

    for shame on all of you! FOR SHAMEE!!!! REPENT! THE END IS...AMBIGUOUS, in it's essential time constituents!! Also, I should be drunk-studying. Hope I used constituents and irony in the right context - I often get those two confused. "Do I use constituents or irony in this context?"
    FUCK IT!

  22. holy crap  

    what!!! that's not what i meant to say!!!

  23. Anonymous  

    ALSO, a quick shout out to BWOG for all their coverage on everything the past few days. I think you all have done a very good job covering the story with the kind of information we want to see while managing to be respectful. Apparently, others agree

    I know BWOG is too humble to post a link to an article that is very complementary about BWOG so I thought someone should do it. (And I promise, I don't write for BWOG. I'm just a student who should be writing an essay due tomorrow morning but would much rather be reading BWOG at 2am.)

  24. Anonymous  

    There are too many comments and I’m too drunk to read them all.

    for shame on all of you! FOR SHAMEE!!!! REPENT! THE END IS…AMBIGUOUS, in it’s essential time constituents!! Also, I should be drunk-studying. Hope I used constituents and irony in the right context – I often get those two confused. “Do I use constituents or irony in this context?”
    FUCK IT!

  25. why wont my comments post?  


  26. why wont my comments post?  

    There are too many comments and I’m too drunk to read them all.
    (Enter here: sympathy for the boys and their misfortune while providing harsh enough punishment for right winged)
    (Sarcastically share sympathy for those who's time commitment to writing comments far exceed mine, mention how all other comments' content are far beneath my superior level of witty intelligence while all the while self-aggrandizing and engaging in meaningless debate on a site that has less value than a Facebook wall. Anger is needed when writing!!!)
    (Include as many profanities as possible and ultimately come to conclusion I am better than you)
    (input quality assurance of knowledge in such vast levels of expertise no one should question as my title precedes me - may as well have been, and probably was, from wikipedia)
    (come to conclusion that this is all worthless banter in any case - commit perfect act of hilarious irony by taking many hours to perfect grammar all the while writing this putting down everyone for reading Bwog and partaking in campus activity)
    (...begin to wonder why I wrote silly comment in the first place - go back to masturbating to self-portrait)
    (take some time to ponder)
    (Make decision between eating a sandwich or going to Koronets? go to sleep? hmm...)
    (Later in life I decide to grow a ponytail and wash it as little as possible - pick up guitar, read many books, become a womanizer...make a "definitely do not" list that includes "sell drugs at an Ivy League school when the entirety of my future depends on it")
    (turn to futuristic religion/cult that owns 75% of the world for guidance, come to conclusion all, NOT JUST BWOG, is worthless AND 50 years from now, simply not give a fuck about this undeniably terrible atrocity, come to epiphany these boys definitely went down the wrong path)

    for shame on all of you! FOR SHAMEE!!!! REPENT! THE END IS…AMBIGUOUS, in it’s essential time constituents!! Also, I should be drunk-studying. Hope I used constituents and irony in the right context – I often get those two confused. “Do I use constituents or irony in this context?”
    FUCK IT!

  27. chris coles is back

    i saw him on gmail/gchat.

  28. Well

    \I didn’t say marijuana and murder are the same. I said the argument that we can stop illegal drug activity by legalizing drugs is absurd. To generalize it even further, this is basically saying we can stop all crime if we eliminate all laws\

    Well, it depends on what you mean by \illegal drug activity.\

    Nobody is suggesting that legalizing drugs prevents the following \illegal drug activities\
    * Possession of drugs
    * Distribution of drugs

    It is suggested that it will severely reduce these activities as they relate to the drug trade
    * Murder
    * Assault
    * Kidnapping
    * Possession of weapons
    among others

  29. i wonder  

    what they're up to tonight. studying? partying? hmmmm...

  30. Testing  

    testing 1,2 testing 1, 2

  31. Hey Bwog  

    Can you limit the word count to these posts? Seriousla you guys, I'm seriousla....

  32. gore al

    And yet Vincenzo has no regrets. “If I could go back, I would throw the same party. I would’ve still done the same thing,” he says. “That’s just the price you pay.”

  33. Alum

    Well according to his website he's also a obygn

  34. Sarah  

    It absolutely wouldn't. People focus on their prejudice against allegedly \right-wing\ attitudes about the harm of drugs as if it's a \personal choice\ what you put in your body. That's true up to a point, but at some point that argument is no longer legitimate, when what you put into your body for recreational purposes causes you, or could potentially cause you, to harm others. There are far more murders, assaults, incidents of domestic violence, and rapes committed when the attacker has been using drugs or is under the influence of some kind of controlled substance (not to mention more car accidents, unprotected sex and suicide attempts). So no, the argument that drugs are harmful isn't just uber-conservative right-wing totalitarians telling you not to have fun. The fact is that drug use leads to more crime and more attacks.

  35. me  

    Honestly, I am so sick of everyone talking about how "bad" we should feel for these guys and how I'm supposed to have some kind of sympathy for them. Columbia liberals are such hypocrites. Oh, let's help the poor and not be elitist or ethnocentric, but these GROWN MEN who sold thousands of dollars' worth of dangerous illegal substances shouldn't be punished like everybody else...They went to OUR school, our Ivy League school, and got good grades and did extracurricular activities! THEY can't be in prison like gang members--even though, wait, they committed the exact same crimes and helped perpetuate a cycle of violence and drug addiction. You do the crime, you do the time, end of story.

    And p.s., no one's parents are "obligated" or "required" to pay their kids' tuition, no matter how rich they are. Maybe his dad's a jerk, maybe he is really selfish, but who cares? Lots of people have parents who won't, or can't, pay their tuition, and they either figure out a way to get scholarships/financial aid/somebody else to help out, or they don't go here. This is one of the most expensive schools in the country. There are tons of cheaper schools that would have taken him if he got in here, and if he truly couldn't afford it, he shouldn't have come. The bottom line is that tons of kids are in much worse situations, and most of them don't become drug dealers. That is an excuse, and a lame one.

  36. KF 12'

    You guys for so called ivy league students are the most ignorant people. Leave comments that comfort your fellow students who are going through this hard time...imagine what they are going through right now what there families and these ambigious statements are just a sign of ignorance. Yes, indeed they did a crime but if there you so called fellow classmates then act like it and leave comments that will support them because we all know they are reading these. As far their time they will serve I pray they will not have to serve a lot. I think they have learned there lessons! SO BACK OFF YOU \IVY\ LEAGUE STUDENTS!

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.