Two of the Juanita High School (JHS) students charged with assaulting a special needs student in the school locker room last year are listed on football rosters for other schools in the Lake Washington School District, with a third listed on the football roster at another school district in King County. One of the guardians of a defendant in the case is claiming that the incident was, in part, the result of an uncurtailed culture of hazing at the high school.

The Reporter has learned that one of the remaining suspects, who is scheduled for trial in October for second-degree attempted rape, is on the football roster at Lake Washington High School in Kirkland. The another suspect is attending Mount Si High School in Snoqualmie and listed on its football roster. The defendant has a hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

Another student is attending Eastlake High School in Sammamish. He pleaded guilty to third-degree assault in August along with two other defendants. The student was initially on the EHS football roster but his name is no longer listed on the website. The Reporter discovered the student was attending the school and playing basketball last winter. During that academic year, the defendant was also recognized by the school for his academics, effort and/or citizenship.

The Reporter was unable to determine if the other two students, who pled guilty to third degree assault, are playing football elsewhere.

All five of the former JHS C-team football players were initially charged with second-degree attempted rape for trying to sodomize a special-needs student on Oct. 22 as part of hazing ritual known as “jubie,” according to court documents.

The three who pleaded guilty to third-degree assault were sentenced in Juvenile Court to 12 months of community supervision, 48 hours of community service, as well as other conditions, including that they are not allowed to re-enroll at JHS. All five of the students were given emergency expulsions from JHS following their arrest.

A guardian of one of the defendants is claiming that the act was not an isolated incident. In a letter sent to the Lake Washington School District, the Reporter and the Seattle Times, the guardian wrote that the act was part of a prevalent hazing culture that exists both on the JHS football team as well as other high school football teams around the country.

“The incident occurred because unsupervised horseplay in the locker room at their high school got out of hand,” he wrote. “How did the boys learn this bad behavior? By being a part of the Juanita football team where sodomizing other boys – real or pretended – was conduct that was a part of a Juanita hazing tradition… Contrary to statements the Juanita principal made to parents last year, this was not an ‘exception to the Juanita school way.’

“I do not say this to excuse the conduct of the boys,” he wrote further, “but to point out that adults were likewise responsible.”

Judge John Erlick, who sentenced the three defendants, expressed similar sentiments during an Aug. 31 court date while deliberating over whether or not to grant them a deferred disposition.

“I think this is a horrific crime,” Erlick said. “I think [the victim] has been both physically and emotionally violated. And I have to look at this crime in the context of a culture, and I call it a culture because from what I read in the submissions not only were these young men perpetrators, but to some extent they were also victims in the sense of being subject to similar types of ‘jubies.’ It doesn’t justify it, and this needs to put an end to that.”

“For too long society has tolerated or turned its back on what’s referred to as ‘hazing’ or ‘pranks’ or ‘boys being boys’” he continued. “We now recognize the profound and traumatic effect this has on victims, on victims’ families and on the community as a whole. This community and its justice system speak clearly: No more, we cannot tolerate this any longer. As many have stated here, it is the responsibility of the members of the community to speak clearly, to speak out, to report these incidents, to investigate these incidents and to prosecute these incidents, and so we can no longer accept this cruel and damaging behavior.”

At the same time, LWSD Spokesperson Kathryn Reith stated that the individual defendants did not provide any information to the district as part of their independent investigation into hazing.

“We offered them that opportunity and they declined,” she said.

The Reporter has made numerous public information requests to the LWSD and the Kirkland Police Department concerning reports of similar hazing incidents, but none of the requests has produced any pertinent documents, and KPD Spokesperson Mike Murray told the Reporter they have not responded to any similar incidents.

“Hazing will not be tolerated in any form and is never to be part of our program,” the LWSD Hazing Policy reads. “Acts of hazing can escalate to the point that the students-participating are at risk. It is also quite possible that many acts of hazing will result in legal action being taken against the coach, advisor, student group leader, administration or the school district.”

“Any student who participates willingly in a hazing ritual is subject to disciplinary action, including suspension from school or the team or both, and possible legal action dependent on the severity of the incident,” the policy continues. “Any student-athlete who observes and does not attempt to stop or report such a violation can also be subject to disciplinary action by our school. Repeated acts of hazing can result in further school action and permanent suspension from athletics.”

Reith stated that they are unable to comment on any specific student discipline, nor do they announce the results of any court proceedings. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal law regarding student privacy, prohibits school districts like Lake Washington from releasing information about students.

“The individuals convicted of crimes actually have a right to privacy (as students),” Reith said. “We are not the courts. It’s not up to us to announce what the courts rule.”

However, Reith stated their general policy is that if a student is convicted of a crime, yet not sentenced to juvenile detention, and are still under 18 years old and living in the school district, the school district is legally required to educate them, while the courts and probation officers determine the stipulations for a student’s return to school.

“We work with the courts and probations officers when students are returning,” Reith said. “They may have some specific conditions around those students.”

For example, if a student has served in juvenile detention, the court and probation officers may set requirements on their attendance, behavior, or conditions under which they are allowed to go back to school, including a safety plan.

“We do have students in our schools that have been convicted of crimes, (but) that is true of every school district that I’m aware of,” Reith said. “The important thing is working with the courts and probation officers to make sure everyone is safe.”

She also pointed out that the court decides if the students convicted of crimes return to school or are sent to juvenile detention.

“If they said they were a menace to society, they would be in juvenile detention,” she said. “If they were such a danger to society they wouldn’t be out and on the street. It doesn’t mean they have to go back to the same school. There are protection for victims so they don’t have to go to school with someone who has committed a crime against them.”