In the wake of Yale’s recent case of admission fraud, the General Counsel of Stanford supported Yale’s decision to a prosecute the student for forging parts of his application but drew distinctions between the Yale case and Stanford’s own impostor situation last year.

Admission officials at Yale are facing one of the most significant incidences of admission fraud in recent years after transfer student Akash Maharaj forged a letter of recommendation and his transcript to gain admission to Yale and receive a $32,000 scholarship.

Stanford Director of Admission Shawn Abbott said although Stanford had not identified fraudulent admission documents in the last two years, Stanford has received them in the past.

“I’m not sure any university can prevent forgery,” Abbott said. “While our credentials staff members in the Office of Undergraduate Admission are trained to identify official transcripts — looking for watermark and raised seals — and official test scores — identifiable by a certain font/typeface that is used by the College Board in reporting scores — if someone wants to break the law and forge documents, there isn’t much one can do to prevent that kind of activity.”

In an email to The Daily, Stanford General Counsel Debra Zumwalt said that Yale officials should choose the legal course they find best in response to the incident.

“It is Yale’s decision as to whether to revoke its admission,” Zumwalt wrote. “I do not know the details of what actually happened or what Yale has done with regard to the prosecution of the alleged crime, but fraud is a serious crime which is appropriate to report to the police.”

The New York Times reported that, in addition to losing his admission to Yale, Maharaj faces larceny and forgery charges in the state of Connecticut, as well as possible federal charges for accepting federal student loans while enrolled under false pretenses.

Zumwalt stopped short of saying that Stanford would pursue the same course of action if a similar incident of fraud occurred here, but did promise a termination of enrollment.

“If a student commits fraud in applying to Stanford, such as falsifying transcripts, the University would revoke the student’s admission,” she said.

While Zumwalt promised the University would expel any student who gained admission by fraud, and would possibly seek legal prosecution, she drew the distinction between fraud and deception in justifying Stanford’s comparatively lenient treatment of the Azia Kim situation last spring.

In May 2007, Azia Kim was caught posing as a Stanford undergraduate, residing in two dorms, attending classes and sneaking in and out of the window of the room where she was living illegally.

While Kim took advantage of the University and exploited its resources, the difference between her case and Maharaj’s, said Zumwalt, is that Kim simply showed up and pretended to be a student rather than applying for admission with fake forms and information.

“Of course, Ms. Kim’s situation was different, as she was not admitted to Stanford and did not receive money under false pretenses,” Zumwalt said. “Taking meals and lodging without paying can be a crime, but whether or not such crimes are actually prosecuted is up to the police and the District Attorney — for state crimes — or the U.S. Attorney for federal crimes.”

Several students, including Ron Pomper ‘11, also stressed the distinction between Kim’s case and the incident at Yale.

“I can definitely see why Yale is pressing charges, but that’s kind of different,” Pomper said. “He definitely forged his way to get in. She didn’t get in, but was just staying on campus.”

Dani Zhao ‘09, who knew Azia Kim personally, added that she did not believe prosecuting her would help anyone, but would likely cause further harm to an already troubled girl.

“Knowing who she was, I think that taking her to court would have exacerbated the situation even more,” Zhao said. “She obviously had some problems that she needed to work out, and I think that taking her through the legal system would have made things even worse.”