Student Council Seeks Transparency for DC

In recent years, Student Council (StuCo) has been looking to increase the transparency of the discipline process through talks with the discipline committee (DC) and the introduction of mock discipline cases.Next Tuesday, StuCo will be hosting DC head Jeffrey Ward, Dean of Residential Life AJ Cosgrove and DC member senior Nik Bergill at StuCo’s weekly meeting to answer questions about the system and discuss future plans for DC transparency. “We will have them talk to students about how the DC works, what they want to know, what kind of mock cases they want to see and clear up anything that they can, within reasonable boundaries, about past cases,” upper Emily Lemmerman, StuCo vice president, said.Although details of previous cases cannot be released to students due to privacy issues, StuCo is looking towards pursuing the possibility of releasing mock cases—documents from DC cases from many years ago with the names stripped. According to StuCo President Alice Ju, these mock cases would be “reviewed during advisee meetings so students can see what goes into a case and what the process is like.”Currently, detailed reports on major discipline cases are read on the floor of faculty meetings, but not to students. Cosgrove also works closely with the students who appear before the committee so that they understand the process and shares the final case result and details with the student involved, according to Ward.Ward felt strongly that the privacy of a student going through a discipline case should be honored fully. “In my time at PEA, there have been major DC cases where the entire student body, for whatever reason, knew about it and were outside of the room where the DC met to show support,” he said. “There have also been times where the student was so embarrassed, guilt ridden, etcetera where the only people who knew about the DC case where the student, the adviser and the dorm faculty and proctors. The committee respects that privacy.”Senior Nick du Pont, who experienced a discipline case last year, echoed Ward’s points and emphasized the importance of keeping details of a case discreet. “There is often confusion and ambiguity about cases because their subject matter is intensely personal. 16 people judge who you are, what you contribute, what your flaws are and decide whether you still deserve a spot at Exeter,” du Pont said. “That is not the kind of judgment of character I would want to be open to the whole school. And thus, while many details are revealed unofficially after the case, either by the student or the students on the committee or the faculty on the committee, the details revealed paint an incomplete picture of the case because the most personal and important the details are often not spread.”Another Exonian who faced a major discipline case last year, who requested to remain anonymous, recognized how unnerving it was to hear students discuss the details of the case afterwards. “It is so hard, especially the first few days after the case, when people stare at you and whisper,” he said. “I knew every time I walked into dining hall that people were talking about what happened. It has also sparked problems in my relationship with my parents and other adults who have supported me.”StuCo Secretary Benj Cohen hopes that these measures will clear up the current misconceptions about the DC process. “I’ve heard people complaining about Dr. Ward in D-hall and saying ‘He kicked out my friend’ or something similar because he’s the head, but Dr. Ward actually does not vote in any of the cases. Also, many people are unaware that students in the Discipline Committee do not actually vote in the cases,” Cohen said.Cohen added that the mock cases, if they were to happen, would help students to understand the subjective nature of the cases. “Many people are confused because sometimes students commit the same offense, but receive a different decision. There are many factors that go into the decision besides scientifically what happened, such as character analysis,” Cohen said.“For example, if a student was caught for possession of alcohol and was also disruptive in the dorm, that might increase their chances of more severe punishment. Seeing a mock trial would help students to understand.”Faculty generally felt that maintaining privacy was beneficial to the students involved in cases and that the process is sufficiently transparent to the students. “In terms of sharing information from the DC committee, there is a very delicate balance between educating the student body and respecting the privacy of the student who comes before the committee,” Ward said. “I am sure that if you made an unfortunate choice that led you to come before the committee, whether in person for a major case, or on paper for a minor case, you would not want the entire school to know what you did and what the committee said about the case.”“The DC process is not secret at all, it is just that we respect the privacy of students who appear before the committee,” Ward said. “It is as transparent as it can get. The process is clearly laid out in the E-Book.”Giorgio Secondi, another adult member of the committee, shared similar sentiments. “The policy is not in place to cover something up,” he said. “The reason we don't share with students information about cases is simply to be respectful of the students who are charged.”Students expressed mixed opinions about the degree to which DC should be transparent.Senior Amina Kunnummal believed that DC should keep it’s cases confidential. “Not that the cases are always discreet—currently people gossip about the cases without knowing the facts all the time. But it's not right for the Discipline Committee to reveal details about cases, decisions, the reasoning behind decisions or any other information about the case,” Kunnummal said.“The student being DC'd always has a right to privacy, and DC should not violate that right in the pursuit of transparency. We don't need that information to know the difference between right and wrong, and a student being DC'd should still be able to keep private matters private if they so wish.”However, some felt that the opportunity for others to learn from discipline cases would outweigh total privacy. “I think DC is clearly not transparent enough, and it should be made somewhat more transparent so that students can learn from the mistakes of the other students and understand the DC process,” lower Jeff Mellen said. “Maybe it could be talked about at meetings and anyone who is interested can go, or possibly through all-school emails or The Exonian.”Upper Hersh Bhargava agreed, stating that releasing an official report with some level of detail would help clarify rumors that spread about the cases. “Not only is there a lack of clarity as to the outcomes of cases, but also to the causes,” he said. “If there is an incident, it is better that an official report is released than that the news is spread through gossip and rumors.”