DC Narrowed to Nine
This past Thursday, the student body voted nine lowers to the second stage of the Discipline Committee (DC) selection process. The current Discipline Committee will soon interview each selected candidate to determine the four who will join the committee by early spring.
Typically, only eight students are selected for the second stage of interviews, but this year there was a tie in the student-wide vote. Of the 29 students that ran, the nine selected were Hillary Aristotle, Connie Cai, Charis Edwards, Alan Liu, Melissa Lu, Jiro Mizuno, Bokyoung Kim, Aidan Wolff-King and Henrietta Reily.
Student Council (StuCo) organized the first round of the selection process. First, students running for DC had to petition for a week and gather a minimum of 350 student signatures. Completing the petition proves that the students represent the entire student body and also demonstrates that they have garnered support from their peers.
“DC is integral to our community—it’s the very standards we strive to hold ourselves to."
The original vote took place on Wednesday, Jan. 28, and members from the Elections Committee and StuCo took shifts running the voting booth, entering voters into the database, authorizing ballots and watching over the elections area, but because of a miscommunication, the polling booth was left unattended for approximately 20 minutes. When the next shift found an empty booth, they also noticed that there was evidence to suggest that the ballots may have been tampered with.
To ensure that the election wasn’t rigged, StuCo scrapped the first vote and held another the following week. Although some worried that students might not show up for another vote, Head of Elections Committee Montana St. Pierre said that there was a silver lining in having a second election. Many students were not able to make it to the vote on Wednesday because of the blizzard on Tuesday.
“I heard a lot of people saying they forgot to vote amidst the storm, so they will get a chance when they are less distracted,” Pierre said. “I’m hoping there will be some excitement around having to vote again. We will be able to publicize it again.”
Students had an extra week to campaign and spread the word, and on Thursday Feb. 5, the student body voted again. Students could vote for eight or fewer of the 29 candidates. Before voting, students had the opportunity to read each candidate’s statement explaing why he or she wanted to join DC.
Wolff-King decided to run because he didn’t feel involved with or connected to Exeter’s administration and wanted to be a part of the operation of the school.
Cai ran because of how much Exeter feels like a home to her. Through DC, Cai said that she wants to make Exeter even better.
“DC is integral to our community—it’s the very standards we strive to hold ourselves to. Our motto, non sibi, and our idea of knowledge with goodness find their places on DC,” she said. “I ran because I wanted to see my community and myself reflecting those values.”
Kim began her candidacy because she believed in the value of communication. “I want to help make sure that the level of thorough communication between the student and DC committee has been done before any final decisions are made,” Kim said. “My experience in communicating, listening and connecting with students will help me be able to provide a voice with an accurate representation for our student body.”
Edwards’ decision to run stemmed from a hope to contribute to the community by serving as a student voice. “I think that a healthy community is one where we are accountable to one another for our actions and one where we work to empathize with one another,” she said.
Both students and teachers on the current committe conduct minute interviews with each of the candidates and deliberate over the best fit for the committee. Then, all eight student members and all eight faculty members vote to select the final four members, all of whom will be announced in early spring. After results are announced, the students then sit in and observe cases. Finally, the following school year they then become communicative members of the committee.
During the interviews, the Discipline Committee looks for specific qualities in candidates. Dean of Students Arthur Cosgrove, who organizes the DC interviews and is a participant in the interview and selection process, said that in particular, the committee seeks out individuals who are “non-judgemental, good listeners and communicators, responsible, mature and able to maintain confidentiality.”
Similar to Cosgrove, Christina Rossitto, a senior and current member of the Discipline Committee, said, “We are looking for students who care about the disciplinary process and are responsible enough to handle the time commitment, confidentiality and emotional toll that disciplinary cases can take.”
Acting as a member of the DC requires a great deal of time commitment. Because students need to miss study hours on Thursday nights when there are discipline cases, Cosgrove said that students need to be “capable of being responsible about getting work done.”
History instructor and member of the Discipline Committee Kwasi Boadi also reflected on the qualities that students should embody. He said that the committee looks for students who are thoughtful, fair, empathetic and have “strong moral and ethical consciousness.”
Current student DC member and upper Nick Madamidola agreed, emphasizing fair representation in the committee. “The committee looks for students who are tenacious and who represent the student body well. That’s really important because student perspective is very helpful and powerful during cases,” he said.
The purpose of students on the Discipline Committee is to give a student perspective on an issue. They participate in the questioning and deliberations in cases, and although they don’t vote, they remain present during the voting.
“Students on the DC have the same role as the adults on the DC, except they don’t vote,” Cosgrove said. “We expect them to ask thoughtful questions during the process, share opinions and treat everyone fairly.”
They observe the situation from a student’s point-of-view and speak for all students in a rational, moral way. “The student role really is to provide student eyes and ears, making sure the faculty isn't overlooking anything or under-looking, for that matter,” Madamidola said.
“Students on the committee provide an invaluable service,” Boadi said, “by helping the faculty members appreciate the circumstances that make students do what they do, and the impact of the faculty vote on the particular student and the student community at large.”