DC Narrows 28 Students Down to Eight Finalists

Among 28 Discipline Committee (DC) candidates, 8 were voted in Tuesday night by the student body for further consideration by the current DC. The selectees included lowers Menat Bahnasy, Michael Bamah, Jo de La Bruyère, Maria Heeter, Chi Chi Ikpeazu, Winslow MacDonald, Gregory Miller, and Athena Stenor.All 28 candidates had drafted candidate statements and acquired more than 350 signatures previously in order to be eligible for running. In the week leading up to the election, posters dangled from every inch of free space available on cork boards around campus. Many candidates took to social media and posters to promote their campaigns.The selected students will soon be contacted regarding the next stage in the selection process, an official interview before the entire DC.In the coming week, faculty will be also be contacted with the names of the students and asked to send in their opinions regarding these students, similar to recommendations involved in the college process.Besides these two official steps to sort through the elected candidates, the current DC will also look at the grades and attendance of the selected students. This thorough method takes into consideration what is best for the candidate.

“I think that I’ve done my best to show that I am an empathetic individual who is capable of speaking my mind and advocating for what I believe in.”

Student member of the DC and senior Rex Tercek explained how important such a personal and intensive process is for the committee.He said, “[The committee] makes sure that if [the students] were to be selected, they would be able to handle both their normal workload and the random hours of DC.”After screening both their recommendations and scholastic record, students are then asked to return for an interview in which the committee members get to know and understand each candidate’s personality. DC member and senior Nick Madamidola said this was the most crucial part of the entire process.“Getting to know each of the candidates and how they fit into and serve the community will ultimately tell how they will interact with us on the board and one another when and if they do make it onto the committee,” he said.After the process has been conducted, both the faculty and current members of the committee deliberate and choose either four or five out of the eight students selected earlier to be the new members on the board.For the lowers selected, this process seems extensive, yet important to selecting the right students for the position. Bamah said that the selected students are involved in making some of the most important decisions on campus and because of this, an intensive procedure for selection is necessary to ensure the right choices will be made. He said, “I think the committee should go through a long, scrutinous selection process rather than a shorter one, just to make sure the selected students are the right ones for such a serious job.”Other candidates wish to use their opportunity to better the already solid discipline process. Miller thinks that he was selected by the student body for his, “unique perspective, coming from a loving, Italian-American, single-fathered household.”Miller, like many other candidates, used video to convey his personal commitment to the discipline committee and process. Miller explained how he thinks his particular perspective and willingness to offer his unbiased opinion into the mix of the current members of the committee helped him and the other candidates secure their selections.Lower Winslow MacDonald agreed with Miller and offered his own opinion on why he and many of the other candidates were selected. He said, “I think that I’ve done my best to show that I am an empathetic individual who is capable of speaking my mind and advocating for what I believe in.”When the four or five finalists are selected, their values and skills will be tested as they become a voice in one of the most consequential committees on campus. According to Tercek, being a part of the committee is both emotionally demanding and time consuming. Cases are often filled with tears and emotional stories, and decisions can seriously affect one’s life. Tercek reflected that it takes a certain mindset to commit many hours most Thursday nights to represent an entire student body on these life-altering decisions. Students selected in the past have valued their hours spent deliberating and resolving cases. Tercek said, “DC has become an integral part to my time here. The hours are erratic, the meetings can be somber, but I think we are doing something important.”Other members shared similar mentalities. “At the end of the day, we are just teenagers, we are immature and we do make mistakes,” said Madamidola.The student voice is an imperative component for each case decision, Madamidola said. Despite empathetic faculty, members of the DC reasoned, it takes a closer connection to see the thought process of wrongdoings that only other students would be able to understand. Student members of the committee disagreed with the popular misconception that they don’t have a voice. Madamidola said, “Do the student members have a vote? No,” he said. “But that does not diminish the value of a member’s significance.”Students don’t partake in voting not from a lack of trust, but rather to relieve them of a burdensome decision which can entirely alter the life of a fellow peer. The deliberation of such cases embodies Exeter’s confidence in the Harkness method. A table with “equal footing”, as noted by Tercek, leads to passionate discussion from all ends of the committee.Tercek said, “The student voice is indispensable to the discipline process, and so it’s critical we get the right voices for the committee.”