Rule Revisions Include Principal Discretion

The addition of a new clause explaining exceptions to cases handled by the Disciplinary Committee joins changes in the E-Book policy pertaining to sending and possessing sexually explicit material digitally—or sexting—in the internet and social media policy. In addition, the E-Book identifies “sexual misconduct” as a major rule violation, and clarifies policies surrounding sexual misconduct, visitations and mandatory reporting policies.

Dean of Students Melissa Mischke and newly-appointed interim co-Director of Student Wellbeing Tina Sciocchetti revisited the E-Book policies this summer with an eye toward student safety and as part of the Academy’s sexual misconduct response and prevention plan.

The changes are intended to make sure that the school has “the right pieces in place to properly address prevention of and education around sexual misconduct,” according to an email sent by Mischke to the student body over the summer.

“Everyone is going to pressure her into doing whatever the Board of Trustees wants and she will most likely never truly have the final word.”

Though policies involving sexual misconduct are new, Principal Lisa MacFarlane said that principal’s discretion is not. “[It] was already in the E-book… All we did this summer was make it more visible.”

The newest edition of the E-Book now has a section dedicated entirely to sexual misconduct. The terms “sexual misconduct,” “sexual assault,” “sexual penetration,” “sexual contact,” “sexual contact” and “consent” are defined in this section. The policy outlines the process behind reporting sexual misconduct, including what steps would be necessary of both the school and any students involved.

The E-Book now clearly states when staff and faculty would be required to report incidents to the police under the New Hampshire Safe School Zones Act. The addition of the policy on sexting defines the term, and clarifies that sexting can lead to criminal charges under federal and state laws, as well as leading to disciplinary action, and could possibly fall under the principal’s discretion.

MacFarlane said that principal’s discretion would only be used “in very rare and limited situations. For example: when a DC process might interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation; when the situation involves harm to others or the community and an outside independent investigation is appropriate; and in situations where there are highly sensitive privacy considerations, especially those involving students other than the one who is facing discipline—those that require a more confidential process than the DC is able to accommodate.”

Certain cases, defined in the E-Book as those in which “there is harm against others or a threat to the community,” or those where law enforcement or government officials may conduct an investigation, may now be handled through a process separate from the current disciplinary system at the “principal’s discretion.” Principal Lisa MacFarlane and the Dean of Students would work in consultation to run an investigation, or appoint an investigator, and decide the appropriate disciplinary response or action to the case. MacFarlane said that this protocol are not only for sexual misconduct cases, but that those cases do typically meet the conditions for principal’s discretion.

The added E-Book clause also details the principal’s power to place any student on probation or leave, or require them to withdraw from the school following entry into either the regular disciplinary process or the process detailed under the principal’s discretion. The principal may also withhold diplomas or choose not to award a student with a diploma, according to the E-Book. Some members of the community are supportive of principal’s discretion as a disciplinary measure. “Principal’s discretion is the best solution to dealing with charges of student-to-student sexual misconduct, cases that may involve the police and that can be extraordinarily difficult to resolve,” science instructor Townley Chisholm said.

Other members of the community were wary of how such power being placed solely in the hands of the principal. “I think it’s a bit weird because it’s just one person who gets to decide everything. How can we put our fate in one person’s hands?” upper Chiara Perotti-Correa said.

History instructor Michael Golay was concerned about the implications of extending the usage of principal’s discretion outside of cases of sexual misconduct. “I think the implications of [principal’s discretion] are immense. If it’s confined to sexual misconduct, that might be one thing. If principal’s discretion is applied to other areas of student life, of school life, that could be a very different thing and I think we really need to talk about that,” he said.

Golay further expressed discontent about the lack of discussion and clarity that occurred prior to making changes in school policy and administration. “The faculty wasn’t consulted about those changes and I think that’s a problem… Principal’s discretion challenges a fundamental notion of governance of the school. We have seen nothing like this before now. At minimum, we need a clear definition of what’s meant by the phrase,” he said.

Lower Joseph Hong felt that principal’s discretion undermined the authority of the disciplinary process.

“There’s a whole system, such as the [Discipline Committee], and the principal doing that overrules it, making it useless,” he said.

Although some questioned the effect principal’s discretion may have on the DC, MacFarlane said that it “is definitely not intended to undermine [that] excellent and thoughtful work.”

Perotti-Correa questioned whether the principal really has the final say during cases of principal’s discretion in practice.

“Everyone is going to pressure her into doing whatever the Board of Trustees wants and she will most likely never truly have the final word,” she said.

Despite his general support of the policy, Chisholm said he hoped that the Discipline Committee would still review cases of sexual misconduct that don’t involve the police, and expressed concern due to the lack of transparency that would occur if such cases are reviewed through the principal’s discretion. “When the DC has voted [for Requirement to Withdraw] for students involved in sexual misconduct cases in the past few years it has acted in the best interests of the school and the charged students, and sent a clear message about community standards, a message that the confidentiality of principal’s discretion will lack,” he said.

Chisholm noted that the overall additions to the E-Book were part of a greater change at Exeter towards addressing sexual misconduct, and felt that the changes were necessary and justified. “Campus culture is definitely shifting as we pay much more attention to educating students and faculty on reporting laws and on what giving clear consent means in a sexual context ... I am easily persuaded that these changes are good and needed,” he said.

Perotti-Correa also felt that the reflected a greater trend, but felt that the new rules were restrictive. “I think that with everything that’s been going on with the school...they’ve just been so uptight with the new rules and not only with the principal’s discretion rules, there’s the sexting thing, the social media thing,” she said, referencing the clarification of E-Book policies.

Chisholm further expressed a desire for students and faculty to work together in instituting change to address sexual culture, saying, “I hope that students will work with the faculty to make our school culture one in which students show each other respect and kindness in sexual contexts as in all others.”