Campus Divided on Discipline Committee Bias
In response to an ESA survey question about whether the discipline system favors those of privileged backgrounds, 50 percent of respondents—more upperclassmen than lowerclassmen and more males than females—answered positively.
Discipline Committee (DC) chair and Classics Instructor Matthew Hartnett had hoped that the DC assembly earlier this year would help dispel rumors of bias. Now he realizes this may not have been enough.
“The committee takes on a lot of cases, many of which aren't publicized. Because of this, focusing on a fraction of the cases can be misleading,” Kang said. “Unconscious biases can't be ruled out, but the committee strives to create a fair and equitable system.”
According to the E Book, the DC’s primary goals are “to educate students and to treat them as fairly as possible when rules are broken.” However, the E Book does not explicitly outline how the DC ensures impartiality.
DC member and senior Matt Kang believes the perception of prejudice stems from students’ lack of information regarding the process. “The committee takes on a lot of cases, many of which aren't publicized. Because of this, focusing on a fraction of the cases can be misleading,” Kang said. “Unconscious biases can't be ruled out, but the committee strives to create a fair and equitable system.”
Kang also noted how the word “privilege,” as used in the survey, is quite open-ended. “Privilege is a huge concept with a lot of different facets,” he said.
In reference to privilege as a financial status, Kang affirmed that the DC is not given information about a student’s socioeconomic background. In reference to race, Kang guaranteed that this is not a factor that the DC considers, though he admitted that there is no way to objectively assess colorblindedness.
DC member and upper Tise Okeremi confirmed Kang’s statements, adding that students’ extracurriculars are also not considered.
Factors the DC does consider, according to Dean of Residential Life Carol Cahalane, include “citizenship on campus, prior attendance and disciplinary records [and] how [the student] demonstrated their understanding of the situation and their willingness to accept responsibility.”
This is done to help build students’ case via non-evident aspects of their character. “[The DC] does not ask ‘trick questions’ that are meant to trip students up,” Cahalane said. Prior to the case, she works with students to help them better understand and prepare for it.
During DC elections, candidate statements reflected the concerns reflected in the ESA survey—a perception of bias towards certain demographics. Examples of these statements included lower Nahla Owens’, which reads, “I believe that no students should receive preferential treatment due to their wealth, race or gender.”
Owens, who consulted 375 students while gathering signatures, estimated that around “30 to 40 percent of students believe that white male students were given preferential treatment in the system.” Whether that is true or not, Owens believes more transparency—particularly public release of information from the DC assembly—will clear up the perception.
Similarly, lower Marymegan Wright’s statement read, “I will treat everyone equally regardless of their gender, race, sexuality or any other aspect of their personhood.”
Wright has noticed how Exonians believe that talented athletes, musicians or students from wealthy families are treated with favoritism. “It's not fair to prioritize one group of people over another,” Wright said. She acknowledged, however, that she hasn’t personally heard of an unfair case.
Whatever reason may be driving the students’ beliefs, Hartnett is willing to take initiative on changing it. “I do think it's a little bit of an issue if there's a significant percentage of the student population who thinks that there is some inherent bias in the system,” he said. “If so, I would like to address that.”
Hartnett believes, however, that the committee is doing the best they can to ensure fairness. “That’s one of the reasons why we have eight adults voting on the committee: to try to eliminate the possibility of any single person’s subconscious bias determining outcomes,” he said. “We’re not living in a perfect world and it’s not a perfect committee, but I can tell you that the makeup of the committee is very consciously conditioned by a desire to make it diverse.”
Okeremi, meanwhile, views students’ lack of knowledge regarding the process as a call for greater transparency, though noting that there is a fine line to be tread between communicating with the community and breaking confidentiality. “DC values confidentiality because they are people’s lives. It is not our business to tell,” she said.
According to Cahalane, the Discipline Review Committee, a committee separate from the Discipline Committee dedicated to reforming the discipline process, has met to discuss students’ complaints about lack of transparency. “The Discipline Review Committee has discussed whether changing this practice [of withholding data from cases] would be helpful to the individual students and to the student body,” she said. “We have received mixed feedback from students and faculty on this idea. We might use some case studies for discussion in advising groups to help students understand the process.”
DC faculty member and Religion Instructor Hannah Hofheinz believes the answer lies in conversations about what “a better understanding” of the DC process means. “In terms of pushing on just how the students understand the Discipline Committee, it’s better to start from the beginning and think, ‘Well, when it’s going right, what does it look like,’” they said.
Senior and committee member Yaseen Ahmed looks forward to a future of more understanding between students and the DC. “An idea from this year which I would like to see happen is going around to individual dorms [and talking about the discipline process],” he said. “I think that if you're in a smaller group, people are more comfortable engaging and really trying to have a better understanding.”