Illustration by Alicia Toldi '12
Part of the reason I chose to attend this school was the Honor Code. In theory, a student judicial board should advocate adherence to the Honor Code. The idea of being judged by one’s fellow students should be a form of positive peer pressure. But the student-run judicial board has proven to be something that only looks good on paper. The Honor Code is fantastic, and I am all for it; however, the process by which it is enforced is hypocritical.
In February, I appeared before the Board as a first time violator. After taking responsibility for three pretty serious violations, I was given an equally serious sanction.
Upon hearing this news, far too many people asked me why I hadn’t just denied responsibility. Put more simply, far too many people asked me why I hadn’t lied. I do not fault these people for considering lying as an option in front of the Board. Rather, this consideration suggests that we need to ask ourselves what it is about this system that makes lying an option.
Personal responsibility is key to the Honor Code, yet an appearance before J-Board is usually the result of getting caught. If an especially harsh punishment is doled out, the student walks away not having learned a lesson, but instead having learned not to get caught. The basis for dishonesty is often disproportionate sanctions, not to mention the hypocritical nature of the board members themselves.
The Student Handbook clearly lays out all possible Honor Code violations. A violation may have a corresponding sanction, or the Board may deliberate what sanction is appropriate in any given case.
Here is where I take issue with the system.
The Board consists of nine students, and as such they have some idea what happens here on the weekends. In a community of 1900, Board members are just as likely to be at a floor party as you or me. Yet, something happens inside the hearing room, and the Board members develop tunnel vision. Violations can (sometimes) be met with sanctions disproportionate to their damage, in turn causing more harm to the violator than might be deemed necessary by common sense. It is therefore unavoidable that students longing to safeguard their status and participation at Connecticut College lie in front of J-Board.
We are all college students, looking to forge our way forward in the world. What is to stop a Board member from doling out an overly harsh punishment in order to highlight his or her own virtues? On a more basic level, what is to stop a Board member from holding a personal grudge that influences his or her decisions?
Studies have shown that our brains do not stop developing until our thirties. Regardless of how outstanding a Board member’s community reputation may be, the fact is this: we are all barely adults.
As a 20-year-old, I can make an immature decision and violate some component of the Honor Code. What does that say about the capability of a 20-year-old Board member to make a fully mature decision regarding my punishment, or what the best way to correct my behavior might be? What if the decision made by that 20-year-old results in my suspension or expulsion?
Personally, I would rather be judged by a panel of adults. We are lucky to attend a school with a group of top-rate deans and professors. As adults, they are separate from the college world, so there is no room for hypocrisy. They have had much more life experience than we have, and are capable of making more informed decisions. When was the last time you heard of a professor punching through a dorm window? Or getting carried away in an ambulance?
If my ability to make a stupid decision can be dictated by my age or status as a college student, what does that say about the capability of any board member to not make a similarly stupid decision? Again, ideally, a sense of personal responsibility is what should stop a board member from violating the very code they spend so much time enforcing. I would love to believe this, but I’ve heard stories about some of my friends smoking or selling pot to Board members. Not to mention the fact that I’ve personally done vodka shots with another board member.
Perhaps if I hadn’t listened to a friend complain about how he woke up after a party to see a J-Board member drunkenly urinating all over the wall and floor. And of course, one look on Facebook will tell you all you need to know about the feelings some underage members have concerning the drinking age. If I’m going to be kicked out of school, I would rather it be by a fully aged, responsible adult – an adult who can look me in the eye and tell me there is no way he or she could ever be responsible for violating the same Honor Code as me.
Who has ever said the Judicial Board representatives are not just as accountable for their actions as every other student?
At an institution where we are expected to hold ourselves and our peers responsible for their actions that negatively affect the community, we are lucky to have a panel of students that hear out the case and sanction accordingly. They can understand the obstacles their peers face and apply that knowledge to any incident that comes before the Board. A dean or professor cannot. And while the administration is full of honorable individuals, I do not think that students should be treated like middle school children.
Although J-Board representatives may appear hypocritical, they are equally bound by the Honor Code as Ms. Sereiko. When a member is reported as having violated the Honor Code, they go through a separate process that is more intense than J-Board. The fact that Ms. Sereiko is not happy with her experiences is not the fault of the system. As adults, we should all be expected to be responsible for our own actions and accept the process of the institution we CHOSE to attend. I am concerned that we want to continue to be given all of the freedom to make our own choices, but never want to be held accountable when those choices negatively impact the community.
I appreciate a dialogue regarding these problems, but it would be nice (for a change) if people actually got the correct information before writing an Opinion article for the Voice with wrong information. Since I am graduating in twenty-seven days, this may seem like too little too late, but I am worried that this pattern of misinforming the community will continue. I commend this newspaper for doing fantastic investigating and reporting this year, and would encourage contributors to do the same.
While I understand your impetus to defend the J-Board process, Corey, I think you’re maybe overreacting. You’re definitely missing the point. I don’t think there’s any incorrect information in the op-ed at hand; at least, there isn’t much information at all. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Katrina is presenting an opinion, clearly labeled as such by the section in which it appears, on the way the Honor Code appears to hand power over peers not to a jury but rather to a small tribunal of kids who are subject to the same code, and break it in the same ways, but nonetheless enjoy the privilege of passing judgment on basically everyone else. There’s not a lot of fact here, so there can’t be a lot of incorrect fact. Just a little philosophizing. I’m not taking sides in the ideological debate about J-Board one way or the other, but I believe Katrina is entitled to that opinion without accusations of “misinforming.”
I am inclined to agree with Corey. I am unsure how Corey’s response qualifies him as “overreacting.” If your argument is that the article’s author is allowed to voice her opinion, then clearly Corey should be entitled to do so also.
J-Board representatives are elected members of the college’s Judicial System and if hypocrisy is regarded as such a negative quality among candidates, I question the outcomes of previous J-Board elections. I believe that students are often eager to elect a member that is likely to sanction leniently rather than one committed to uphold the honor code in its entirety. Regardless, while J-Board members are bound by the same honor code that every student at Conn is, they are often sanctioned punishments far more severe in nature if they are found to have committed a violation. In response to the author’s experiences with J-Board members acting irresponsibly: not only would I encourage any individual to hold another student, whether a J-Board member or not, accountable for their actions, we all are required to do so under the honor code.
Arguing that campus faculty or administrators would sanction individuals more leniently is somewhat ridiculous. The advantage to a J-Board of your peers is that they understand the real-life experiences of the accused to a much higher degree. If the author would prefer to get kicked out of school for her infractions instead of following sanctions levied by the board (I’m assuming suspension was not sanctioned due to the information provided in the article) then I find her argument to be somewhat hypocritical in and of itself.
Preaching hypocrisy in response to a failure to abide by the honor code is short-sided. I fail to sympathize with those that behave irresponsibly and justify their punishment through accusations against others.
Board members in fact do not go in front of a committee that is harsher or even as harsh as the board that other members of the campus community who make honor code violations are sent to. This is a farce that has been constructed to alleviate the tensions of hypocrisy. Rather, when a judicial board member does partake in some activity that violates the honor code they meet with Dean Sarah Cardwell who personally knows them and are given a slap on the wrist. This is an unfair bias that is not afforded to the rest of the community because all Judicial Board hearings are not character assessments, unless of course someone on the board personally knows you. I know this for a fact because I have friends who have been on the board and have told me so. Furthermore I agree with Testa that professors and deans should not be trying us because lets be frank: professors don’t give a shit, and deans are dumb as shit. The entire administration is top heavy and hypocritical. They are unorganized and continually disgrace the image of this school worse then any students possibly could.
I salute you for being honest, sorry to hear however that the system sounds like it disproportionally punished you for standing up and facing the music.