“Under what circumstances would you all report somebody for an Honor Code violation?” asked Associate Dean of Student Life Sarah Cardwell at the Judicial Task Force’s open forum on Wednesday night.
The students in attendance responded immediately the following: vandalism, assault and academic violations. Not a single person in the room said they would report someone for an underage drinking offense alone.
Why?
Because, they offered, they witness underage drinking on a regular basis and receive no consequences for not reporting the violations.
“I think people are more likely to write someone up if they believe that if they don’t, it will lead to personal repercussions for them,” said Alex Shapiro ’11.
People may be hesitant to file a report, said Taylor Gould ’13, a Judicial Board Representative, due to the nature of the system. “If you are going to report a violation, your name has to be associated with it,” he reminded the group. There are no anonymous reports.
On Wednesday, October 20, the Judicial Task Force hosted the second of three open forums to discuss proposed changes to the Honor Code policy. While the turnout was less than spectacular, at around seven in total, the discussion was energetic and intense.
The conversation began with the debate about whether alcohol and drug violations should be dealt with in the same way as other Honor Code violations, or whether they should be handled as separate, unrelated incidences.
Duncan Spaulding ’13 said that when he is told that a friend is going to J-Board, he automatically assumes that they must have committed a horrible offense. Upon discovering that the reason for their hearing is an alcohol or drug violation, he imagines “they’re going to get a slap on the wrist and a warning, and then they’re going to go to CHOICES, which isn’t really that bad.”
Despite feeling like J-Board consequences for alcohol violations are meager, Spaulding was hesitant to say that processing drug and alcohol violations in a more traditional, probationary manner would be a positive change.
Cardwell proposed that alcohol and drug violations could still be considered Honor Code violations that were simply processed differently.
“There’s also a possibility,” she added, “that you could say alcohol and drug violations are not Honor Code violations, but just college policy that we treat separately.”
Spaulding supported the idea of a distinction between Honor Code violations and college policy. “I don’t think you should get a slap on the wrist for an Honor Code violation, because the range of punishments for an Honor Code violation are huge,” he said.
“I personally like the umbrella Honor Code,” said Julie Sizer ’11, referring to the current Honor Code, which encompasses both academic and social infractions. “It might be best to have [drug and alcohol violations] handled in different respects, but still under the entire breadth of the Honor Code.”
In response to Sizer’s statement, Spaulding voiced concern that, because alcohol violations are currently encompassed within the Honor Code, there is a significant amount of hypocrisy within the Judicial Board, as some of the representatives most likely have and do consume alcohol underage.
“I think too many times we equate the Honor Code with J-Board,” replied Julie, “when really the Honor Code is in every part of this community.”
Conor Walsh ’11, Chair of the Judicial Board, agreed that the Honor Code is more than just a judiciary process. He was concerned that incorporating alcohol and drug policy in the Honor Code would encourage students to “pick and choose” which aspects of the Honor Code apply to them.
“It’s dangerous because it can spiral out of control,” said Walsh. “We can lose sight of what the Honor Code really means.”
Walsh explained that rules students break every day diminish the value of the Connecticut College Honor Code. He used dining hall policy as an example, referencing the rule that reads, “Food and/or service ware may not be taken from the dining hall.”
Dean Cardwell relayed another potential suggestion: creating a separate board to deal with alcohol and drug infractions, which was limited to board members to those 21 and over.
“I’m worried that if [alcohol violations] are separated from the Honor Code, and possibly even if you adjudicate them separately, it will alienate an already alienated non-drinking population,” said Shapiro.
Ron Birnkrant ’12 did not share Shapiro’s concern. “If you chose not to drink under 21, that’s commendable, but I don’t think you need the school commending you on your actions,” he said. “Would you feel more honorable because the Honor Code encompasses drinking as well? To me, that’s selfish.”
Shapiro met this opposition by stating that while those who don’t partake in underage drinking may be a minority on campus, the drinking age is still the law.
At this point, Cardwell introduced the last topic of conversation: the composition of Judicial Board. Currently, Conn’s J-Board consists of eight voting members, two from each class, and a chair that only votes in the case of a tie. After speaking to other schools with similar judiciary processes, the Judicial Task Force has found that in comparison, our J-Board is extremely small. Davidson College’s judicial board has thirty members, ten of which hear each case. At Haverford College, Cardwell said there is a “much larger pool of trained students that can be pulled for cases from time to time, like a jury pool.”
Walsh liked the idea of increasing the number of participants involved in the judiciary process. “It would open up the process a little bit to the community and get more students involved,” he said.
While no definitive answers were given and no conclusions were made, the discussion helped inform students of the inner workings of the judicial process, and the students were offered the opportunity to challenge, evaluate and make an impact on the Honor Code policies that ultimately impact them the most.
(Image from conncoll.edu)
