Accountability and Redemption
When teenagers make mistakes

Adolescence is an exercise in discovering who we are about to become—trying on styles of dress, political stances or even different types of friendships. Making a bad choice, following that risky impulse, testing the established limits is part of the territory. The best educators of adolescents, then, are expert at finding the “teachable moment,” of helping teens to realize the implications of their decision-making—for better or worse. Enter: the Discipline Committee (DC)—a structured but supportive, fair but firm process that helps a student acknowledge a mistake and begin over.

At Milton, four faculty members and four students sit in a DC. Faculty and students are on a level playing field. They work from an established set of facts (i.e., what happened has already been determined), and their task is well defined. To the facts the committee must add the context of the situation, and determine the right level of accountability for a student who crossed a community boundary. Once the head of school accepts its recommendation, the committee communicates its decision and its rationale to the whole school. The students’ responsibility is real. Students who have served on DCs name the experience as one of the most powerful learning experiences they’ve had. Those who appear before a DC often find it a turning point in their school careers. They are pained to have disappointed the faculty who believe in them, and surprised at the support they receive in “becoming whole” again.

This system allows the School community to reaffirm its values publicly, again and again. It also helps a student to own his mistake and move past it, finding “redemption” among people who want to see him or her succeed.

An adolescent’s primary job is to differentiate himself or herself from the parents and the adults in his life. Teenagers do that through questioning, pushing back, or through behavior that a family or a community might find problematic. The parents—who must, in turn, differentiate themselves from their children, are meant to respond by holding a child responsible for his or her actions and supporting him or her in moving forward. That is how the dance works, for the best outcome. Adults who refuse to acknowledge the adolescent transgression, either because they identify, as a parent might, too closely with a child’s perceived success or failure, or because they deny the facts of a particular case, can prevent a student from learning how to behave differently if confronted with a similar situation.
George Fernald (Modern Languages), a charter member of the Discipline Committee, which was instituted in 1972 by former Headmaster David Wicks, serves as secretary of the committee and has sat on nearly a thousand DCs.

“I believe in the system,” George says. “It’s not easy to punish students, so you really need to believe in the system. We committee members—four faculty members, four students—have to find a decision that everyone can believe in.”

“It is amazing how the circumstances of people’s lives affect their judgment,” says Chloe Walters-Wallace ’03, a student at Barnard College, who served on the DCs through her role as class councilor. “I learned not to make snap judgments about people. So many things can affect people, and you would never have a clue,” she says. “It’s not that the DC reveals secrets of students’ lives—because there is the serious confidentiality aspect of the process—but it just reveals humanity.”

“I always assumed that the committee’s recommendations would be divided between faculty and students,” says co-head monitor Tom Myers ’04. “But if there’s a split in opinions, it’s almost always random.”

“The DC experience is a great one, in the sense that you are on equal footing with everyone else in the room,” says class councilor Buddy Calitri ’05, “but it is, after all, about assigning punishment. I’ve changed, because I understand the nature of mistakes now. Don’t look down on people who have made a mistake. I’ve learned to be open-minded, to take a step back, to learn about what happened, which is usually just a situation where someone handled something the wrong way, and see that there’s always more than meets the eye. There is context to take into account, every time.”

“What I liked was meeting people and getting to know them in a whole other way—with equal footing, or on the same level,” says veteran DC member, Emily Tsanotelis ’04. “Mutual respect is palpable. It’s not like that, among adults and students, in any other setting, at Milton or anywhere else.”

Working toward the truth

“We’re only about 650 people [in the Upper School],” says co-head monitor Sophie Suberman ’04. “Even so, it’s hard to get at the truth.”

Sophie hits upon the primary challenge of the process. Identifying the facts of the matter happens before the DC convenes. It starts with the students involved in an issue, writing up a description of what they did. Getting the facts straight sometimes takes a few days. Dean of Students Lukie Wells calls it “letting the facts unfold.” (David Torcoletti, former dean of students, calls it “focusing on the facts.”)
If you don’t get the facts straight first, then the DC’s job—moving from the facts to the underlying truth of the matter—can’t happen. Was this a violation of trust? Was it a breach of academic integrity? Was it an unsafe choice? The DC uses the facts to answer the question for the community.
“From the dean’s office perspective, I want students to call their parents before I do,” Lukie says. “Often, they also want to tell their advisors. I usually give parents a call just to say what’s happened and that we’re still collecting the facts. It gives them time to think about how they want to react. Neither the School nor the parents want to bring a value judgment. We don’t judge students on their mistakes; we judge them on how they deal with their mistakes.”

“I think students [on the committee] are especially important in that they can ask questions that might draw out particular motives or feelings of the person being DC’d,” says Caroline Walsh ’03, a student at Notre Dame University who served on the DCs for three years through her role as a class representative. “Often, the students sitting on the DC have been in similar situations, and this gives the committee a better understanding of the pressures that influence decisions in those scenarios. At the same time, faculty members help the committee to stay focused on the big picture.”

“After we’ve interviewed the student before the committee, we hear from that person’s advisor,” Sophie says. “Then all of the commit-tee members make a personal statement on what we think ought to happen.”

“The DC approach continues to be successful at Milton because it allows students and faculty to converse and work together similar to the way they do inside the classroom,” Caroline says. “Members of the committee show respect for the person being DC’d and for the greater community, which is also affected by certain situations.”

The dean or assistant dean explains DC decisions to the whole School at assemblies, though the proceedings are entirely confidential. “For the sake of the individual,” Caroline says, “these announcements made to the student body prevent the rumor mill that often starts circling after disciplinary incidents. For the entire community, it is helpful to know what rules Milton will not stand to have compromised,” Caroline says.

“While people outside Milton are often mortified when they hear of these public announcements, what they fail to grasp is the twofold benefit of being open about these cases,” Caroline says.

“If a student is suspended,” Lukie says, “we talk about what it’s going to feel like coming back after three days, help them think about ‘re-entering.’ I ask them what it feels like to have done this. It’s important to ask—and not tell them how they should feel.

“We care deeply about students as they move through the process,” Lukie says. “They are usually so worried about being in trouble, and I think they’re surprised that we hold their hands through the process.”

Working with parents

One concern expressed by many present and former committee members is the growing national trend of rejecting the idea that a son or daughter has done something wrong. Instead of realizing the opportunity for a key life lesson and life experience, more and more parents work to excuse or reframe the situation. They are worried about the effect of a disciplinary action in the high-stakes game of college admissions. This response undermines the system’s efficacy.

“When the pressure [to react in a particular way to an incident] from families increases, our ability to teach decreases,” Lukie says. She says that by trying to take away the consequences or clarify an infraction in their own terms—through a euphemism, for example, parents do their children no favors.

“We ask that parents let us do our job; and we ask them to become part of the process in a positive way,” Lukie says. “Parents get embarrassed, scared, protective, sometimes combative, then reflective and wise, and sometimes thankful (or not).”

David Torcoletti agrees. “It’s important for parents and the School to become allies. If you want to make a child crazy, have one adult tell him that the truth is ‘x’ and another say that it is ‘y.’

“The best outcome is when a parent says to the dean, ‘Okay, I know what you’re going to do. What do you think we should do?’”

“The committee makes its recommendations on the fullest, most ethical considerations possible,” says George, who finds external pressure to soften penalties or the name of “crimes” worrisome.

Individuals, the community and seeking fairness
How far beyond the imperative that a person’s behavior should not cause harm to others should the School’s role go? “Every decision we make is a statement to the community about a particular infraction,” Lukie says. “We communicate institutional values that are in keeping with our mission.”

“I think it’s good that the DCs are announced at assembly. [That it is public] puts a face to the issue. We think about what kind of statement the DC is making to the community.

“An issue that almost invariably arose at the close of each deliberation was the tension between creating a solution that was tailored to the student’s unique circumstances, versus a ‘punishment’ that would express to the School community the seriousness of the matter,” Caroline says. “It seemed that faculty, and members of the administration in particular, often put more emphasis on how our decisions would affect the student body as a whole. This struggle really highlighted for me the relationship between the School community and the individuals that comprise it,” Caroline says.

“Besides wanting to be fair and open-minded on the committee, I felt it was my duty, and good fortune, to illuminate for other students rules in the Milton handbook which the School was adamant about,” Caroline says. “With the freshmen, sophomores and even Middle School students I met with for peer education, I warned them of ‘risky’ behavior, and let them know the serious consequences that might accompany certain unwise decisions. Sharing my knowledge of the discipline system was always very important to me.”

“Students are mindful of the penalties that have been given for certain infractions in the past,” Lukie says. The School communicates its values in assigning reasonably standard punishment for certain offenses—an academic integrity violation (cheating, plagiarism), for instance, typically results in a five-day suspension, while getting caught with a beer would likely result in a three-day suspension.

“Maybe in a perfect world, there would be no DCs,” says Tom. “But in a way, it’s good. The process strengthens the community and makes a point. Serving on the committee [as a student] is inherently awkward. But I feel like we’re as fair as we can be.”

“Having that ability to empathize outweighs [the awkwardness of punishing a peer],” says former head monitor and current Brown University student Trey Hunt ’03. “In the end, you understand that, as a leader, you have to be that much more responsible.”

A teachable moment

“I’m impressed by the low rate of recidivism,” George says. “Students seem to get the point,” he says. “The results of the system have been positive in helping people to see themselves more clearly.”

“We use the DC as a teachable moment,” Lukie says. “We talk about how they got to where they were, what they did, the impact of it on others and how they move through it.”

“I saw a dorm-mate of mine really get his act together after being DC’d,” Trey says. “One of my favorite parts of a DC is when we talk to the student before he goes out. That’s when a lot of the care shows—when one student suggests an idea for how the student can avoid the same situation happening again.”

“First and foremost, this is a teaching process,” Lukie says. “Students almost always think that rules are unfair. This process can help students understand the ‘why’ behind the rules.

“This process can be unbelievably nerve-wracking for students. But when they realize that the committee is not out to get them, that the adults care a great deal about them—they get a broadened view of adult roles.

“We teach in the classroom, in the dorms, on the playing fields and here, in a conference room, we teach to the mistakes that people make,” Lukie says. “It’s just a continuation of the work we do every day; it’s not separate from it.”

In addition to suspension or expulsion, the committee may recommend counseling, which is protected by confidentiality.

Learning from leadership

“Being a member of the committee is a great learning experience for students,” George says. “I’m sure that sometimes the pain [of penalizing peers] is as great as the pain of the student receiving the punishment. It’s hard for students to punish other students, especially because they feel how much is at stake. Students now also feel more pressure and more stress related to getting into a desirable school [and this may encourage them to violate integrity rules].”

As George surmises, the process for student leaders on the committee can be almost as gut-wrenching as it is for those before the committee—but that discomfort can lead to stronger, more confident leadership.

Tom acknowledges that it can be difficult, as a student, not to take the side of the predominant student view and, while the outcome is public, the often intense deliberations and mitigating circumstances that affect the decision are definitely not public, which can make an outcome tricky to explain. Would he do it over again?

“I would,” Tom says. “It’s cool to see the types of changes you can bring about. If students have power, they can make change.”

Trey says that, of his duties as head monitor, sitting on the DCs was the least attractive part. “But in the end, that was some of the work I felt most proud of,” he says. “It’s empowering to see students have their voice in these decisions, and I usually left a DC with the feeling that justice had been done.

“It’s a cliché that it’s lonely at the top, but I sometimes found it to be true. A lot of leaders wrestle with that. To serve in this capacity means that some people can’t look at you and see a friend, Trey; they have to look at you and see a person with authority and they wonder if you’re selling out,” Trey says.
“I learned that in order not to feel hypocritical while sitting on the committee, I had to try and hold myself to a higher standard of ‘rule following’ during my daily life,” Caroline Walsh says. In fact, students automatically lose leadership positions at School if they appear before the DC.

“I learned that the way you say something is ultimately what colors how another person receives it—particularly peers who do not want to be addressed condescendingly by classmates.

“I also learned about dealing with other people, working in groups to arrive at consensus, dealing with some negative feedback from peers and, in the end, having to be comfortable with decisions you make.

“I learned that leading by example is particularly important when you are in a position to be making judgments of some sort on the actions of others within the community,” Caroline says.

Heather Sullivan

Back to Magazine