The shadows of the discipline process
The Honor Code rules this campus, from when we enroll in this University to the very first performance we see of the Triangle Club to the statement of honor we write on our theses.
However, the disciplinary system is far from perfect, and this is why Justin Ziegler ’16 proposed a referendum to consider its reform. You can read his statement about the referendum here. The referendum would not actually make direct changes to the system; rather, it would set up a mechanism to make those changes.
After interviewing students, faculty and administrators about their experiences with the disciplinary process at Princeton, I strongly believe students should vote yes.
Last year, 28 students were suspended for violations ranging from drugs to academic violations to sexual misconduct. Punishments range from a Dean’s warning to expulsion, including disciplinary probation, one-year suspension, one-year suspension with censure, two-year suspension or a withheld degree.
Stanley Katz, a professor in the Wilson School, strongly believes in reforming this system: “I have been advising students brought before the COD [Committee on Discipline] for decades, so I know the system pretty well. I think it is seriously flawed. We have too few procedural protections for students accused of violations, the scale of penalties is much too harsh and the system is administered in a prosecutorial frame of mind. I think it is quite wrong to have such a harsh and unforgiving system of discipline in our great University,” he said.
The committees
There are two committees that oversee disciplinary action: the Honor Committee (HC) and the Committee on Discipline (COD). The HC is currently comprised of 12 members, chaired by Charlie Jacobson ’16. All class presidents serve on the HC, including former class presidents. Senior Associate Dean of the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students Victoria Jueds is the administrative advisor, but the student committee operates autonomously. The HC deals primarilywith violations during in-class examinations. The standard punishment for violations of academic integrity is a one-year suspension on first offence and expulsion for a second offence.
Jacobson wrote in an email, “It's often hard for us to have nuanced conversations about the Code due to the confidential nature of our work. I think the Task Force is a great opportunity to facilitate a campus-wide conversation about our community values and how they are embodied in the Code.”
The COD operates differently and deals with a more diverse range of cases, from plagiarism to assault to sexual misconduct. Dean of Undergraduate Students Kathleen Deignan is the chair, and Dean Jueds acts as thesecretary.
While it is clear that it would be inappropriate for members of either the HC or COD to discuss specific cases with the press, members are explicitly instructed to defer all comments, even personal opinions, to the Chair or Deans, respectively. Shortly after I requested individual interviews with each member of the HC and COD, they all received instruction not to speak with reporters for the ‘Prince.’ Although this referendum is not calling for transparency, the creation of a task force would spark a more public discussion.
The deans’ voice
I sat down with Dean Jueds to discuss exactly how the process works and whether or not she supports the referendum. She indicated she would be happy to have a conversation through the task force if the referendum passes, but believes that the system is working as it should. “The disciplinary system is only as strong as it is consistent,” she commented.
She emphasized how there are finer gradations of punishment than just suspension or expulsion, but according to the discipline reports from 2012, 2013 and 2014, the punishment most frequently levied for academic infringements was a one-year suspension.
According to section 2.4.8 of “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” concerning violations of academic integrity, “The only adequate defense for a student accused of an academic violation is that the work in question does not, in fact, constitute a violation.” This language harshly implies that the accused have no fair defense for their actions — essentially, guilty until proven innocent.
Neither Dean Deignan nor Dean Juedswould explicitly support the referendum. Dean Deignan wrote in an email, “Our current policies and procedures are not the result of unexamined tradition, but are the product of reasoned deliberation and careful thought. Moreover, they are fairly applied on a consistent basis — a characteristic I think essential to any disciplinary system.”
The students’ voice
The referendum is not an attempt to fix a broken system, as current and former HC members wrote in a recent opinion piece, but an invitation for further discussion about the successes and the shadows of the discipline process. An anonymous member of one of the committees agrees, “By and large, it functions well, but we should absolutely have a public community discussion about the discipline process. This referendum is important because it will inform students.”
Students on both sides of the situation — those who are members of the HC or COD, as well as students who have been accused or have been called as witnesses or peer representatives — feel that a discussion is greatly needed.
“I believe changing the Honor Code to be more inclusive of students struggling with mental health challenges is a well-intended but misguided step. It is like putting a cotton ball on the end of a hammer and expecting it to soften the blow. . . [the Honor Code] cultivates a culture of fear and suspicion among students, many of whom are afraid to ask for help on anything for fear of punishment, which, especially since the only possible punishment is an automatic year suspension, the threat is terrifying,” an anonymous alum who went through the process reflects. Due to the confidential nature of the cases, it is unclear how many students who face disciplinary charges are working through mental health challenges, but many studentsquestionshow sensitive the committees are to issues of mental health.
Ali Hayat ’16 is the chair of the peer representatives of the HC, and he is a staunch advocate of the referendum. Peer representatives are assigned to help students by providing information about the process, emotional counsel and representation at the hearing — “defense lawyers of sort,” he said. Hayat explained how they prepare a case and present it to the committee in defense of the accused. After hearing of bad experiences that students were having with the disciplinary process, he decided to get involved as a peer representative and then as Chair.
Hayat said he hopes students will vote in favor of the referendum. “The disciplinary process at Princeton never gets mentioned beyond hushed conversations between those who have been through it, or by those who either work on or with either of the two committees. If nothing else, I hope this referendum gets people talking about it. I hope it can spur a debate on campus about an area that affects the student body in sharp ways, and I hope it leads to some questions being asked about some of the drawbacks and flaws of the current system, and how we can improve it.”
Peer representatives are not the only form of assistance that students provide other students. A graduate student with a law degree detailed to me how he served as a legal advisor to two students charged with sexual misconduct; both had reached out to this graduate student because they were not provided any other legal advice during their disciplinary process. “Coming from a legal background, I found it appalling — the process completely disregards the rights of the accused.”
This student was surprised that administrators and professors are charged with the task of levying justice and argued that the best solution would be to direct survivors of sexual assault to local law enforcement to ensure due process. “It seems like it’s just mimicking the criminal justice system.”
Restorative justice
A few years ago, a group of DSLs (Directors of Student Life) wrote a proposal to the Princeton administration entitled, “Reframe Princeton University’s disciplinary system explicitly in terms of restorative justice.” The proposal argued that the system is retributive and ineffective. According to a copy of the report obtained by the Prince, they wrote, “The DSLs can speak from experience that the current disciplinary system often does not serve the community or the offenders... we don’t currently have a framework to have offenders realize how their actions have impact [on] the community and how best to restore themselves to the community.”
They recommended the creation of a restorative justice committee — a powerful call coming from administrators. Although restorative justice is not the explicit intention of this referendum, it could well be part of the conversation.
Whether or not you have personal experience with the disciplinary process, it directly affects students — and the faculty and administrators who advise the accused — in all corners of campus. It’s time to have this conversation.
Azza Cohen is a history major from Highland Park, Ill. She can be reached at accohen@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton’s young alumni are no longer donating, and for a good reason
Wynne Conger“Instead of levying accusations towards these young people and charging them with claims of entitlement or ignorance, the University should take their concerns seriously and work to earn their donations in the future.”
“Instead of levying accusations towards these young people and charging them with claims of entitlement or ignorance, the University should take their concerns seriously and work to earn their donations in the future.”
Princeton must have no truck with Hegseth ’03
Jon OrtPete Hegseth ’03 “is manifestly unfit to lead the U.S. military, often called the world’s most powerful. Hegseth’s threadbare résumé, his decorated service notwithstanding, is least among the mountain of reasons that should disqualify him.”
Pete Hegseth ’03 “is manifestly unfit to lead the U.S. military, often called the world’s most powerful. Hegseth’s threadbare résumé, his decorated service notwithstanding, is least among the mountain of reasons that should disqualify him.”
Princeton’s liberal hypocrisy will only exacerbate the post-election political divide
Siyeon Lee and Genevieve Shutt“The current narrative of liberal superiority perpetuated by some progressives risks deepening the post-election divide and undermining the democratic and egalitarian values they aim to champion.”
“The current narrative of liberal superiority perpetuated by some progressives risks deepening the post-election divide and undermining the democratic and egalitarian values they aim to champion.”
