by Anouk Shin’26, Ian Cho’26, and Karry Kim’25
We are all familiar with the silence that fills the school meeting at the announcement of SDC. This announcement is a result of a Student Disciplinary Committee meeting, a unique process at St. Mark’s. Among the students, the SDC process is a delicate topic to address, and some recurring opinions have emerged, and are shared anonymously in this article.
However, before having this discussion, it is important to understand the specific procedures during an SDC meeting. Most students have a general idea of the role of the SDC, yet very few understand the specifics.
First, once the offense is done, the dean of students, the dean of academics, and the head of the school decides if an SDC hearing is appropriate for the gravity of the student’s actions. Prior to the hearing, the student writes a statement to provide insight into the event. If a faculty member was involved in the reporting of the incident, a faculty statement is also made. The statements and any other relevant materials are provided to the committee during the hearing. The head of the SDC begins the hearing by briefly outlining the process and asking the members to introduce themselves. The committee then asks various questions to the student to better understand the event, the student’s perspective, and the desire to improve. Then, the student exits. The advisor and a peer of the student each provide a character statement. Questions are asked to the advisor but not the student. Then, the advisor, peer, and the head of school exit, and the committee composed of both students and faculty discusses and narrows down to the appropriate response. Finally, an official recommendation is made by the committee, and Mr. Warren either accepts the recommendation or can modify the decision.
Once the decision is made, the committee creates three points to be shared during the all school SDC announcement. Importantly, all of the information shared during the hearing remains confidential.
(For further information, visit page 39 of the student handbook.)
In a typical 30 to 40-minute session deliberating the decision, the student and faculty committee are given the typical level of punishment that a student with a similar offense. Different student offenses are categorized into different levels of offenses, and although there are no fixed punishments for students, the handbook states that “patterns do evolve over time”. Though this categorization helps move the process more efficiently, one concern is the reliance on these categories and “patterns,” rather than a deeper understanding of the unique circumstances and context of each offense.
Another concern is the intense pressure on the students in the SDC process. In the student testimony session, students are asked questions about their offenses. Though these questions are meant to help the committee members “clarify the circumstances and/or the student’s response to what they have done” according to the student handbook, they also put students under immense pressure, making it difficult to think clearly. An account from a student who has been in the process says that they felt “stressful, pressured, and confused,” and felt like their “mind went blank when the members started asking questions”. There is a need for a better way to achieve the goals of hearing student statements, which is to gain a better understanding of the case rather than to punish the student.
Both these topics of concern stem from the blurred purpose of the SDC hearings; less focus is given to deciding the most adequate punishment for the students. In general, the SDC process should put greater emphasis on gaining a deeper understanding of each case and to do so, there should be a more supportive and understanding environment for the students. It is also crucial to separate their punishments from the process of the SDC.