In the wake of the emotional Gender Week-related fallout that has rocked Parker’s Upper School––particularly its female population––since the first week of March, the school’s discipline system and Code of Conduct––or, more aptly, lack thereof––have come under scrutiny.

Before Gender Week, Upper School Head Justin Brandon introduced an Upper School-wide initiative through Student Government that would allow the student body to make suggestions regarding two sections in the Code of Conduct: the introduction, which outlines general expectations, and the first section, entitled “General Guidelines for Community Behavior,” which goes into more detail about the aforementioned expectations––specifically, which behaviors are not permitted. My favorite line is a tie between “horseplay and littering” and “use of audio equipment in public spaces without the use of personal headphones.”

Though these sections are evidently outdated, this work was quickly deemed useless by the student body because of these two sections’ lack of ability to enact anything tangible on the school’s discipline system. Students also pointed out that since every suggestion made was subject to administrative review, the proposed content was highly unlikely to make an appearance in the final version.

Then came Gender Week and the ensuing scramble by the administration to “repair” the wounds sustained by certain members of the community.

After six weeks––42 days––in an email sent on April 19 to the Upper School whose subject read “Next steps for our community,” Brandon established a committee of students, faculty, and staff to address the Code of Conduct. Its objective, as stated in the email, was to “review our current policies and work towards developing new policy and practices.” Interested parties merely had to reply to his email to be considered, and in the end, all who “applied” were given a place on the committee.

Perhaps out of naïveté, I was optimistic about the potential of the committee to enact tangible change. I thought that because the committee was opt-in and its members were engaging directly with the administration, we would work efficiently and our suggestions were more likely to be taken seriously.

Not so. First of all, to start the process six weeks from the end of the school year meant we would be incredibly rushed if we expected our suggestions to be finished by June and subsequently reviewed by the school’s attorney––the same attorney who spoke to the freshman girls––in time to make it into August’s final draft.

Second, it was apparent that the group was composed to intentionally include varying student perspectives and experiences. However, this also meant that it was not a space where each member could candidly share their thoughts due to polar divisions between committee members.

Finally, Brandon stated at the first meeting that he planned to divide the larger committee into three sub-groups to focus on three sections of the Code of Conduct: “Major offenses,” “Behavioral probation,” and either “School attire” or “Vaping, E-Cigarettes and tobacco.” The “major offenses” section clearly bears the most weight out of those four options. I would assume that naturally, the vast majority of the committee’s members would elect to focus on that section.
This division into three groups seemed, to me, like an attempt to divert focus away from what should have been the group’s true purpose: to address gaping holes in the Code of Conduct that accounted for discipline-related fallout this year that could have been avoided had a concrete policy been in place.

After that first meeting and a follow-up TIDES workshop two weeks later, in which we brainstormed our general objectives for a Code of Conduct (think “transparency,” “consistency,” etc.), the committee was disbanded for the year in another email. In this email, Brandon stated that he wanted to “make sure that our work is thoughtful and not rushed.” Brandon also noted that members were “welcome to send [him] any thoughts [they] may have that were not expressed last week.”

Here are mine.

An explicit mention of sexual harassment and assault is clearly needed, as students believe such issues to be relevant and necessary to any published school policy.

Repeated or serial offenders should be punished more severely than first-time offenders. Students who do not respond to restorative efforts are acting directly out-of-line with the school’s stated mission.

Major offenses should always go in a student’s record. Period. Should the school remove accounts of the offense from a student’s file for fear that it will “follow them around” later in life––as students say they have been told by administrators––that sets the precedent that Parker cares more about its college placement than educating its students to be responsible citizens.

A baseline punishment should be set in the handbook for commission of a major offense. A “day of reflection”––which is widely perceived by the student body as a “get out of jail free” card––does not suffice as consequence for an offense which “poses a danger or threat to the security or safety of the school community or school property.”

Finally, victims of major offenses should be offered some kind of emotional support throughout the discipline process. Appropriately consequencing and restoring the perpetrator to the community is absolutely necessary, but when the victim’s experiences and feelings are not acknowledged, they are discouraged from stepping forward if similar incidents occur in the future.

For years, our Code of Conduct has allowed those who commit offenses––both major and minor––to seemingly skate free as a result of its lack of concreteness. This allows for administrative flexibility to determine punishment based on the student’s ability to defend themself, as opposed to the offense they committed. The creation of a student-focused committee to review Code of Conduct procedures is progressive in theory, but ultimately the adults in the building––in particular, the administrators––should be capable of setting a just discipline policy that meets the needs of every member of the community.