An integral part of upholding integrity at Choate, the Judicial Committee (JC) represents the view of the students in hearings and recommends the most fitting course of action for an infraction of the Honor Code to a board of faculty members. JC members are expected to be impartial — to find a balance between communicating the students’ perspectives and proposing a fair punishment to the faculty. However, many members face pressure that accompanies this responsibility.
Former JC representative Nils Lovegren ’18 said, “The fact that someone’s punishment is partially in my hands is intimidating, to say the least. In my first full hearing, I spent over two hours debating a student’s future at the school, which was one of the most emotionally draining experiences I have had. I often spent hours after a hearing wondering if I could have done more to sway the Committee towards a better punishment; in one case, I couldn’t get my mind off the case for weeks. I have left a hearing crying — it comes with the job. If a JC member doesn’t feel the pressure, if a JC member isn’t ever emotionally invested in a case, he or she is doing something wrong.”
The JC has recently amended its constitution to alter the way cases are disclosed. Previously, only the name and the punishment could be shared to the whole community. Now, JC members are able to explain the premise of the hearing to the community after a decision is made.
“On the one hand, it has decreased pressure on us because we are able to explain the thought process of the Committee as a whole to those who inquire and help them to understand the decisions that we make,” explained Olivia van den Born ’17, three-year member and recently elected Chair of the JC. “On the other hand, along with this new “rule” comes the situation in which we might have to defend an opinion that the Committee held as a whole that we individually do not share. In this case, even though our hearts might be screaming for us to speak out for what we know is right, just as we do during hearings, we must uphold the view of the Committee in the face of queries.” However, she added, “Nevertheless, I think people are very respectful for the most part when it comes to asking about a particular hearing, which certainly lightens the load on us.”
The consensus among JC representatives is that through experience and time, they were able to become more levelheaded, mature, assertive, and comfortable in making weighty decisions.
“I think experience over the past year has really contributed to my growing comfort level handling these pressures. During my first hearing, I was crazy nervous and sure that I would not have the right questions to ask or the right things to say. After my fair share of cases, I have built up the confidence to disagree with other members of the Committee if necessary and to be unwavering in my stance on the case, which has allowed me to balance my role both as an adjudicator and as a representative of the student,” said van den Born.
However, despite the weight of expectations placed on JC members, many decide to return after one year of service. Four-year JC representative and outgoing JC chair Singhei Yeung ’16 said, “I see the JC as one of the few positions in this school in which you can affect other people’s lives directly.”
Yeung holds that helping students learn from their mistakes has enabled him to “give back to the community.” Despite this, however, JC representatives weather extreme emotional pressure throughout their tenure as a result of the unique positions. They are students who are often caught between being a friend and being a judge.
