Within the four walls of the classroom, the Student Handbook has, since time immemorial, served as the rule of law when it comes to matters of student discipline. In it are guidelines and policies ranging from ID wearing to academic dishonesty, as well as the sanctions for violations of said rules.
Having done research on the intersection of student discipline with due process in a university setting, the Bowling Green State University deemed that the enforcement of discipline within the university campus is an “educational endeavor which fosters students’ personal and social development.” The psyche of sanctioning violations, therefore, goes beyond simply punishing misdeeds done to control or curb behavior, and the handbook alone cannot account for the nitty-gritty of every case.
Institutional responsibility
For straightforward violations, there exists a matrix of punishments clearly delineated in the handbook. These range from community service up to probation, however more grave offenses require more thorough investigation. According to Office for Student Services (OSS) Director Cholo Mallillin, the investigation on student cases generally begins with a complaint or misdemeanor forwarded to the OSS. The Sanggunian representatives help facilitate this, acting as student that help mediate the process of getting a complaint on paper.
“What’s important at the intake point is proper documentation,” Mallillin stresses. Responding to reports, drafting witness affidavits, and signing non-disclosure forms are part-and-parcel of the documentation process, followed by the OSS determining whether the case needs be elevated to the Discipline Committee or otherwise. Should the OSS find it necessary to raise the case, the Discipline Committee conducts hearings with the parties involved, eventually coming to a recommendatory course of action. “The principle of this proceeding is restorative,” says Mallillin. “We aim to restore them back to the school, and that’s why the term ‘punishment’ is never actually used in the process,” he clarifies. The final decision however, rests with the Office of the Associate Dean for Student Formation.
Mallillin says that attribution is key, noting that a case cannot move forward in the system as it stands unless a formal complaint is written and signed to be used for an official procedure. He emphasizes the due process needed especially with the rise of call-out culture, the prevalence of anonymous accounts, and the serious repercussions these realities may have. “We run into problems when things are anonymous,” says the Mallillin, citing a controversial anonymous post on the ADMU Freedom Wall detailing sexually assault in one of the school comfort rooms. In response to the post, the administration began extensive ongoing measures to review and audit the University’s security system and investigate the anonymous account, to no avail. Ultimately, the institution has a responsibility to the campus community, the student body as a whole, the complainants, and to the accused.
Online call-outs are fueled by public clamor and demand for swift-justice. The call-outs put pressure on the administration to divulge oftentimes sensitive information on the cases. The tension between the responsibility to keep the community informed and at the same time keep sensitive details confidential for the benefit of the complainants and the accused leaves the administration between a rock and a hard place. The stakes become even higher when issues are particularly public or viral.
What remains to be reconciled on a case-to-case basis is the balance between protecting the privacy of the involved parties and mitigating the level of disclosure that assures the community the administration is doing their due diligence. “The people involved in the process and investigation are given the full support of the school,” Mallillin assures.
Called out and #Cancelled
The rise of online activism for pointing out oppressive behavior in the digital space has created both an avenue for discourse and a new grey area for institutions to respond to, and address cases accordingly. The Sanggunian Commission on Anti-Sexual Misconduct and Violence (CASMV) and Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) are products of students progressively working with the institution in adapting to the changing landscape, and finding proactive ways to deal with issues offline. Post call-out however, rather than individuals being allowed to learn from their mistakes and handling problematic behavior, the accused are often written-off in a toxic form of “cancel culture.”
“Cancel culture,” as defined by The Odyssey, is “when people who have said or done problematic things, either now or in the past, are decidedly ‘canceled,’ and people no longer support them or their endeavors.” Take for instance popular YouTuber Logan Paul getting cancelled following him posting an insensitive video online showing a dead body hanging from a tree in a Japanese forest. The said forest was a known last destination for individuals looking to commit suicide. Closer to home, one could similarly look to cancel culture as it made itself known within the local indie music scene in 2017, in which sexual misconduct allegations against certain outfits resulted in the groups—Jensen and The Flips, SUD, and Miles Experience—being dropped from several gig lineups.
Despite taking place largely online, the phenomenon parallels the disposition towards individuals post call-out, and the treatment of those that have been involved in certain disciplinary cases. The repercussions of these traditional notions of punishment that cut-off and cancel erring individuals manifest within the institution in the form of exclusion from organizations and from friend groups apart from the involvement in a disciplinary case.
Toward restorative justice
Discipline Committee Chairperson Michael Liberatore echoes Mallillin’s sentiments on the Loyola Schools following a restorative justice system rather than approaching student discipline with the iron fist of punishment. Restorative justice, according to the encyclopedia Britannica is a “response to criminal behaviour that focuses on lawbreaker restitution and the resolution of the issues arising from a crime in which victims, offenders, and the community are brought together to restore the harmony between the parties.” Within the educational institution, where violations parallel crimes and students may fill the role of offenders, restorative justice works more as a guiding principle.
“We don’t operate the way the court of law does, where things are beyond reasonable doubt, but more of with preponderance of the evidence,” says Liberatore. After a case is elevated to the Discipline Committee, the process that follows is more administrative than judicial, which accounts for the lengthy resolution times. The alleged student offender is notified and has seven days to respond to the complaint, the response is reviewed and elevated to a hearing, and the students are given another seven days to respond and prepare.
The Discipline Committee is composed of faculty, teachers and student representatives who listen, deliberate and give recommendation on if the accused has done what was alleged and is responsible for the consequences of their actions. At its core, “the Discipline Committee is also human,” Liberatore emphasizes. What is balanced throughout the process, should the student be found at fault, is how best to “make recompense both in the context of educational formation, responsibility to protect the community and outline and clarify the expected behavior of the academic community,” he clarifies. He recognizes that in more sensitive cases, public clamor may affect the way cases are handled and reviewed, but it never affects the decision-making process.
The restorative justice process makes available alternative options to escalating the disciplinary case. These include the OSS offering mediation between the accused and the victim in “a closed-door, sit-down session” where the complainant may choose to elevate the case, reconcile, or sign non-contact agreements if need be.
From the ground-up
As such, the changing landscape of student discipline calls for a shift in the way that we think about institutional punishment. “It’s not just about punishing, but also about education, formation, and restoration,” Liberatore says. When complaints come in the committee finds itself tasked with the “job to confront behavior to help students come to a deeper appreciation of their actions and motivations,” he says, with emphasis on the fact that consequences happen to be part of that process.
Looking forward, Liberatore also emphasizes the need for better ways of integrating these restorative procedures into educational processes, rather than just in punishment themselves. What comes with realizing that there are institutional limits for the Loyola Schools are efforts such as the push toward guidance and counseling after going through the discipline processes, and the continually evolving Introduction to Ateneo Culture and Traditions (IntACT) modules in terms of grassroots educational integration. These efforts in the restorative process are in support of helping individuals grow, and are equally as important in effecting systemic change. For Liberatore, the question remains, “how do we fulfill our role as an educational institution?”
The idea of restorative justice in the administrative process leaves traditional notions of punishment and control behind and keeps in mind the after-effects of the disciplinary process. While call-out and cancel culture are known to favor quick resolutions over long term change, they’ve come to be one of the primary avenues for pointing out injustices that leave little room for individual change and improvement. Within the institution and on the college campus, restorative justice may perhaps be a progressive step towards dealing with the casualties of cancel culture, and creating the space for students and individuals to learn from their mistakes.
