This week I conducted two interviews (and tonight I am doing a third). The first interview was with Nate Demoranville, who talked to me mostly about his opinion of the J-Board, the Deans Office, and Security from the perspective of a Bowdoin Student Government representative (Sustainability). As the BSG liason to the J-Board, Nate oversaw the interview and selection process of this year’s new J-Board members. I also spoke to Katherine Chi, who discussed her direct interactions with the Deans and Security as part of a violation of the social code. My interviewees enlightened me on some of the ways that the deans office and security can be invulnerable to some of the racial bias accusations going around on campus. Most of the rumors about racial bias in misconduct has been directed at the J-Board because of its visibility (albeit not its transparency, as its processes are known for being quite secretive). However, the deans have ultimate authority to overrule the J-Board’s decision on any case of misconduct, and a lot of cases don’t go through the J-Board, they go straight through the deans, eliminating some of the accountability and clarity of the J-Board process. Moreover, security has jurisdiction over which cases receive their attention and to what extent they follow up on a case, possibly introducing racial bias here given that the entire staff is white. For instance, Katherine remarked that her case was initiated by an email from a Brunswick resident, and that her dean and Randy Nichols admitted that they may not follow up on similar emails from Brunswick residents. Moreover, my interviewees expressed some apprehension that the deans, security, and most of all, the J-Board, are entirely self-appointed rather than elected by students. Especially considering that the J-Board is intended to represent peers’ voices in the disciplinary process, it seems as though self-appointment can create a culture of a similarity of ideas and opinions, even given the racial diversity of the staff.
My reading this week complemented what my interviewees have said, as I read a book chapter that expanded on an incident of racial bias and its adjudication at Columbia University. One similarity between my interviews and this chapter that I found particularly insightful was the administration’s response to the issue, which was to go through the deans’ office. In this case, the dean acted as the “prosecuting attorney, judge, and jury” for the case, just as it often occurs at Bowdoin. The deans have ultimate authority as well as no accountability or transparency to the student body. Moreover, students at Columbia, as well as at Bowdoin, often find themselves in front of the same dean who has testified against them in a previous incident, however minor. Therefore, the one dean, who may be prejudiced, is charged with the task of judging the same student’s future misconduct cases with no oversight.
Next week, I want to visit Beth Hoppe to help with finding further academic texts on the issue. I will also continue my interview process.
Hirsch, Eric L. 1987. “Columbia University: Individual and Institutional Racism.” Pp. 199-211 in
The Racial Crisis in American Higher Education, edited by Philip G. Altbach. State University of New York Press.
Hirsch discussed a particular incident at Columbia University in which black students were disciplined for an incident that was clearly incited by white students, and of which black students were the victims. Hirsch wrote this piece as chapter in a broader book about racism in higher education, making this a credible source. Although this book was also published in 1987, making some of its contents outdated, the processes outlined in this chapter are remarkably similar to my understanding of what occurs in Bowdoin’s disciplinary process today. This article is a scholarly complement to what my interviewees described in our conversations; that the administration has little transparency and ultimate authority in discipline, allowing for the racial prejudice of individuals and institutions to continue unchecked.
Nate DeMoranville. April 7, 2019. Personal Interview.
DeMoranville discussed his interactions with the adjudication process of misconduct hearings through the experience of himself and his peers. DeMoranville is a particularly credible source because of his leadership within Bowdoin, as he is a Bowdoin Student Government representative, as well as the BSG liaison to the J-Board, assisting in this year’s selection process of new appointees to the J-Board. Moreover, as a BSG representative, he has frequent contact with the Office of Student Affairs as well as security. DeMoranville provided key insight from an institutional perspective, as he straddles both the student body and the administration. That being said, he has no direct experience with the disciplinary process, and his anecdotes of this particular aspect were based purely on his interpretations of other people’s experiences.
Katherine Chi. April 8, 2019. Personal Interview.
Chi discussed her personal interactions with the various disciplinary offices of the college, including the Office of Student Affairs as well as security. Chi has had numerous interactions with these offices, many of which she feels were influenced by racial prejudice against Asian American students. Chi was speaking from personal experience, which is useful in considering her emotions and her perspective on how she was treated by the college. However, personal accounts always have their own share of bias, which is important to consider in interview data. Katherine provided detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the Office of Student Affairs, as well as the many ways in which they can fail their students of all races, but particularly students of color.
Lopez’s Comments:
Aliya, I really like the progress you are making with your project. The information you gathered from both of these interviews give you a more nuanced view of the student experiences. I was just thinking, it may make sense to interview 5 or so students of color for your film. It would be really interesting to see a diversity of testimonies.