Student Representation

In our second unit of Argument at GCE, we looked at the constitution and how it presented arguments. In our internal investigation, we discussed how the US government works and more importantly, how the different branches of government interact with each other. For our external investigation, we went to a courthouse to watch a trial and visited an Alderman to see how arguments are constructed in court and how elected officials view/use the principals of argument. For this Action Project, we were asked to come up with an amendment for the Code of Conduct. The amendment could change anything that we have the ability to support with logical reasons and solid arguments.

Cartoon jury (2008) bethtgirl

The above image symbolizes my argument because it shows a fair trial by jury and represents the how the disciplinary council could be more fair and just with student representation. 

The part of the code I am amending involves who is a part of the disciplinary council. Currently, the person who is supposed to represent the interests of the student is the Director of Counseling. In the Code of Conduct, it says: “The Counselor’s primary role in the Disciplinary Council is to be an advocate for the student and to facilitate conversation between the members of the Disciplinary Council.” There have been reports of unfair treatment and decisions coming out of the council that do not fully take into account the need of the student. Thus, I am proposing an amendment to the Code of Conduct that allows a randomly picked student to be involved in the disciplinary process per student request.

P1: Students have bias to their peers in the decisions made and the opinions put forward.
P2: Students “on trial” has a right to privacy during the disciplinary process.
P3: Having a student on the council would infringe on the student in question’s right to keeping their issues private between them and the staff.
P4: Discipline can only be dispensed by professionals
C: Therefore, students should not have a place on the disciplinary council.

The argument above shows the assumed opinions of the people who originally created the Cod of Conduct. It describes how they would've thought and it helped me to think in their shoes when constructing my argument. In multiple cases, I have heard testimonies from students (former and current) that consistently say that the current student representative/mediator in the disciplinary council does not always represent the perspective of the student. By leaving the student to fend for themselves, they are much less likely to effectively present their side of the story and defend themselves. By adding a student representative, students being processed by the council can now have someone to relate to, feel supported by, and get defended by during the entire process. My changes to the rule are described in the syllogism below:

P1: The student rep does not have to have an empowered position on the council. Only a position that allows the representative to help the student in question explain their side and provide support.
P2: Student privacy and how it’s kept/broken is up to the student in question. It should be up to the student as to whether or not they want a representative and if they should know the details of the situation.
P3: With the point of GCE being a Lab school being constantly brought up, it would be counterintuitive to deny student representation based on the status quo definition of professional.
C: Therefore, students should have a place on the disciplinary council.

With this amendment, students will have more trust in how the staff deals with disciplinary actions. More students would be less resilient of the decisions that come out of the council. A student that supports my amendment by being a co-signer recently said this when discussing the details change: “Having a student on the disciplinary council would broaden the perspectives and make sure all sides of the story is heard and taken into fair account. It would also ensure all decisions made are justified.“ -SG