“The most important thing, in my mind, that kids need to learn in high school is not actually English class,” asserts English teacher and former Judicial Committee director Rachel Maiorano. “It’s how to be an ethical human being.”
Lakeside’s Judicial Committee (JC) was formed in 1996, designed to hold students accountable and foster transparency among the student body regarding violations of community expectations. Nearly thirty years later, the Judicial Committee continues to fulfill that purpose, though its evolution tells a more substantial story: how Lakeside understands ethics, success, and failure.
A page from Lakeside’s 2019 centennial publication “Lakeside’s First Century: A History of Purpose and Progress” discusses the Judicial Committee’s original purpose, a system in which “students and faculty shared responsibility and ownership in the disciplinary process of the Upper School.” The publication continues to map out the committee’s specific process, which, according to Elaine Christensen ‘82, “helps the student take responsibility for learning.” While the framework for case analysis remains relatively similar today, the way this responsibility is exercised has shifted significantly over time. Earlier versions operated under a far more disciplinary and visible framework. In the words of current director Whitney Suttell, “the 90s and early 2000s followed a more punitive-based system. Students were suspended a lot.” In a discussion with Ms. Maiorano, who worked closely with JC from 2012 to 2018, she echoed that shift, agreeing that though it was frequent just a decade ago, nowadays, suspension is “a lot more infrequent.”
In addition to the types of disciplinary responses, the way JC interacts with the student body has changed drastically since 2023. Previously, the committee’s email system shared each case, detailing the student’s grade level, the type of violation, the extent of community impact, and the discipline received. “The point was not to bring attention to the student who did it, but to [show] the kind of violations that were occurring,” explains Ms. Maiorano. In part, those emails were intended to educate the broader community and to maintain transparency between the committee and the student body. “It fostered trust with the students,” adds Whitney, though transparency came at a cost. She said the emails invited gossip and speculation, and students often managed to pin the cases on specific people.
According to Whitney, the confidentiality within the JC system is fundamental, and with the previous system in place, this confidentiality was compromised. Currently, the committee sends out an email “once or twice a year,” Whitney explains. The benefits? Committee members receive agency, determining what the student body should know based on the types of cases they’ve seen. However, whether this system meets the community’s needs for transparency and trust is still a question to be discussed.
The shift in transparency reflects a broader change in Lakeside’s community philosophy. Now, the guiding values behind communication look with “a lens of what the student needs,” adds Whitney: “How can we repair whatever harm was caused?” This emphasis on growth is mirrored by Bryan Smith, Lakeside’s director of experiential education, who worked alongside Ms. Maiorano as a JC director. He views the process as both individual and communal work, sustaining “the culture in which students … make good choices and feel supported in making those good choices.”
In recent years, the prevalence of academic honesty cases in JC has skyrocketed dramatically. In the past four years, with the rapid advancement and accessibility of AI, it seems that Lakeside’s commitment to integrity has waned. Nowadays, according to Rani J. ’26, a current JC member, “almost all of the cases are ChatGPT.” She adds that they are “very similar cases over and over.” Even in her sophomore year as a JC member, Rani reflected on the presence of academic dishonesty, but in “old school” nature. With the rise in accessibility, it is clear that ChatGPT use is becoming increasingly prominent each day.
Mr. Smith adds that the high academic standards and grade-focused culture at Lakeside contribute to the influx of AI-related cases, asserting “there’s a huge perceived social consequence to not doing well in your classes … I don’t know that there’s a social consequence for cheating in the same way.” The implication is clear: for some students, achieving an A outweighs the moral and communal responsibility of integrity. Mr. Smith has observed this even when he worked on JC; however, he notes how it may have grown recently with the widespread use of AI. He warns that the culture surrounding grades can incentivize dishonesty, and “we as a community must confront this tension.” Current members of JC aren’t ignorant of this issue, and many attempts are made to create spaces for reflection and community, according to Whitney. Rani believes “the rebuilding of trust is a core component of the approach … it’s a self-reflective process, involving conversations with people who want to see you grow.” She continued to reflect on the strategy, noting how the teachers themselves are present at the meetings with the students they report. According to Rani, student-teacher relationships are often restored.
Through self-reflection, JC aims to shift away from Lakeside’s outcome-based system, said Whitney. Even still, is mitigating the impact of the violations a truly effective solution for the root problem of our grade-focused culture, or one that is simply pulling off branches? Even with new discussions about our social system, the JC system still faces limits when it comes to shifting community culture. Mr. Smith echoes this notion, believing that “the real next step is less about what happens in the JC space and more about having honest conversations as a community. What is our culture of academic integrity?”
Ms. Maiorano builds on this critique, saying with certainty that “students aren’t less honest … That’s definitely not the problem.” She also clarifies that she doesn’t “blame students for caring about grades … there’s real reasons for all of that.” Rather, she situates the current increase of AI-related cases within a larger, longstanding problem: the grading system as a whole. “The grading system is already an issue,” she said, “but AI is just shining a light on it.”
Through changing the social culture, Ms. Maiorano believes that students would prioritize true growth and learn in a more mentally healthy environment. However, changing a system so entrenched cannot be done overnight. “It’s a very time-consuming process involving a lot of people, a lot of conversations, and a lot of reflection.” Transforming how students value themselves, define success, and approach learning will not be easy. It will take consistent effort, and possibly a reevaluation of our system itself.
Together, JC’s core values and strategic plan nowadays emphasize a central tension at Lakeside: the competitive academic and social environment. Smith believes integrity is a core value in our community, an expectation that ties together the Lakeside identity. As he puts it, “when we disregard integrity, when we neglect the learning process, when we place all our value into a grade, that’s when we’ve lost our way.” The question remains: in a community that prizes excellence, how can honesty, accountability, and ethical growth be made equally central in JC? How can we, as a community, keep the Lakeside identity intact?
