Chatter in the hallways. Names being thrown around, and talk — more frequently than ever, it seems — of students getting themselves into trouble with the student-faculty Judicial Committee, or JC, the judicial body responsible for handling incidents of student misconduct. Some have even been expelled — four in the past two years. All of them, according to Upper School Assistant Director Whitney Suttell, students in “egregious violation” of the school’s substance use policy or its policy on bullying, harassment, discrimination, and sexual misconduct.

In the past two years, according to data from Whitney, Lakeside has had an uptick in misbehaviors and disciplinary encounters (notably, expulsions). The JC met with 10 students in the 2023-2024 school year, and that number jumped to 24 in the 2024-2025 school year. This year, JC has met with 16 students. Some incidents involved multiple students, so each meeting is not its own incident, but nevertheless it’s clear that there has been a noticeable increase in student misconduct. But at a school that prides itself on fostering integrity and kindness, this comes as a surprise to many students, leaving them to question why. Why have there been so many JC cases and multiple expulsions? 

A step-by-step walkthrough of the disciplinary process 

At the root of understanding the increase in incidents is examining how they are handled. Whitney, who is also head of JC, explained that, first, an administrator is made aware of a potential violation of community expectations by a faculty member, student, or other source. If a case pertains to academic dishonesty, the corresponding teacher will usually have the first conversation with the student, and then Whitney or Upper School Assistant Director Jeff Bonar will follow up. If the issue is behavioral, then Whitney will have the first meeting with the student, who will always be accompanied by their advisor. 

According to Whitney, the primary goal of the initial meeting is to gain clarity on the incident by learning all the necessary details, and hearing the student’s story. “Usually, students are really honest about what happened in conversations with me and with their teachers,” Whitney noted. 

Next, Whitney would decide with the student and advisor the appropriate next steps. If all members are on the same page about what happened, and the case is relatively small, then Whitney said, it usually will not proceed to JC, and instead will be handled internally by her. In these cases, she said, there is an agreed set of next steps that the student will follow to improve their behavior. 

For more serious and larger-impact cases, Whitney explained that a JC meeting will then be scheduled. Junior JC representative Bennett B. ’27 explained that only one out of the two elected JC representatives from each grade will participate, on an alternating basis. These JC meetings between the committee, the student, and advisor or academic teacher (if the case concerns academic dishonesty) are scheduled shortly after the initial meeting, and take place after school. According to Bennett, the meeting begins with clarifying questions to understand what happened, and why. “We’ll ask, ‘How was the interaction when you first got caught?’ or ‘What were the reasons that you felt the need to cheat?’” said Bennett. 

After the first round of questioning, according to Bennett, the teacher or advisor leaves the room, and reflective questions will be posed to the student. Bennett explained this might look like, “How did you feel when you did this?” or “How do you think this impacts the community as a whole?” Then, Bennett said, the student will leave, and the committee will deliberate until a consensus is reached on what to recommend for the student. According to Whitney, every decision from the JC is ultimately a recommendation to Mr. Boccuzzi, who has the final say, hence why they are called “recommendations.”

According to Whitney, in certain cases, a different administrative JC process is used. Whitney said it’s the same process as the student-faculty JC, except it’s composed of a group of administrators instead of students and faculty. She elaborated that this administrative body is activated for two main reasons, the first being protecting a student’s privacy when a case involves bullying, harassment, discrimination, or sexual misconduct. Unlike non-administrative cases, for these types of violations, there’s a specific person harmed. The second: getting the truth when it is clear that a student is lying. “The student-faculty JC — their job is not to sort out who’s telling the truth,” Whitney explained. 

How does JC decide a recommendation?

Judicial Committee’s purpose statement states that their goal is to “develop restorative responses to violations of Lakeside’s Community Expectations that are equitable, compassionate and consistent in order to foster a supportive and inclusive community where individuals are accountable for their actions and have opportunities to learn and grow.” 

There are two parts to each JC decision, said the other junior JC representative Pia A. ’27. Like the purpose statement, “one is restorative, and one is more of a punishment.” 

Pia noted that the JC factors in the intentions of the student when determining the punishment while considering who was harmed and the steps needed to repair the harm. 

In weighing both, Bennett explained that “impact is a lot more important [than intent].” Using the example of AI cheating cases, he explained that the student will almost always say that they had a lot on their plate and didn’t want to cheat. “That stuff matters,” Bennett agreed, “but every student is going to say that, so at the end of the day, the action they took is a lot more important.”

In order to maintain consistency in their decisions, Whitney explained that JC meets regularly throughout the year — not just when there are incidents to review — and that many of these meetings are spent discussing consistency and developing shared standards for various issues. 

Whitney explains several of these standards: For suspension, certain actions such as dishonesty about the incident and repeat offenses almost always trigger a suspension. She added that actions which cause significant harm to the community and which undermine the sense of belonging and trust within the community will carry a suspension as well. Take, for example, theft, which negatively impacts shared trust; or homophobic or racially insensitive language, which threatens the sense of belonging and community at Lakeside.

For expulsion, the policy in the 2025-2026 Family Handbook states, “There may be instances in which a student’s behavior clearly demonstrates either unwillingness or inability to live within the community expectations.” It clarifies that this is usually demonstrated by an accumulation of repeat incidents, although there are also isolated infractions that may qualify for an expulsion, which include, “carrying a dangerous weapon to school; significant stealing, major violations of the bullying, harassment, discrimination, and sexual misconduct policy; major violations of the drug and alcohol policy, or egregious dishonesty.”

Whitney explained that she really does believe that every student is capable of learning and growing from their mistakes, but also that sometimes, the harm they have caused to the community is too great; thus, they must do that learning and growing somewhere else, which is ultimately why expulsions occur. “Harm always weighs more [than intent], because we’re a community that centers the belonging of others,” Whitney said. 

Why have there been more disciplinary cases in general?

Bennett explained that the recent disciplinary cases surrounding the “3 Guys 1 Stall” podcast have been a reflection of the need to belong and student culture within certain friend groups, particularly the freshman class. 

“When you’re younger and just starting out, kids really want to fit in,” Bennett said. “ And when you want to fit in, you’re more likely to betray your values in order to get the approval of others.” 

Rule-breaking can have a compounding effect, Bennett believes. He explained that, in order to maintain the specific community that Lakeside is trying to uphold, the admissions office needs to accept individuals who will uphold the community values, which is no easy task — it can be difficult to tell how an individual will act once they settle into the community just from their application. He elaborated that if many students treat rule-breaking or making offensive jokes as cool, a culture of peer pressure across friend groups can begin to spread. As Bennett describes it: “You are the sum of the people you surround yourself with.” 

On the other hand, it’s possible that the recent rise in JC cases is simply temporary rather than a persisting trend. Pia explained that generally, Lakeside goes through waves of having more and less cases for both academic and identity-based cases. “It’s not really indicating a bigger trend, but we are in a wave of that right now, and then in response to that wave, we might go through a lull in the next year or so,” she predicted.

Devon S. ’28, who is not a member of JC, noted, “At Lakeside there’s this tolerance culture, where we’ll tolerate anything. … Don’t be a snitch; don’t tell on things.” Similarly, Whitney believes Lakeside students are afraid to speak up, and referenced a past advisory discussion prompt that sought to understand why this was the case. “It seems like the bar to stopping [harmful] behavior is higher than the bar to doing that behavior,” she commented.

The impact of expulsions on the student body

After recent events, the threat of being removed from the community may seem to students as something that is more proximate and probable than previously anticipated.

JC used to send out recurring emails to the entirety of the student body that contained a report of recent cases they had dealt with. In recent years, for the sake of privacy, JC has stopped sending the emails out to students. “Knowing that JC cases are happening … is a good way to remind students that their actions have consequences,” said Bennett. On the other hand, he clarified that it is detrimental if gossip spreads.

Whitney argued that, rather than serving as a deterrent, disciplinary cases “have a real impact in helping students [who abide by community expectations] to feel good about doing the right thing and to know that it’s important to the community.” . She explained, “We never use incidents solely to send a message. … We want our responses to reflect the values that we have as a community.”

What can Lakeside do to decrease incidents?

“It has to come from students themselves,” said Pia. 

Take AI cheating cases, for example. Pia explained that students themselves have to start valuing the learning process above a good grade and understanding that one good grade isn’t worth sacrificing their integrity. “It’s more of a Lakeside culture thing, and I think there’s no easy fix to it. … [This culture] is just the truth of our school,” she said. 

Similarly, Bennett opined that it’s hard to get students to stop using AI by simply forcing them to stop, because at the end of the day, there will always be workarounds, and students will always be able to use AI without being caught if they really want to. “It’s crazy to take away from your learning experience by using AI to cheat on your assignments,” he said. “[Students] stop cheating not because they don’t want to get caught, but because they’re doing it for themselves, and because they realize that cheating is hurting them.” 

For identity-based harm, Bennett acknowledged that it’s harder to fix student culture. He added that it’s a “[phenomenon] of taking everything for granted and getting too comfortable. … People forget that going to Lakeside is a privilege, and they feel like they can do whatever they want.” Additionally, Whitney explained, “Student culture is something that students create and maintain, and is not going to be changed by anything that I do or that JC does.” 

Bennett added that one potential fix would be to explicitly lay out what it means to be a Lakesider by developing a few core pillars, so that students have something simple to guide their actions. This could look like having the acronym “LION,” with each letter standing for a community value. 

Whitney elaborated that Lakeside is, by nature, a school that believes in communal trust over strict punishments, especially compared to other schools: “We give students a lot of freedom, and we ask that they take a high degree of personal responsibility in exchange for that,” Whitney explained. Thus, she mentioned that another solution to the cultural problems is students holding their peers accountable and encouraging each other to do the right thing; for example, leading by example and cleaning up after themselves, or reminding their peers to do the same. 

Furthermore, she called upon Lakeside’s student leaders — including the Senior Leaders, student government representatives, student JC members, and SALT leaders — to lead by example, emphasizing that other students look up to them for good reason, and that their actions “carry a lot of weight in this community.” 

“I do see lots of kids stepping up and doing the right thing,” she said. “And I think we just need to lean into that more.”