Questioning Authority at School
Over the past 25 years, just like every student and staff member, I’ve taken turns serving on our Judicial Committee (JC). This scaled-down version of the American judicial process is how we handle alleged rule violations. The rules are developed and approved by students and staff at School Meeting, the deliberative body that handles the school’s day-to-day business. At a Sudbury school like ours, respect for the authority of JC and School Meeting is strong, because we all own these processes and can make changes when needed. But it is not unquestioned.
Two incidents recently occurred that I consider excellent examples of how the Sudbury model proves the wisdom of the old adage, “Question Authority.”
The purpose of the Judicial Committee, first and foremost, is to look at alleged violations of rules and, through witness testimony, determine the truth. To the best of our abilities—and by following a detailed process—we develop the Summary, a written record of JC’s findings. During this stage, the elected Judicial Clerk calls on witnesses when they have something to say, and when a JC member has asked a question. Often there’s a fruitful back-and-forth.
One day, I was busily questioning witnesses and working with my fellow JC members on the Summary. This case involved a student named Anton (name changed to protect the innocent/guilty), who was “written up” for some incident. I was pursuing some line of questioning, and Anton raised his hand. The Chair called on him and here is what he said: “Larry doesn’t understand the whole context.”
Think about this.
Anton is a kid (~11 years old) in a school, being questioned by adult staff as part of a duly empowered panel investigating an alleged rule violation. This panel has the power to limit his liberty as a consequence of his actions. While outsiders sometimes have difficulty grasping how important JC is to us, members of the school community quickly realize JC is central to the balance of freedom and responsibility.
In this instance Anton questioned authority, and he did so both confidently and respectfully. It is safe to assume from this behavior that he knows he is part of the process—that the process is not separate from him, trying to harm him.
JC isn’t about punishment or retribution. Its purpose is to investigate accusations of wrongdoing, determine whether rules were broken and if so, decide how to make things right. Including peers from all age groups, JC members go about their business in an orderly and fairly formal manner. We all take it seriously because we have each been where the other is now. If you’ve been at AVS any length of time, student or staff, you’ve served on JC, been written up by someone, have written up someone else, and have served as a witness in others’ cases, in addition to simply observing JC as an interested member of the community.
In small communities, people inevitably bump into others from time to time, and while it’s certainly possible to resolve issues outside of formal processes, sometimes it’s best to call on the services of third parties like JC. When these are trusted to be fair and impartial, everyone knows that just because you get written up, it doesn’t automatically make you a bad person or troublemaker.
Weeks later Anton was in JC again, accused of bugging someone. The actual rule is this:
SMM 3-1 No one shall knowingly infringe on anyone’s right to exist peaceably at school, free of verbal or physical harassment.
As a result of JC’s investigation, Anton was found to have violated this rule, and he pled guilty. That meant it was time for JC to consider a sentence, which involves checking the person’s record. We do this because it helps an impartial body see if there’s some kind of history or pattern to the behavior.
The JC in this case found that Anton had 26 prior charges—quite a lot, especially for harassment. He was warned that this would be taken into consideration in the future. That future came a week later. This time the Clerk said, “Last week we told Anton we’d send his next SMM 3-1 case to School Meeting for sentencing.” This only happens when an incident or pattern seems serious enough to warrant the whole community’s attention.
As a member of this JC, I was not comfortable with this referral, so when the time came I voted nay—another example of questioning authority, with the founding staff member outvoted 3-1 by students. Anton was upset by this vote, so after JC ended, several members of the panel sat with him. We’re all part of the process, and students of all ages often act very maturely—in this situation, lending a sympathetic ear to a younger student who may lack the perspective of age and experience.
Within a few minutes, the Law Clerk (the elected official who oversees JC) brought the JC Clerk and me together with a problem: Anton actually had only six priors on his record, not 26. What happened? It turns out that the previous week’s JC looked at his record from last year. After double-checking and confirming the error, the JC Clerk went to Anton and explained the situation. JC was reconvened, a suitable sentence was agreed to, and there was much relief on Anton’s part.
Later in the day, I sat with Anton. I asked how he was doing, and he mentioned that he had a sense that the record was incorrect the previous week. I wondered aloud why he hadn’t said something in that moment, and suggested to him that questioning authority is a good thing to do.
To question authority is to express one’s worth as an individual. It means being willing to stand up for oneself and ask “Why?” Far too often, young people find themselves in situations where arbitrary authority expects unquestioning obedience. Yet how can this possibly prepare them to make their own way in the world, to think and speak up for themselves?
I am thankful for Alpine Valley and schools like it, where questioning authority is the norm.