The Judicial Board (J-Board) is a campus governing body that adjudicates cases of alleged violations of the Social and Academic Honor Codes that are brought before it by students or faculty. Not every allegation is brought before the J-Board, but for cases that are, the J-Board acts as a jury and recommends sanctions to the Dean of Student Affairs if violations are deemed to have occurred.  

Students are initially introduced to the J-Board during Orientation when every matriculating first year signs the Academic and Social Honor Codes. Many students do not encounter the J-Board for the rest of their time at Bowdoin, and as a result the Board is a largely unknown entity; though comprised mostly of students, it exists mainly on the periphery of campus life. 

In this first section of a two-part series, the Orient aims to unpack that proposition and demystify the J-Board and its highly competitive selection process.

In an email to all students on January 16, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs Lesley Levy invited students with “sound judgment and insight, maturity and a strong sense of integrity” to apply for the J-Board. Though more than 40 students apply to the J-Board every year, the application and selection process remains a mystery for those who do not participate in it. 

Applications for the 2014 to 2015 school year were due on January 30 and 50 students applied—13 more applicants than in 2013. New members will be announced as early as next week. Applicants are nominated by themselves or by other members of the Bowdoin community, often a coach, professor, or friend.

The initial application asks applicants to provide personal information, such as hometown, class year, and extracurricular commitments. 

Applicants are also required to write short essays on why they want to be on the J-Board, how their particular backgrounds would contribute to the J-Board’s diversity, their thoughts on the academic and social honor codes, and how they have  dealt with a difficult ethical situation. One recommendation letter is also required (often written by the professor or coach who nominated an applicant). 

After their applications are received, all applicants receive an individual interview. Then after a round of cuts, finalists participate in group interviews that are focused around academic and social case studies. The committee deliberates and invites a few applicants to become members of the J-Board.

Judicial Board Chair Chelsea Shaffer ’14 was the only current J-Board member interviewed for this article. The other student members of the 2013-2014 board are Maggie Acosta ’16, Kendall Carpenter ’15, Susanna Howard ’14, Jacques Larochelle ’15, Margaret Lindeman ’15, Teresa Liu ’15, Christopher Nadeau ’16, Tom Peabody ’14, Adrian Rodriguez ’14, Ujal Santchurn ’15, and Duncan Taylor ’14. Jordan Goldberg ’14 is the BSG representative on the selection committee.

 Shaffer said that the board weighs all aspects of the selection process evenly, from the initial application to the individual and group interviews.

“It gives a lot of different kinds of people the advantage to highlight different skills or assets,” she said.

Each individual interview is with about half the members of the Board—“to save time,” according to Shaffer. Students who have applied reported varied experiences of the process. 

Shaffer was nervous as she went into her own individual interview when she was a first year but remembers it as a positive experience. 

“Everyone was very nice to me and I don’t think it was judgmental,” she said. “I think sometimes when you are interviewing in front of other students, you have this perception that they’re judging you and are going to bring this outside of the context...and I never felt that.” 

Andrew Miller-Smith ’15 had a different experience during the application and selection process when he was a first year.   

“They awkwardly asked me what I thought were somewhat meaningless questions—like ‘How would a friend describe you?’ or, ‘If you are in a group of people, how do you act?’” he said. “I was a little surprised by that. I thought the recruiting process would start off a little bit more insightfully.”

Disciplinary records do not necessarily disqualify students who apply. 

Students applying to the J-Board are asked to address and explain any record of disciplinary action in their applications.  Tommy Spurlock ’14 applied as a sophomore and was not selected.  In his application, he emphasized that he had learned from the run-ins he had with the administration as a first year. 

“Because I’d had disciplinary issues, I could look at [cases] from a different perspective,” he said. “One of the big things I stressed was learning from my mistakes.”

When Spurlock was preparing for his individual interview, he received unsolicited help not authorized by the J-Board. Because of the unorthodox nature of the situation, he declined to provide the Orient with details. 

“Someone with knowledge of the interview process, before my interview, offered me very, very helpful advice about what sort of questions they might ask,” he said. “In that situation, one might feel they had an advantage, but I can’t say it made a difference. I wasn’t selected even with that help.” 

Applicants who pass an initial round of cuts are invited to a group interview in which they are presented with hypothetical J-Board cases—one social and one academic—and observed by the selection committee as they deliberate until they reach a conclusion.

“I felt like we were in a viewing gallery—they just sat and stared at us as we awkwardly discussed a case,” said Miller-Smith.

However, the case studies provide interesting perspective and discussion for some applicants. Cal Brooks ’15 was on his high school’s judicial board and applied for the J-Board as a first year, but was turned down. 

“The debate that I had regarding the case that we discussed was more stimulating or as stimulating as any of the ones I had done in high school. Most people changed where they stood from immediately after reading to after we’d all discussed it—we reached better conclusions.”

Selection committee decisions

After the group interviews, the selection committee—which consists of the student members of the J-Board, Levy and a representative from the BSG—meets again to decide which of the applicants will be invited to join the J-Board. 

Although the board historically has a dozen members and tries to keep an even balance across class years, Shaffer made it clear that this number of J-Board members is not concrete.

“We’re not looking to fill roles; we’re looking to have the most worthy candidates,” she said. “We’ll take as many good applicants as we have, while still being conscious of the fact that the board generally has 12 members.”

Before making any final decisions, the committee runs the list of applicants past the deans, the Office of Residential Life, the Office of Safety and Security and BSG. 

“At that point, we’re looking for any major red flags that have not come out already in the application process,” said Levy.

When ultimately selecting new J-Board members, both Levy and Shaffer emphasized that diversity is a crucial factor, though Shaffer added a clarification.

“Oftentimes when people hear the word ‘diverse,’ they think of socioeconomic [diversity] first,” she said. “I think that maybe a better way of describing it is ‘representative of the campus.’” The selection committee aims to choose people from different walks of life within the Bowdoin community. 

“It takes a group of people coming from different backgrounds and experiences with different learning styles and communication styles to make the process fair,” said Shaffer.

Emma Chow ’15 a student who applied and was rejected as a first year, said that she understood the selectivity. 

“Because it’s so intensive, I do trust...the students who are on the board and the decisions that they make,” she said.

Peer school comparison 

The J-Board at Bowdoin differs from many of its counterparts at peer schools, some of which have wholly or partially elective selection processes and/or limited term lengths. 

For Amherst’s equivalent committee, two male and two female students are elected each year and serve two-year terms. Williams has two elected seats on the board per class year. 

Middlebury’s Judicial Board is appointed, but members need to reapply every year.

Students on Colby’s Student Conduct Board are appointed, serve one-year terms and are balanced by gender. 

Although the judicial boards of other NESCAC colleges differ in selection process, Levy has not heard any complaints about Bowdoin’s selection process, adding that “there haven’t been any significant changes over the last six years.”

Shaffer thinks that the current process allows applicants to highlight their different strengths: “It’s not like we’re just going to have people make a stump speech and you get elected.”

Newly selected members will be notified next week, and the names of the students will be released to the community by the end of the month. The new members will go through training during Senior Week in May before becoming official members.

Editor's note, February 16, 4:30 p.m.: The article has been edited for clarity. It previously stated that Judicial Board chair Chelsea Shaffer was the only member of the J-Board who "would" speak to the Orient. In fact, she was the only member interviewed by the Orient. The Orient reached out to all members of the Judicial Board for comment and Shaffer and Dean Levy suggested that the Orient interview the two of them. After this initial meeting, Dean Levy told all other members of the J-Board that they could speak to the Orient if they wanted to. An interview with one member fell through due to a miscommunication about meeting location.