By Libertad Vaughn
March 5, 2025
The College Hearing Board (CHB), charged with addressing serious violations of the Honor Code and upholding a system of justice that is both fair and consistent, serves as a cornerstone of student discipline within Wheaton College. This body ensures that students are held accountable for their actions in a way that is both transparent and equitable, offering a structured process to resolve issues of misconduct and safeguard the integrity of the academic environment. In many ways, the Hearing Board acts as a critical mechanism through which the college enforces its values, balancing the interests of individual students with the broader goals of maintaining a safe, respectful, and orderly campus community.
However, despite the pivotal role the Hearing Board plays in shaping the campus culture, a proverbial disconnect exists: not many students are fully aware of its existence or its function. For all its importance, CHB operates largely under the radar, and for most students, it remains an abstract concept—something that, at best, seems distant and at worst, entirely irrelevant to their everyday college experience.
So, how exactly does the Hearing Board work? According to CHB Chair Lauren Lopes Class of ‘26, when an incident occurs, the student in question will be notified that the matter has been referred to the CHB. A hearing panel is composed of three peers (students), including the chair and two student members, a Residential Life coordinator, and a professor. CHB asks questions and the student is given the ability to offer an opening statement. They are questioned further, and make a closing statement.
“Respondents are allowed to bring what we call procedural advisors…like a support person because sometimes these matters can be very emotionally draining for students,” Lopes states.
After the hearing is finished, the panel evaluates the evidence and renders a decision. “So ultimately we all decide like, ‘oh we find this person responsible for this incident’ and then we provide the sanctions, with the help of Dean Irish. However, if they don’t feel that their responsibility or sanctions are fair or they want to appeal we do have an Appellant Officer. We’re not a part of that process. I’m pretty sure the Dean of Students deals with that,” Lopes adds.
Despite the process, various students on campus express concerns, specifically with the issue of potential subconscious bias within CHB. A sophomore who wished to remain anonymous said, “I’m worried that with how the system is, that there is room for personal bias to impact their decisions, you know what I mean? I mean, we all go to school together so somebody on the board might know the person.”
Cole Martinez ‘28 says that “making it anonymous would make it a lot better. There will always be bias even if they try.” Another student shares her discomfort with the system saying, “As a person of color I do not feel safe going if I had to be brought up to the hearing board. Even though this is a predominantly white institution, when they make a decision for a student of color I feel that they don’t understand.” She spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Another student who also wished to remain anonymous said, “college is a step below into fully integrating into society. The issues that society has at large will be mirrored in college as an institution. So the fact that simply just by looking at whoever is being prosecuted, the jury is going to be impacted and have biases. I think colleges should be the front-runners into novel methods where people can be judged fairly but also receive the punishment necessary.”
Alumni and former CHB Chair Diana Blake expressed concern about the consequences of making CHB anonymous. “We want to hear what was going through the student’s mind,” she said. “Maybe it was reported they said something harmful, and they admit to saying it but truly did not know it was harmful. Say they express genuine remorse while saying this. This would cause the board to decide they have violated a policy, but perhaps could give them a different sanction that requires an educational piece and a slightly lesser sanction.”
Blake emphasized the importance of an in-person hearing. “To be transparent, there have been times where I have read case reports, and would have 100% said ‘there’s no way they didn’t do this’ and delivered a harsher sanction if I had not heard from the respondent directly. So this is a concern I would have, in which if they aren’t able to give their perspective because it has to be 100% anonymous, it could work against their favor,” she said. However, Blake did not completely dismiss the idea. “I think there’s room to explore this possibility, and if there is a solution in which this is possible and makes the process even more fair, then I don’t see why it couldn’t be implemented.”
Notwithstanding the issues discussed in this article–potential internal bias, and whether anonymity is the solution to it, or a hindrance for students who might wish to defend themselves with the nuances and uniqueness of each case–all students are welcome to join the CHB. The requirements are good social and academic standing, and uphold the Honor Code.