Front Street House Dorm Gear Nixed

Front Street House residents are no longer permitted to wear this year’s dorm gear––a sweatshirt with “bhaus,” an abbreviation of the dorm’s former name “Browning House” printed across a man’s face––on the Exeter campus.

Principal William Rawson voiced concerns about Front Street bypassing this rule. “My understanding is that we have a process for approving dorm gear that was not followed in this case,” he said. “When consulted by the deans, I posed the following question: if the gear would not have been approved through the normal process because of its potentially offensive nature, should it be permitted now?”

Concerns also arose about the sweatshirts being a potential attack on personhood against Louis N. Browning ’50, who may be the man depicted on the gear. The administration contacted Front Street dorm head Simon Spanier on Tuesday, Feb. 5, expressing concerns about how the design did not go through the official Student Activities dorm gear ordering process.

Lower JaQ Lai produced the dorm gear after receiving input from the entire dorm. “We held an open forum in which anyone could submit ideas, and this dialogue between everyone in the dorm was what ultimately formed the final design,” Lai said. “To my knowledge, the design had the full support of the dorm. I wouldn't feel comfortable creating gear to be worn by members of the dorm if the dorm community was not supportive of it.”

“A big part of many [Front Street residents’] experience, thus far, has been one of confusion and ambiguity surrounding our name and the history behind its removal,” senior Chris Roper said.

Following a letter from Louis N. Browning requesting his name be removed from the dorm, the Academy, in April 2016, decided to rename Browning House to Front Street House. In the letter, Browning expressed his wishes to cut off ties with the Academy due to lacking representation of students from the Appalachian and Rocky-Mountain area and Exeter’s acceptance of “same-gender marriage and homosexual coupling.”

This sudden erasure of dorm identity is something Front Street House residents still struggle to cope with. “In those moments when people joke about the Front Street change… we have to ask ourselves, ‘How do we acknowledge this history without supporting the views of those who we disagree with?’,” remarked Roper.

Lai tried to be mindful of these sentiments in his use of “bhaus” in the design. “I tried to represent that erasure of identity, while recognizing the fact that this erasure is itself a part of our identity,” he said.

Since Lai was tasked with collecting online submissions from residents, however, the origin of the portrait was never clearly identified. Lai said, “I was actually only given that image. I wasn't informed of who the person in the photo was.”

Lai’s design never went through Student Activities’ gear approval process. The 2018–2019 E Book states, “Student Activities is responsible for the ordering of class, club and dorm gear."

Principal William Rawson voiced concerns about Front Street bypassing this rule. “My understanding is that we have a process for approving dorm gear that was not followed in this case,” he said. “When consulted by the deans, I posed the following question: if the gear would not have been approved through the normal process because of its potentially offensive nature, should it be permitted now?”

Rawson added, “I offered to pay for replacement shirts if the decision was made that the gear would not have been approved and should not be permitted after the fact.”

According to lower Kei Sakano, however, “no current resident in Browning remembers a time where dorm gear went through Student Activities.”

Browning residents were frustrated by this inconsistency and believe the administration specifically targeted Front Street House’s gear due to concerns about liability. “Other clothing is made without the approval of Student Activities on campus, and is still allowed. There was no reason why Browning apparel had to go through Student Activities,” senior Michael Indelicarto said.

The purpose of Student Activities’ approval is so that it can become ‘official’ and the school can subsidize it. “The sweatshirt didn’t have that intention,” Indelicarto stressed. “It’s not official dorm gear.”

Indelicarto questioned how the design was any different from other “unofficial” gear, such as Dunbar’s Back in Black shirts or [Boys’ Varsity] 2018 Soccer apparel, which did not pass through the dorm gear approval process. Neither of these designs were not addressed by the administration.

“I think the argument was that the school doesn’t really have a say because it wasn’t official,” Indelicarto said. “It’s not the school’s property. The school has no authority over the creative license.”

Upper Samuel Chang was upset that the administration had not clarified their reasons for banning the design. “Contact from the administration was so filtered and so broad in terms of what was problematic. Is it the fact that we didn't go through the deans? Or the fact that they don't like the design? I don’t like how we didn’t know what the problem was,” he said.

Spanier was the first to announce the administration’s decision to the dorm. “[Spanier] expressed that, while he obviously doesn't hold the same views as those who had made the request to retract their name from the dorm, he did say that he believed the sweatshirt could be perceived as disrespecting or possibly attacking Mr. Browning's personhood,” senior Tabor Wanag said.

Spanier also stated that he was disappointed that the gear was not run by him as dorm head. With Spanier’s advice, Lai met with Dean of Residential Life, Dean Cahalane, and Dean of Students, Dean Mischke, to explain the situation. “After the meeting, the Deans stated that they would take some time to decide how to act moving forward,” Lai said.

While Lai felt that these protocols could have been more clear, he was understanding of the administration's decision. “I certainly recognise that all parties could have handled certain parts of this situation better,” Lai said. “I personally feel that the most recent response from the administration has been perfectly reasonable and respectful of the dorm’s collective concerns.”