Student Council Presents New Visitations Policy at Assembly

By ANNA BYUN , JOONYOUNG HEO, MARVIN SHIM, and TANIA LUCHAK

The Student Council is working to pass a new visitations policy which would allow closed-door visits in other dormitories for approved seniors in an effort to promote privacy and student safety.

The Academy’s E-Book currently states that “all interior and exterior room doors must be fully open” when guests, defined as visitors unaffiliated with the dorm, are present in a room. The Student Council’s proposal, presented to the student body during their assembly on Oct. 3, advocates for closed-door visitations for students starting in January of their senior year.

Since then, in response to feedback from members of the community, the council has amended the proposal to only allow closed-door visitations for seniors whose parents have signed a consent form. Another potential addition is a strike system wherein students who act irresponsibly and break policy can receive a “strike.” Two strikes would revoke the privilege of closed-door visitations for that student.

As presented during the assembly, the Council’s primary focus within the sphere of the school visitations policy is the intersection of student privacy and safety, both of which, they argue, will be advanced by the new proposal.

“The system right now basically leaves no room for privacy through legal visitations,” senior and Student Council president Kevin Treehan said. “So students often resort to getting illegal visitations, which are obviously less safe.”

“Only having open-door visitations has led to students seeking illegal visitations, which creates uncomfortable situations if one party wants to leave,” lower and Policy Committee co-head Forrest Zeng said. “A student obviously doesn’t want to get caught, so they won’t leave. However, with closed-door visitations, this privacy can occur under a much more controlled environment with faculty nearby.”

So far, the Student Council has worked to communicate with dorm faculty and hear feedback. As it stands, the visitations proposal is the product of these kinds of discussions.

“We’ve met with three dorm heads and one affiliated dorm faculty,” Treehan said. “All the conversations have been very productive, and the proposal we have right now is a result of all those conversations, building up and adding points to it.”

“The Student Council Executive Board has done a lot of research,” Zeng said. “We’re also planning a meeting with Dean Cahalane to talk about this. We’ve taken all of this feedback and modified the proposal with it.”

Fortunately, for the council, much of the dorm community has given a positive reaction, emphasizing the importance of this work and how much progress the council has made.

“I really admire how Kevin is advocating for the wellbeing of relationships,” senior and Webster Hall proctor William Weber said. “I think we have to recognize that, to form meaningful connections with people, environments of privacy and safety are crucial. I love that the basis of everything Kevin is proposing is grounded in providing those elements through trust and responsibility.”

“I like the proposal,” senior and Front Street proctor Oliver Liu said. “A lot of the other policy pushes have been pretty ineffective, and I think it’s good that we’re going for something a little more specific and more reasonable-sounding. They’ve done good work so far.”

Many students have given similarly positive feedback. “The council is being much more proactive than in previous years to do the work and gain trust from the faculty,” upper Derrick Chu said. “It’s a good policy that allows for more freedom and private spaces that are hard to find at Exeter, and we can mitigate the number of disciplinary cases on campus as well. Kevin has the right approach this year and I’m hopeful for success.”

Others, however, have pushed back on the proposal precisely because it would allow for increased privacy. “It’s regrettable that this is the kind of thing the council is promoting,” senior Colin Jung said. “It’s actively harmful because it promotes sexual activity among high schoolers, which is exactly the opposite of what you want to do, especially with students away from their parents and who are already susceptible to negative peer pressure.”

“We need to think about what’s good for students in the long term, not what they want at any given moment,” Jung continued. “The policy will lead to regret for many people. The adults should have the moral responsibility to keep it from being passed.”

Jung is a co-head of Catholic Exonians, and he and several religious leaders on campus have protested against closed-door visitations. They are joined in opposition by some faculty members, including dorm heads.

“Before we even look at this proposal, we might ask what the Student Council is doing to cut down on illegal visitations in the first place,” head of New Hall and Instructor in History Troy Samuels said. “Student leaders don’t always seem to be stepping up to create an environment where we’re following the rules as they are, which should be a priority before we make any changes. I’m not inclined to be positive toward any change until there’s a little more respect for the rules we have now. As it stands, the proposal seems to be in part saying, ‘We’re going to keep breaking rules until we get what we want.’”

Given the Academy’s vertical housing system, Samuels raised another issue. “Visitations are not designed for intimacy, but the role of visitations is often blurred, and it could be a real problem when we have young people living next to seniors,” he said. “I think it’s understandable why the parents of a 13-year-old wouldn’t always be comfortable with their neighbor having closed-door visitations. Our walls are not thick.”

Taking their feedback into consideration, the Student Council made some amendments, including the parental consent form and the two-strike system. Though some opposing student leaders remain dissatisfied, they are willing to compromise.

“I appreciated Kevin’s responsiveness to our concerns,” Jung said. “While we reaffirm our opposition to the policy, we won’t actively work against it given the compromise of parental consent and transparency about the possibility of sexual activity — but we will continue to urge parents to refuse consent, and students to make the right decisions.”

For his part, Samuels is not opposed to change itself — only how the student body is going about it. “I get where students are coming from, and I understand,” Samuels said. “I think change is good, but if it’s turning people off who are generally in support of this, it’s not being approached correctly. If you want more responsibility, you have to show that you can handle it. This is not the first visitations reform proposed in my time here, and they’ve all done this the same way of ‘We’re not following the rules, so change them for us.’ I do not think that is ever going to get faculty approval, and it’s not a productive way forward.”

“We need some deep thinking of why we want this change, and not just ask or get mad at a policy that exists for a reason, but show faculty that we deserve a new policy,” Samuels continued. “And when we think about how we can create the best community possible with what we have in place now, we can start saying, ‘Hey, you’re doing an awesome job. Let’s move forward.’ That mindset is a lot less entitled and helps us move in new directions.”

The Student Council has not yet addressed some of these concerns, including the problem of vertical housing, but it plans to continue what it has done so far — working closely with dorm heads and proctors to put forward the ideal visitations policy. As Samuels suggested, the council hopes to have productive discussions that do not frame a “students versus faculty” position.

“Our next steps are to continue having conversations with dorm heads, just as we are now,” Treehan said. “The executive board plans to host a banquet where we can gather all the dorm heads and provide a space for free discussion. I think having everybody in one room to talk things through, instead of talking individually to all of them, will be really productive. Then we can table it for a vote.”

“We don’t want to take this policy and just shove it in the faculty’s faces, as we essentially did in previous years,” Zeng said. “This year we are trying to create a better working relationship with the faculty instead of sending policies back and forth. We want this policy to take off, and it’s looking good so far.”