Our Fixation on Symptoms

Last week during a proctor training session, the deans informed dorm leaders that faculty chaperones at school dances would begin enforcing the "grinding rules." The room’s response was a collage of reactions–sighing, groaning, "What?," "Why?" and laughter."Now how am I going to get all my prep girls?" a senior seated near me complained, using cruder language, as he laughed to his friends. How disconcerting is it that a dorm proctor of 40 boys on our campus harbors that unacceptable mindset?To quote Dean Cosgrove in The Exonian last week, "Just to be clear, we haven’t created any new policy. However, over the summer, after discussions with dormitory heads, health educators, student activities, and some students, it became clear that faculty chaperones and students have both been made to feel uncomfortable at dances due to various forms of grinding."Honestly, if Exonians want to avoid the topics of sex, sexuality or anything under the same umbrella, they would have to shut themselves off from everyone on this campus. With that, I now ask which is really more uncomfortable and frankly alarming–two students grinding at a school dance or the mindset of "trying to get prep girls?"This comment is part of a broader culture ingrained in most prep schools. If you’re skeptical of the connection, let’s turn to this year’s August 8 issue of the Boston Globe. Most of us in the prep school circuit are by now aware of the rape case at St. Paul’s School in Concord, NH. According to the Globe, seniors culminate their year with the "Senior Salute," trying to rapidly hook up with as many people as possible. The specific incident involved a senior male, Owen Labrie, who reached out to a freshman girl a second time after she already declined to meet up. To quote the Globe, "Labrie then asked a freshman boy to "put in a good word" for him, and the girl then agreed to see him. She believed that she and Labrie would be "kissing or making out and ‘that’s all.’ " Once they met up and began kissing, the 15-year-old girl resisted with "no" at least twice, but Labrie allegedly continued to rape her. "A nurse later found a laceration consistent with sexual assault, according to the affidavit," wrote the Globe, which also noted "Labrie was a prefect in his dorm and had received training in statutory rape and consensual sex."I believe the reinstatement of Exeter’s grinding rules is in part a response to the St. Paul’s case. It follows that banning grinding will begin to address larger problems surrounding rape culture and assault issues. However, this fixated focus on grinding ignores broader questions regarding the culture at the Academy. It is an example of addressing a symptom as opposed to the actual disease that manifests into this symptom as well as many others.What this policy overlooks is the fact that grinding is not inherently bad. Banning grinding does not eradicate the possible malicious intentions behind the real incidents of concern. In other words, arbitrarily declaring the vague reinforcement of a policy that bans one specific action doesn’t eliminate the causes or the mindset that fuels the problems.The arbitrary declaration demeans students by assuming that we have an inability to face real, specific facts– facts that answer questions like "why" is this happening? "What" does our student body’s perspective on grinding insinuate about the culture of this school? Before someone counters with the logic that this really is a proactive reinforcement of the grinding ban/dance etiquette, please think back to the St. Paul’s case. This isn’t "pro"-active anymore– the culture is here and in our peer schools, and that means this is all "re"-active. And demeaning a group of people by concluding their inability to handle, discuss, or contemplate certain facts has a word found in the dictionary. It’s a form of withholding information and dialogue, and it’s called "censorship."This past Sunday, I spoke with Kristina Elhauge ‘14 regarding her quotes in last Thursday’s article remembering one of her close friends, Preeya Sheth ‘16. Elhauge’s submitted full quote was not used in the article, even though she asked for her submission word limit so that she may limit her thoughts, as opposed to others selecting those excerpts on her behalf. Elhauge made it clear that she was "not comfortable with [her] writing being chopped" and that she’d rather do it herself.The instead published quotes were not a regular example of the board’s prerogative to truncate quotes because they were not a couple of quick synonymous excerpts from her original fifteen-sentence statement– they were thirteen of those sentences. Despite the various reasons they were cut, the two remaining, omitted sentences included criticism of the collective behavior of our student body. The omission altered the thesis of Elhauge’s message, but more importantly became yet another unseen critique bringing to light the general issue of student behavior on campus. As someone who knew Sheth well, Elhauge felt that these words were critical to both honoring Sheth and understanding her time at the Academy.This criticism against the omission of Elhauge’s excerpt is not about the specificities of the article. It is about the culture in which the article exists.Last June’s Yik Yak outbreak brought into serious concern our students’ care and respect for one other. Yik Yak hosted malicious, inappropriate comments on an anonymous, public forum. Our initial response was an email from the deans asking students to delete the app, but that didn’t stop the hurtful, targeted comments from continuing and spreading–a clear example proving that strictly trying to ban something doesn’t work, especially because we are failing to follow through with addressing the core issues behind a ban.Can we not handle the real reasons or facts behind a problem? We simply must be capable of considering the issues that exist alongside and beyond rape, rape culture, and assault, especially if we aim to shut down their reign over our existences.These problems are beyond interrelated. Trying to fight a rape culture is a pointless fight if we fear the term "rape culture," or if others decide for us that we fear it. Trying to push our student body to be more supportive of one another is a pointless push if we fear acknowledging our problem of being cold or if others decide for us that we fear acknowledging it.From grinding to general assault, right now, we as a community aren’t publicly acknowledging the existence of a monster. We are instead trying to impose guidelines to curb the symptoms of its atrocities, yet these guidelines ultimately anger, fuel and even amuse perpetrators as well as bystanders and the general public because there is no communal recognition of the monster’s cruel capabilities, which–unless we actively voice recognition of them and their treacherous potential—will regardless find a way to manifest themselves in other forms beyond a singular ban. 