Self-Censorship: The Anti-Harkness

There has been a series of administrative interventions in blocking free speech from and within The Exonian. Two years ago, the board was criticized as a whole for allowing Nikhil Chuchra ’14 to publish an opinion piece on the possible value of dorm hazing. After a talk with a dean—who is intimidating enough because of his or her power to direct potential disciplinary action—it became clear to Chuchra and many of his fellow students that their free speech is limited at the Academy; free speech at Exeter comes with repercussions. Even this school year, senior Philip Chang ran into trouble when he gave a quote to The Exonian regarding why he believes Andover has twice the yield rate than Exeter, asserting that, “[Hassan] who has been raised at an institution for 25 years won’t be able to see what changes need to be made—they have been too immersed in the system and become too comfortable to realize the problems they are facing. Simply put, Exeter has stagnated.” Director of Admissions Michael Gary, along with a group of alumni all submitted their own Op-Eds, criticizing Chang for his opinion on what the school has come down to. The issue of the school’s lower yield rate remains unresolved, as Philip wrote an opinions piece to justify his claim on Hassan being the reason for “a school without direction.” A group of alumni and several administrators have written an article against Chang, as shown in the line-by-line explanation of the community’s response to his quote. Can the editors of The Exonian choose not to publish the faculty and alumni articles for this purpose? If we censor offensive opinions from students, what should guarantee the administration having their assertions heard? Exonians are living in an oppressive community where free speech is discouraged and controlled by the administration, which threatens The Exonian—one of the only outlets for students at the Academy to express their sentiments and thoughts.

This administrative pressure sets a precedent for many Exonians to self-censor, disturbing the flow of genuine and diverse articles to The Exonian. The issue is not so much harming other people as dealing with the ramifications of arguing a “one-sided” issue. I put one-sided in quotations because we are often forced to see the issue per the binary of right and wrong, siding only with the ‘right’ perspective, although the opposing side may also have a valid argument. Every week, we, the Opinions Edtiors, receive and publish articles that argue such commonly held beliefs and opinions. However, we know Exonians’ actual thoguths and sentiments are so much more compelling and diverse—and perhaps even more provocative—than those presented in the articles sent to us. Dissenting voices need to be heard, for they prompt discussions that allow all of us to reach a greater understanding of the topics discussed, as well as of each other. Every day, countless students discuss manifold topics around the Harkness table, and it is rare to see a class where everyone shares a single opinion. So why should it be any different outside of the classroom? Why is it that our opinions are censored and undiversified save for the Harkness setting?

For example, regarding racism, if a student is motivated to get his or her opinion out, why should there be ramifications to saying that the socioeconomic disparity between whites and blacks is not simply racism? If an individual believes that the underlying issue of the economic gap is work ethic, why should he or she be prevented from putting forth those thoughts? All the articles published in The Exonian strive to be morally and ethically acceptable—or, simply, pristine—but this is not the natural state of Exonians. We engage ourselves in active discussion, contending both sides of the issue. And with the new board turnover just this last winter, Julie Chung and I have pledged “to uphold free speech at whatever cost.” It is imperative that students understand that they have a place to articulate their opinions; it is imperative that they do not hide their views from the fear of repercussions and peer pressure.

This institution values in itself the students’ commitment to open thought and discussion. The nation in which this institution stands also prides itself in her ability to protect freedom—freedom of speech—first and foremost. While it is true that Exeter is a private institution, it is nothing but hypocritical and wrong for the administration to abuse its power, go beyond the lines and seek to “correct” or silence students’ opinions. The school should notice that even if not intended, such administrative scare has secluded many students from the open Harkness community. As a leading academic institution, students should have the freedom to express any opinion they wish to, as long as it doesn’t explicitly intend to harm someone or something.

I have often heard students analogize the Phillips Exeter administration to the Kremlin. In fact, even the Academy’s Student Council is virtually powerless in face of the entire faculty. We, the students, discuss dress code as if the decision will largely be affected by what we ask for. Little do we know that this proposal can easily be overridden, or altered, at the faculty’s discretion. Furthermore, it is unacceptable that the faculty did not seek student input on health class requirements for senior spring. All these matters are ultimately left to the administration to handle, similar to the way publications such as The Exonian must be conscious of the advertisers and trustees supporting the organization. We have a single power above us, which domineers our lives and often makes it seem as if the students have an actual say.

We, Exonians, are not “sheeps,” (as expressed by William Deresiewicz in Excellent Sheep) but bright, leading Homo sapiens. We are taught to take control at the Harkness table and discuss on equal grounds with the teacher. Is it not ironic, then, that the faculty want us to lead our own discussions in class, but they themselves lead the school in a certain direction without student input? They tell us one thing, but may explicitly act in a different direction.

The faculty and administration’s control over student lives at the Academy runs parallel with their sway over our opinions. But it should not be. These opinions belong to the students. While the decision to publish such opinions or not is entirely up to the student, just as he or she has the choice to either speak up or stay silent at the table, the option should not be one that is self-censored. As writers of the “Promote Conversation Not Intimidation” article state, “voicing both support and dissent is crucial to a community that strives to balance its commitment to centuries of tradition with its role as a leader in education.” I, as an Opinons Editor and a student of Exeter, need this. We, all students of the Academy, need this. Exeter needs this. ♥