Intellectual Discourse in a Single-Minded Community

For a school that promotes individualism to its core, offering nearly every opportunity imaginable, students at Phillips Exeter still succumb to joining the majority when expressing beliefs regarding intellectual matters. Political outlook on campus relies on a liberal majority and discussion of worldly matters quickly turn into political catfights that are worse than listening to the even the most obnoxious Harkness warriors. In a hand-picked social environment, has Exeter failed to foster political diversity and healthy intellectual conversation?

Flipping through the pages of The Exonian every week, I have yet to find a politically centered article that does not have a liberal bias, unless it is an article speaking about the political bias of Exeter. At this point, you may be thinking, “not this again, one of the politically outspoken students is going on a rant.” I guarantee you that my political orientation has nothing to do with the situation at hand; rather, it is a question for everyone—why are we so quick to create cult-like relations with our political affiliations? Generic reasoning of the adolescent mind first comes to the conclusion that these affiliations form a sense of belonging. But for non-Exonian high school teenagers, it is playing on a sports team, performance group or club that creates a sense of affiliation. At Exeter, knowing you and your friends want to vote for Bernie Sanders is the equivalent of being part of some kind of special club. On the other side, the serious Trump supporters also stand up for each other and have an equally sensitive view of their liberal classmates.

Students commonly derive their world perspectives from experiences and upbringing, but another important factor is age. Unfortunately, our experiences and upbringings have not been completed and we are left with good intentioned ideas that have not been completed and are therefore taken to extremes. The Exonian writer Eugene Nakamoto recently noted that today’s Bernie Sanders hype can be attributed toward adolescent nature, stating, “In the spring of our lives, we are all drawn to radicalism in some way or another. And Sanders is indeed a radical.” Teenagers are prone to be “radical” no matter where they are receiving an education, but students at Exeter tend to have a more opinionated stance on worldly events, which strongly impacts the atmosphere and wellness of campus culture.

Differing opinions are a part of a collaborative society. Exeter allows students to speak freely and have intellectual discourse, but these conversations are usually contained within established microcosms of the community. Conversations have boundaries; students speak on opinionated matters among fellow compatriots of their ideas. Rarely is their civil discourse of differing opinions unless the conversation is at the Harkness table in the presence of a teacher. Does this type of conversation even qualify as intellectual discussion if it is one-sided? This is where Exeter is lacking, and I believe, no, without multiple viewpoints, this so-called intellectual discussion evolves into a time to verbally release frustration about the ignorance of the world according to one’s viewpoint. Discussion such as this is not inherently bad; it just does not contribute to broadening one’s perspective. Students are too afraid of being taboo or getting shut down by the majority, and are therefore unwilling to share alternative viewpoints. In this sense, the majority is that of the specific group, which could be leaning left or right. Progressing civil, engaging conversation of the world requires more than condemning the domineering ideology of being at fault for an oppressive social climate; ideally, students must come to terms with the fact that although they have been accepted to a school predominately for their intellectual accomplishments, this does not make their beliefs inherently better than others.

Diversifying the political landscape of Exeter would be a welcome change, but creating this diversity is ambitious. Basing acceptance on how one identifies himself politically is no better than selecting students based on religious beliefs or even sexual orientation—it is discriminatory. If the Academy were to try to even the political playing field, it would undoubtedly be difficult. Even though there is not a formula to create this type of diversity, admissions should take seriously the need for a balance of students that correctly portray the reality of the global political landscape. Being truly diverse is not determined simply by race; it is formed by all aspects of foundational thought, including worldly outlook.

In the case of Exeter specifically, the student body is generally blue to the core, which means it is the responsibility of the majority to be leaders in promoting true intellectual discourse. In a recent trip to Des Moine, Iowa, President Barack Obama spoke on this exact issue of predominately liberal campuses taking to extremes to protect equality. In the moment their ideas sound progressive, but silencing one’s opinion, not matter how politically incorrect, is still taking away from the natural rights of human beings. “I’ve heard of some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative, or they don’t want to read a book if it had language that is offensive to African Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women,” Obama said while speaking at a town hall meeting at North High School in Des Moines. “I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either. Anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with them, but you shouldn’t silence them by saying you can’t come because I’m too sensitive to hear what you have to say.”

Feigning certain opinions is not a sustainable answer to ridding the world of social inequality, but there are definitely boundaries in determining which beliefs should and should not be regarded. Julie Chung identified these boundaries, saying, “If we continue to tolerate opinions, for example, that condemn the concept of gender fluidity, we do more harm to the teenager whose fundamental identities and rights are contingent upon the acceptance of their gender.” In her article “Liberalism at Exeter and the Paradox of Intolerance” she continued, “If we choose to socially discriminate against the opinion condemning gender fluidity, it does little to affect the rights of the intolerant individual.” In this perspective, opinions have validity and should be freely discussed until they begin to hinder the progress of a person’s life.

It amazes me that I go to a school where sentiments about the abolition of the military can be heard in the hallway, yet in the next room over there are firm Donald Trump supporters. It is a wonderful privilege to be in such a place, but also discouraging that such a large amount of students still fail to see the importance of finding reason in differing beliefs. Exeter fosters an environment of intellectuals incapable of having true intellectual discourse. Yes, the predominant liberal population is at fault for hindering their fellow conservative counterparts, but both groups are unable to have discussion that is unaffected by emotion. In this sense, it is not political orientation that prevents students from cordial discussion; instead, the culture at Exeter shows we lack the ability to overcome the pride and surety of an ideology to instead listen and reason with one another in the context of political discussion. What is considered a strength at the Harkness table creates social conflict in everyday discourse. ♥