New Vs: Not the Right Way to Go

We, Sean Taylor, Alejandro Arango, Lily Friedberg, Peter Luff, Spencer Burleigh, Chris Vazan, Michael Shao, Jeffrey Qiao and Mathias Valenta have spent a collective 31 years at Phillips Exeter Academy. We are writing today because as Exonians, we are taken aback by the destructive changes to the visitations policy being considered by Student Council.

While we agree that we should strive for equality on campus, we reject the idea that we must sacrifice students’ fundamental privacy rights to achieve this. Many Exonians would say that some of the most important Exeter experiences are the late night conversations they have in each other’s rooms. Students lean on one another to make it through their time here. By requiring students to leave their door open whenever someone else is in the room, we strip them of the sense of security and intimacy that a private space allows. As many of us know, sound carries very easily through the walls and this will only be augmented by requiring doors to be open. We are alarmed by this severe reduction of safe spaces for students to confide in one another.

If one student wants to talk with another in their room, it shouldn’t be open knowledge available to everyone else. Using a sheet with a list of guests leads only to gossip, and a further reduction of privacy.

By opening the dorms more, students may feel less comfortable in their own homes. Comfort levels around dormmates are inherently different than those of complete strangers—especially those of the other gender. While walking to and from the shower in a towel may be a normal sight for dormmates, we would certainly feel uncomfortable if there were complete strangers seeing us during this time.

We believe that equality is something to strive for, but an equal reduction of rights should not be the goal.

One argument that we’ve heard many times from proponents of this change is that we could “simply ask a dorm fac for permission to close the door if the situation calls for added privacy.” However, this assumption is predicated on the idea that dorm faculty are on call and responsive, 24/7. Not only is this unfair to faculty members who have a full-time job, and busy lives of their own, but it also creates an uneven balance between dorms who have responsive and numerous faculty members, and those which do not. A constant flow of texts asking for closed door permissions throughout the day, every day, is too much even in the largest of dorms where there would be more faculty to share this heavy burden.

There has also been talk of allowing proctors and student listeners to have closed door Vs without faculty permission, but we don’t agree with this idea either. While the intentions of the policy are good, we believe this would cause people to seek these crucial positions of responsibility for the wrong reasons and would not prevent relations between these students.

Watching the recent student council election and listening to the candidates’ platforms, we’ve only seen one candidate consistent with maintaining the brotherhood and sisterhood that we value so much in our dorms. Matthew Robbins has stood strong against this catastrophic reduction of student privacy and for the close relationships that students cultivate over their years here.

In conclusion, we believe that equality is something to strive for, but an equal reduction of rights should not be the goal. This Tuesday, Exeter’s voters have a big decision to make about the direction of our school. What rights are we willing to give up, and are we really gaining from this perceived justice initiative? Only Matthew Robbins has brought up issues of sexual assault in his campaign. He has outlined a plan that is both inclusive, representative of the people’s wants, and protective of victims in such cases. Forget school spirit and D-hall food: Matt is the candidate that will talk about the important issues that affect students personally, the controversial issues that no one else will talk about. He is the candidate that will bring democracy back to Student Council.