A Better Visitations Policy
The visitations policy proposed by the administration last week not only fails to address the issues we face on campus, but also only goes halfway in creating an environment of gender equality. My issues with the new policy don't stem from personal inconvenience; they’re articulated here because I genuinely believe that this policy is not only the wrong step forward, it’s a step backward. Why is there a visitations policy at all? This proposal, along with the current policy, maintains that “the well-being of our student body is our primary concern.” It also says that “sexual activity is not permitted during any dormitory visitation, including a room visitation.” How do we reconcile these two statements? Are they one and the same? Is the well-being of our student body the prevention of sexual activity?
If we really want equality of gender and sexual-orientation, we can't go halfway.
It must be, because that’s the only real threat of room visitations. It’s not like students can’t be one-on-one in other locations. In fact, our students have a ten mile radius around campus inside of which they can roam freely. Does the administration really believe that two students together ten miles away from campus are safer than two students in each others’ dorm rooms? Shouldn’t the dorm room be the safest place for students to congregate? Why do we discourage this? And if students are going to have sex, which is the main concern, they have two options: break the rules or do it outside. What kind of message does that send? Now, my first point on the new policy is that it continues to prioritize heterosexual, cis-gendered students over those who defy that standard. The hallmark feature of this proposal is that gender plays no part in it. However, under the proposal, dorm visitations are restricted to limited, supervised hours.
See, for the past 200 years, the Academy has defined “normal” room visitations, those that are unrestricted and “aren’t dangerous”, as being between the same sex. Why then—if the academy really is seeking equality across all genders and sexualities—does the new policy restrict the hours of visitations? There must be a reason. In June, 2000, The New York Times published an article headlined, “Gay Couples Are Accepted As Role Models at Exeter.” The article, praising Phillips Exeter Academy for accepting gay and lesbian couples as dorm parents, called the decision a reflection of the “increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians in mainstream culture.”
If the Academy acknowledged gay and lesbian couples in as early as 2000, and it has been fine with unrestricted same sex room visitations for the past 17 years, then the limitation of hours in this new policy must be a response to the prospect of heterosexual couples getting unrestricted room visitations. This clearly shows the prioritization of heterosexual students. It shows that the policy only goes halfway. Because all-the-way would be to allow unrestricted room visitations between… anyone.
My second point is the contradictions that emerge between this policy and residents of the same dorm. The policy allows for students of the same dorm to go into each others rooms unrestricted and unsupervised at any time of day. Since all dorms are currently gendered and most dorms will be next year, the non-gendered visitations policy clashes with gendered dorm life.
Furthermore, it implies that a student’s well-being is more secure with a random student in the dorm than it is with a close friend outside the dorm. When the gender-neutral dorms are factored into this next year, it becomes even more complicated. Since the policy will be universal, it sets the precedent for unrestricted, all gender room visitations. So, in reality, there are three different policies: unrestricted, gendered room visitations within the same dorm (in gendered dorms); unrestricted, non-gendered room visitations within the same dorm (in gender-neutral dorms); and heavily restricted non-gendered room visitations with students outside the dorm.
My fourth point is that the policy stigmatizes and damages healthy friendships between students of all genders. We all have friends; however those friends don’t always live in the same dorm as us. On an extremely regular basis, students go to their friends rooms to socialize, do homework, watch TV, etcetera… This is allowed under the current visitations policy. These activities happen at all times of day, from 7am to check-in, and limiting them would be exceedingly detrimental to students’ friendships.
My final point, and an extraordinarily consequential one, is the role of day students on campus. Many day students, by integrating with boarders through classes and sports, become associated with specific dorms. In some cases they become so close that they partake in dorm activities and are included in the very identity of that dorm. Without any form of unrestricted visitations, those relationships become harder and harder to sustain. Even now, day students often find difficulty intermingling with boarding students, and since they aren’t technically part of a dorm, they don’t get that experience. And if we take that away from them, how is that aiding the well-being of our students?
The solution, and the only solution that adequately addresses all of these issues, is for a completely open room visitation policy. If we really want equality of gender and sexual-orientation, we can’t go halfway. Room visitations must be open to all students at all times, because limiting the hours isn’t the acceptance of difference, it’s the ignoring of it.