The "Woke" Side Debacle Shows Exeter Has Much to Learn

It is evident from the reactions to Mai Hoang’s article “The Woke Side of Assembly Hall” and the Afro-Latinx Exonian Society (ALES)’s response “Con Mucho Snaps y Amor” that Exeter still has much progress to make in how it handles opposing opinions. Controversy ensued following the publication of Hoang’s article—particularly over her reference to “students from all-gender dorms, active ALES members, theatre performers and visual artists” as avid participants in snapping and her use of the phrase “self-segregation.”

Regarding Hoang’s mention of specific groups, I recognize the obvious dangers of generalization that this statement could have, but I believe that this statement has a basis in truth. Similar to how Wheelwright Hall comprises almost half of Asian Voices, it is evident that existing communities tend to move together towards other mutual ideas, aside from the ones that bring them together in the first place.

Considering that ALES has stood by snapping during assembly as a means to show that “we care and are invested in equity and inclusion,” would it then be a controversial statement to say “It is not hard to identify a particular group snapping: the Afro-Latinx Exonian Society”?

This question is one that I ask with genuine interest. Personally, I believe there is no reason for that statement to be controversial, considering that ALES takes pride in snapping. However, the reaction I have observed from fellow Exonians led me to believe that there was a problem with Hoang’s actions. Hoang, while warning of the dangers of rejecting dialogue, never attacked snapping as a means of showing public support. So why does ALES write to defend itself: “It is not wrong to snap for the issues that we care about…it should never be scrutinized in The Exonian?” Is there an accusatory tone in Hoang’s language that creates the feeling that their actions are being criticized? Should writers not mention any specific people or groups of people in their articles at all? These are not rhetorical questions—they are genuine inquiries.

Hoang’s usage of the statement “self-segregation” makes the situation more complex. While I believe that Hoang’s use of the term was inappropriate, I also believe that she never intended to accuse those who were snapping of fragmenting our community. But rather, as she stated, the problem arises when certain communities begin to disregard the ideas of others.

I have overheard Hoang’s detractors saying when questioned about their opinion: “If you can’t tell what’s wrong with it—then I don’t want to waste my time explaining it to you.” This mentality, I believe, is exactly what Exeter must avoid. This is an example of unhealthy discourse that Hoang has cautioned us of: the refusal to engage dissent.

Affiliated with this idea is the question: “Why didn’t she ‘call out’ the opposite side of the spectrum?” And to this, Hoang has responded with: “The appropriate way of remediating harm is not by creating more harm equally.” I wholeheartedly concur with this. I also believe there are more issues that Exeter must confront from this original question. Would there be snapping at conservative opinions at assembly? What would be the reaction to an article noting that kind of snapping? It is fair to say that Exeter is an extremely progressive school, and that the most vocal sentiment expressed on campus is usually liberal-progressive. This is not inherently negative at all, but I have overheard frustration concerning the “over-representation of progressive ideas” at Exeter. And yet, I also hear the frustration of marginalized groups—from the lack of diverse faculty to feeling discounted at the Harkness table because of their identity.

In a response to Hoang, ALES wrote: “The universal reality is that individuals with similar identities often gather around their similarities. We know this is a form of self-preservation, not self segregation.” This statement also raises many questions to be answered. Is Exeter such a community where groups must rally around their identities at Assembly Hall and snap in order to preserve themselves?

As a closing note, I remind Exeter that progressive discourse cannot exist without empathy. The danger is not in the snapping, or in the articles suggesting that fragmentation is potentially dangerous. It is in the moments where we refuse to listen to each other.