A Call for New Rules

By Michael Popik ’22

Disclaimer: The author has not used any illicit substances and does not judge those who may use drugs or alcohol. 

Amid the flurry of emails sent to students in past weeks, Dean Brooks Moriarty sent a form asking Exonians to list the belongings they would like sent home. As the term progresses, students will expect whatever objects they included on this form to be mailed to them. Therein lies the problem—administrators and employees will have unlimited access to students’ dorm rooms and perhaps find drugs, alcohol and other prohibited substances. The Community Conduct Committee may be involved. In allowing unlimited access, Exeter must consider its own hypocrisy.

For those who have not fully read it, Moriarty’s email states, “If you are concerned about something you’ve left in your room that is not allowed, we will offer non-disciplinary responses where we are able.” 

Why this sudden leniency? Well, Exeter cannot expel a critical mass of paying customers. It’s not a good business decision—bad public relations. It simply doesn’t have the means to take disciplinary action against a substantial portion of the student body at once.

The conflict between the discipline and counseling systems for substance use is a moot point for most Exonians. I’ve noticed many students here have friends who drink or do drugs, and no one cares. My understanding of student perception is that teachers don’t go looking for drugs. They don’t say, ‘Hey, I think that kid smokes weed, so let’s check their room.’ They don’t try to get students into trouble. I believe it’s true—Dorm Heads seem to ignore certain hallways or floors: hear no evil, see no evil, do no evil. 

However, the Deans’ current approach to illicit substances stands in stark contrast to the one they describe at orientation, when the Deans lecture students on the disciplinary consequences of possessing, using or selling drugs and alcohol. The Deans threaten disciplinary action in a vain attempt to combat drug and alcohol use.

But the truth is, the Deans also maintain a system for students to receive an educational, rather than punitive, response from the Academy. This is called a Non-Disciplinary Response (NDR). As long as the faculty do not suspect wrong-doing at the time students report themselves or their peers, the individuals involved are eligible for this option. Under this system, students’ parents are informed and students typically receive counseling; as the Academy is mandated to report certain offenses, the Exeter Police Department may be involved.

Despite these conditions, NDRs are far more lax than traditional Academy discipline. This policy inconsistency must stop. Exeter is hard enough without added confusion surrounding drug and alcohol discipline.  

Now, there are some things that Academy policy does right. The E Book supports counseling as a means of drug and alcohol abuse prevention through the Academy Student Assistance Program policy and allows students to report themselves or their peers. I support this policy. 

For those unfortunate students caught without self-reporting, though, their experience is much different. After drug testing, according to the E Book, students can still be punished for previous offenses, whether or not they were caught during the act. They receive major disciplinary responses, up to Requirement to Withdraw. Students often feel that their violation is used as an example for administrators to discourage the continued substance use of those who have not been caught. This variable policy simply doesn’t work. 

The current dual system allows some to avoid discipline, while others do not—it may even benefit repeat offenders, who better understand the Academy’s policies. Why have rules that only apply to the unlucky who haven’t pre-written non-disciplinary response emails to the Health Center?

Alone, each policy has its purpose. Punishment deters and non-disciplinary responses make way for rehabilitation. Together, though, the sum of these parts leaves more unclear than that of a single, coherent system. Ideally, students in similar circumstances would always receive the same response.

Instead, here is my proposal: the disciplinary response should be removed for all nicotine, alcohol, and marijuana incidents on campus, barring their sale. The high-stress environment at Exeter exacerbates pre-existing teenage problems. This creates a demand. And where there is demand, there is supply.

To decrease demand, Exeter has a single option—remove Exeter’s stressors, assuming students do drugs recreationally and not to self-medicate. I do not support stripping Exeter of its prestigious challenging environment. I’m willing to bet that’s the reason why most students chose to attend the Academy in the first place.

The school can preserve its reputation and support its students simultaneously. Instead of allowing most students to use illicit substances and punishing an unlucky few, the Academy could increase their surveillance, per se, to identify more students who use drugs or alcohol. Any users found would be aided by counseling. If the Academy permanently changes its policies to provide constructive, non-punitive responses to all those struggling with addiction, Exeter’s drug culture would be in a much better place than it is today.