Yang’s Assembly: Political Expression
By ARYAN AGARWAL ‘27, SAM ALTMAN ‘26, KEVIN THANT ‘27, and ANDREW YANG ‘27
All the time, we hear that Exeter is renowned for its diversity of opinions and backgrounds and that, as a result, we’re a melting pot of all sorts of ideas and stances on the political spectrum. And to a large extent, perhaps at least this is true. Nevertheless, there is a palpable hush over political expression at Exeter. Walk into any Harkness conversation discussing even vaguely political topics and the whole room will be circling aimlessly around the core point of tension. Likewise, you’ll find that at some school-wide events, notably the recent Andrew Yang assembly, the Academy will instruct speakers to stay away from strictly political topics.
The true issue would arise not because we have political speakers at all but if we only ever had speakers of a certain political affiliation. As an educational institution, it is our duty to expose students to all ideas, whether they disagree or agree with them.
This is not to say political expression is nil at Exeter — we have active Democrat and Republican Clubs, events off campus to see political candidates, and much more, but there are certainly issues. Indeed, it is our opinion that, while there should, of course, be some restraint, civil political discourse should not be shied away from, especially with regard to public speakers, and that “keeping people happy” is not a valid end to justify the means of stifling dialogue.
On Jan. 19, 2024, Yang gave an assembly speech on his Exeter experience. In his speech, he motivated the student body to step out of their comfort zone and thrive through adversity. “There is what people do if they are talented and they come out. But as you get to my age and adulthood, then you have to start making choices about what drives you, what you value and whether there is a path to be ‘successful’ at it,” Yang shared. He then elaborated on three of his major business failures as an entrepreneur and how he was able to adjust his mindset and try again. Despite his valuable insights, he intentionally avoided touching on the imminent New Hampshire Primary, which took place on Jan. 23. When Yang explained his presidential campaign, he mentioned, “I can’t get too political, but I’m here in New Hampshire for political reasons. I’m here to support a campaign…” Throughout his speech, he also repeatedly emphasized that he was here to give a speech on how a series of seemingly “unwise” choices turned out to be beneficial to his career. It is obvious that Exeter prohibited Yang from campaigning or talking about anything related to the upcoming New Hampshire Primary. We believe that if Exeter had not restricted Yang’s political expression, his speech would have encouraged students to look at political expression from many different perspectives. In this assembly, Exeter mediated our lenses to maintain a neutral political stance but, in turn, discouraged insightful political thought among the student body.
When considering the impact that Andrew Yang’s assembly had on Exeter, we ponder how we, Exonians, go about political discussion on a daily basis, specifically in our classrooms. Exeter preaches the Harkness teaching style, one that embodies a culture of self-expression and fosters productive conversation. We posit that Exeter currently lacks a critical part of this culture, as students feel they must suppress even relatively political views to avoid the firing of fellow classmates and teachers. Yes, it is important that we remain sensitive about controversial topics, but that doesn’t mean that we avoid their discussion. Regarding topics such as sexuality, race, or even women’s rights, it can be difficult to have meaningful discussions and ideas in a space where students are encouraged to “stick to the text” or “build off of others’ points.” None of these things are bad and, in fact, often help the class stay focused, but it also means that students feel obligated to conform with the class majority, and prevents contrary arguments from appearing as often as they should. Instead, teachers may find it fruitful to occasionally interject into conversations that steer in one direction and pose a thought-provoking question to spark new kinds of discourse. In Exeter English classes, the school picks a comprehensive selection of literature, leaving students to explore many of the important challenges our world faces today. However, in a system in which one is graded on their “Harkness” (which in some cases could be considered a bit nebulous), many feel an immense pressure to conform to the opinions of those around them, lest they risk their grade. Exonians are intelligent and have a lot to say, but we often filter and limit the progression of our thinking into new domains, leaving room to further deepen our education. Indeed, what use is the ever-questioning mind of an Exonian if it’s not used to tackle controversial topics?
Exeter is fundamentally a center of learning that seeks to gather the most talented youth from every quarter to share their ideas. We often preach of Exeter’s ability to “let everyone be heard,” but is this really the case? Many, perhaps more than you think, can recount examples to the contrary. We need structured systems and places for these conversations to happen (as chaos is helpful for nobody), but when they do happen, it’s key that no one feels that they will face repercussions for the opinions they share. Such a principle clearly doesn’t extend to things like threats of violence or vulgar language, but so long as the opinion is shared in a respectful manner, someone feeling “offended,” or any variation of language thereof, cannot be sufficient justification for punishing the speaker — implicitly or explicitly. Indeed, it is our duty to actively ensure that this does not happen.
If the truth is the truth, then it ought to be able to prove itself as such. But in spite of this, in the climate of Exeter, we all too often instead tiptoe around our true feelings, whatever they are, searching endlessly for a way to reconcile them with the opinions around the Harkness table, the Assembly Hall, or general conversation. This needs to change; the real world has no filter.