The Case for an Open Exeter

At the heart of Exeter’s core mission is a belief that Exeter ought to endow students with both strong virtues and strong analytical skills. As John Phillips himself stated, “goodness without knowledge is weak and feeble, yet knowledge without goodness is dangerous, and that both united form the noblest character, and lay the surest foundation of usefulness to mankind." Now, more than ever, it’s critical for Exeter to stay true to her mission. Today’s world is more interconnected than ever before, and today’s problems are increasingly intractable. These challenges call for leaders with both the empathy to relate to the opposition as well as the intelligence to devise multifaceted solutions. The good news first - Exeter is doing very well on the knowledge building front. The curriculum is challenging. Our students continue to win prestigious awards. And applications were up 7% this year alone, reflecting Exeter’s high standing amongst peer schools. But Exeter needs to realize that smarts alone don’t make good leaders or moral citizens. A lack of open discussion about politics, culture, and ethics risks hurting Exeter’s ability to graduate students with a real understanding of what “goodness” is. It doesn’t have to be this way.

The centerpiece of the “Exeter Experience” is the Harkness table and the culture of discussion that it engenders. Around the table, students learn not only how to articulate themselves, but also how to properly engage with opposition – they learn to go into discussions with an open mind and they learn to accept the fact that they might be wrong. Through Harkness, students learn to face controversy head on and to not veer from challenges. It’s not intellect that distinguishes Exonians – it’s the ability to navigate through nuance and reach reasoned conclusions. Exonians have proven time and time again that they are mature enough to have mature conversations. And that’s why I think it’s time for the current system of top-down morality to stop.

But what exactly do I mean by “top-down morality?” I’m talking about the cultural shift that’s taken place at Exeter over the past four years in which morality has been robbed of its nuance. In which Exonians have been “protected” from grappling with uncomfortable questions surrounding contemporary issues relating to race, gender, sexuality, sexual assault, masculinity/femininity, politics, and a host of other serious matters. Through overly preachy assemblies, through the school’s rejection of Fred Grandy, through new regulations that prevent students from talking to teachers from behind closed doors, through the pressuring out of Dr. Chavers after the publication of her article, through increased censorship of The Exonian and by preventing clubs from meeting without a teacher present Exeter’s leadership has gradually phased out moral controversy and the venues in which such controversy is discussed. This is a mistake.

When I first came to Exeter, I was just as loud as I am now, but I was much, much less willing to listen to those who disagreed with my ideas. Having come from a fairly homogenous background, I hadn’t ever really been given the opportunity to interface with new and exciting ways of seeing the world. And, because of that, I hadn’t learned to listen to other people. Sure, I was perfectly good at hearing the words coming out of other people’s mouths – years of “etiquette classes” had taught me to wait before jutting in – but I had difficulty putting myself in others’ shoes without a nagging voice telling me all the reasons why they were totally wrong. And because of this, for my first few years at Exeter, I tended to be fairly combative. I took white privilege as a personal affront; bringing up abortion around me was a recipe for disaster (shoutout to Charis Edwards) – I saw the world in a binary and I was always in the right.

Obviously, my understanding has come quite some ways since prep year. I no longer identify as conservative – I’d much rather call myself “ideologically mixed,” no matter how pompous that makes me sound. I fully believe that reality exists on a spectrum; that there’s no one “right” opinion or Truth. And I’d like to think that I’ve learned a little bit of how to momentarily engross myself in the experiences of another – to listen without feeling assaulted. This isn’t to say that I don’t have thoughts of my own – it’s more so to say that I’m slowly learning to bridge the gap between others and myself.

But I never would have had the chance to learn from disagreement if I hadn’t had the chance to discuss serious, oftentimes controversial, topics with people who didn’t share in my views. Luckily for me, the combination of my loud personality, my opinionated friends and teachers, and Exeter’s culture of discussion pushed me along on my journey towards “open-mindedness.” At first, such conversations consisted of little more than preps frustratedly waiting their turn to speak, repeatedly shouting bullet points at one another instead of engaging in dynamic dialogue. Over time though, and I was able to grow from these interactions – over time I was given the chance to not only evolve in my own views but also to break away from narrow minded myopicism and understand a wider swathe of the human experience. It’s not that I don’t still have serious disagreements with some of my campus friends and teachers – it’s more so that I’m now able to better understand where they’re coming from. And that’s a very special thing.

Furthermore, consistently participating in such discussions has had benefits beyond a greater sense of open mindedness. Constant reexamination of pre-existing beliefs has strengthened my sense of self-understanding and has allowed me to better articulate my motives. I’ve become more deliberate. Exposure to different ideas has increased both the breadth and depth of my education, putting me in a better position to make good decisions in the future. And last but not least, opening myself up to relationships where the other person isn’t me has led to countless eye-opening discussions with Mr. Sakata, Dr. Wade, and a host of other students and teachers whose experiences differ greatly from my own. I’ve benefitted from intellectual diversity.

The thing to note, though, is that almost none of this personal growth was the result of assemblies informing me of the dangers of the “man-box” or the injustice of “micro aggressions.” Such lectures are ineffective precisely because they don’t give the listener a chance to respond, because they only serve to further frustrate those who disagree but feel silenced. Speech codes and top-down moral edicts that make it seem like right thought and right morals and right culture are as obvious as night and day make the same mistake that I made as a young Exonian – they reject nuance and don’t prepare Exonians to lead in an increasingly interconnected world where different views on morality are more likely than ever to conflict. Exeter’s current approach to morality also does a disservice to Exonians who fully agree with the school’s rhetoric – by not exposing them to a greater swathe of the human experience those students leave Exeter ill prepared to engage with new ideas. If Exeter wants to prepare students to lead in the 21^st century, it must reject the notion that morality is static and must encourage campus wide intergroup dialogue.

So how should Exeter go about engineering an environment where students are not only exposed to a variety of ideas, but also learn to engage with those ideas and critically examine their own thoughts? Firstly, Exeter should make a concerted effort to invite assembly speakers from a wider background and with a greater diversity of opinion. This isn’t code-speak for more conservatives – I don’t think that Exeter should limit herself to some arbitrary, US-centric political binary. Instead, Exeter should work towards attracting assembly speakers with not only a variety of views, but also with a variety of approaches to the same problems. Why not have an economist talk about global warming and a Russian talk about the US election?

Secondly, the student body needs to affirm its understanding of the value of freedom of speech by passing the free speech bill that’s currently meandering through student council. I understand the fear that such a bill will embolden edgy kids and lead to the alienation of marginalized students – but I tend to believe that although this is a legitimate concern the humor in edginess will be reduced considerably when such students are engaged with and forced to defend such absurdist statements. The benefits, on the other hand, are potentially vast. Encouraging wider campus dialogue will improve students’ cross-cultural understanding while reducing ideological self-segregation.

Thirdly, the school needs to stop censoring The Exonian. Although silencing student voice – especially when such voice challenges the administration – can be an attractive option, it threatens to make the administration numb to legitimate student concerns. Of course there is a degree of risk involved in un-sanitized student publication, but such a risk is a necessary part of running a transparent institution that can quickly adapt to changing circumstances.

Fourthly, the History, Religion, and English departments should be required to grade papers anonymously. It’s no secret that some students don’t voice their true opinions because of a fear of a grade penalty. Such a policy would help address such concerns by removing the fear that in class behavior might lead a teacher to grade a student’s papers differently.

Lastly, (and this is an idea I’ve stolen from Dr. Wade,) teachers should be required to take implicit bias training classes. Just like everyone else, teachers have biases of their own that inhibit their ability to interface with students who are not like them. If properly implemented, such a policy would help increase the “realness” of Harkness discussions by reducing barriers for students seeking to express themselves.

Exeter’s an incredible place. Exonians are incredible people. Let’s work towards realizing that potential. Let’s make for an open Exeter.


A version of this article can be found at https://theexonian.com/2017/05/12/the-case-for-an-open-exeter/