Speaking out at Andover must have always been difficult, even if it has gotten harder. After all, most students have little reason to raise a stir; their successes at this place are in the hands of the administrators whom they need not irritate. However, at this academy, if at any place at all, it is imperative that we students speak up when it is appropriate. There is certainly no lack of opportunities. Whether it is in The Phillipian, at an open debate or in student government, we have many devises to make our protest. However, no matter how uncensored these institutions may be, they are kept in check through sheer social intimidation. Last year, the Philomathean Society held an open debate on D.C. policies. One student, then-Senior Justin Lee, stood up to an open microphone to question the panel of administrators and student-leaders. However, his question was avoided by administrators, and he was told that it need not be answered publicly because it was an “individual” question. He refused to sit down, demanding an answer on the grounds that it applied to everyone. He continued to repeat his question but was ignored. Although I cannot speak for student government, I can say that writing for The Phillipian can be equally challenging. After all, what is more of a conflict of interest is there than writing about one’s peers, house councilors, teachers and deans? No matter what is said, someone is sure to be offended. Unfortunately, at times this community exercises little sympathy for the young writers who dare write what they do honestly believe. It is fair to say that some articles are one-sided, and in that way perhaps unreasonable. Sometimes, students do not take into account the experience of the ones they are critiquing. After all, we are only in high school; our arguments are not always as strong as they should be. However, it is the very nature of an opinion to be one-sided. There should be nothing wrong with simply stating one’s opinion (counter-arguments may be provided by those with counter-opinions). Though it might make for a weaker, perhaps less tasteful article, there is nothing inherently wrong with voicing one’s thoughts. Still, although technically uncensored, the sheer factors of intimidation in our tight society keep all forms of student expression well in check. One such factor lies in the students themselves. For instance, a tactful writer might avoid criticizing student groups, activities, or governments, lest they be the subject of the mean catcalls and hurtful whispers of their peers. Nothing can be more upsetting than the nasty criticisms of other students. The Administration represents another such factor. The very nature of our relationship with administrators puts our expression in jeopardy. For instance, one would not attack the policy of his or her cluster dean and then expect that cluster dean to grant them any sort of extraordinary permission. Nor would one be astute enough to attack the grading policies of faculty and then expect good grades. Alas, the student body is often too afraid to say what it really thinks. However, there is no place where protest is more called for than on the Hill. As the “best and the brightest,” as some might contend, we have a duty to stand up for what we believe. We may be young, naïve and foolish, but we will someday grow out of these qualities, while the characteristics which we have learned on the Hill shall remain. If, however, we are taught to remain silent in the face of intimidation, to say nothing when we think something is wrong, then we will leave this place with very little. We may forget our calculus and our Faulkner, but we shall never forget how to stand up if we learn it the first place.
