In the spring of eighth grade, when I was deciding between attending Andover or Exeter, I found myself talking to a local Andover alumnus, listening intently for clues to help in my decision. One comment I always remembered from a local alumnus is that Andover rewards lying. At the time, this seemed like a truth only relevant to the 70’s, when he attended Andover. Since the recent investigation however, I feel that old comment has taken on new relevance. Perhaps the most dangerous result of the investigation is the widespread belief among students that various peers implicated in the investigation escaped from punishment by lying. The truth behind these rumors, while important to the individuals involved, is less important than the fact that many students believe lying works. Everywhere students hear stories about those who have succeeded in lying, and about those suspended or dismissed despite honesty, reinforcing the attitude among students that sometimes lying is the best way out. Whether or not Andover has actually allowed liars to evade punishment, the current disciplinary system breeds an increasingly dishonest attitude on campus. Besides rumors about students avoiding punishment through lying, disciplinary polices themselves also contribute to the dishonest culture of Andover. One particularly controversial policy that reflects this are the breathalyzer and drug-test policies. The Blue Book explains the these policies, “If the student denies use of alcohol or drugs contrary to the initial determination of the involved adult, the dean of students (or designee) will require an alcohol or drug test” (4). At first, these policies appear as though they enforce honesty. Because the administration can check the truth of what a student claims, they force students to be honest. This is the problem. These policies force students be honest. Forced honesty is no honesty. Being honest is about telling the truth despite the circumstances, not because of them. Being honest because the circumstances demand it is just savvy. Instead of teaching students to be honest, these policies immediately remove their ability be genuinely honest, forcing them to tell the truth. Under the current system, a student accused of drug use has no choice but come clean or risk trying to beat a sophisticated drug test. A student in this position can’t be honest. A student in this position doesn’t have the chance to learn what honesty really is, telling the truth because it’s right, not beneficial. So what? Maybe Andover can’t get the whole story on rule-breakers every now and then. Maybe Andover’s policies are built to ensure administrators know the truth, rather than to give students a chance to learn true honesty. Rules have to be enforced, and that’s life. The trouble with that reasoning is that Andover isn’t the real world. It isn’t just another company trying to enforce policies. Andover is a school, and the essential purpose of any school is to educate. More specifically, Andover’s purpose is to educate students in “Knowledge and Goodness.” Yet, the current disciplinary procedures teach students to lie and cultivate an attitude of dishonesty on campus, qualities contradicting the school’s purpose of teaching goodness. Furthermore, Andover says about their disciplinary procedures, “When a student acts irresponsibly, the the community attempts to respond to the student as a whole by encouraging personal growth and the acceptance of responsibility”(29). Is a system that many students believe rewards lying with policies denying students the chance to be honest, a chance for personal growth and acceptance of responsibility? No. The message from the disciplinary process is loud and clear. If you can get away with lying, do it. If you can’t, cut your losses and come clean. The past few weeks have been difficult for the school, but the future could be worse if Andover does not revise its disciplinary policies. If the school decided the most important part of discipline is catching students and punishing them, that’s fine. But if that’s the case. then the administration should stop claiming that the disciplinary process is a chance for personal growth. There is no way a priority on catching and punishing students can coexist with these goals. If, however, the school decides that its essential purpose is to teach goodness and to help students grow, then it must redesign the disciplinary system to accommodate these goals. I hope, for the sake of Andover’s future, it chooses to do the latter. Listening to my local alumnus, I heard many positive remarks about Andover. He talked about the lifelong friends he made, the great academics, and all the other wonderful aspects of Andover I have come to know and enjoy. Back in eight grade, still searching for my future school, I paid little attention to the negative comment about how Andover teaches dishonesty. Now, I see that was one of the most insightful observations I ever heard about this school. Andover doesn’t have to teach dishonesty. It has the power to reform its policies and affirm its goals. I hope I will be able to look back on my time at Andover and say to a prospective student that it taught students not just knowledge, but goodness and honesty. Max Block is a three-year Upper from Nowrich, VT and a commentary editor for The Phillipian.
