Open House, Sealed Perspectives

During the Stuyvesant Open House on Wednesday, October 11th, volunteers were explicitly told to be positive. Being truthful was mentioned as an afterthought — “truth” meaning, don’t give fictional accounts, but still omit Stuyvesant’s problems whenever possible.

Tour guides walked through the seventh floor, endlessly praising our biology program but neglecting to mention SPARK, along with the mental health issues and identity struggles many students grapple with. Big Sibs even removed Copies of Issue 2 of the Spectator, which featured unfavorable statistics (such as over 70 percent of seniors having engaged in academic dishonesty), from their stands on the bridge.

Despite being far from ideological repression or labeling student journalism “fake news,” this hushing-up marks a frightening trend: prioritizing the Stuyvesant brand over the well-being of prospective students, to the point of restraining certain critical voices.

Thousands of eighth graders across the city are making a difficult choice regarding the next four years of their lives, and Stuyvesant’s student body and administration have an obligation to help them make the most informed decision possible. This means not censoring Stuyvesant’s dark side, but revealing it, whether that means academic dishonesty, the school’s racial composition, or what can become a very cut-throat student environment.

Imagine applying to an internship or summer program, being accepted, and finding out on the first day that it requires twice as many hours as advertised; seniors, imagine applying to a college for its student body and never learning the school has a drug problem. You would feel cheated, misled, or even exploited.

In a political climate in which journalism and the truth are under attack, Stuyvesant — which our Open House would have us believe represents the best and brightest in the city — should meet a higher standard.

Similarly, we should not submit ourselves, as current students, to an echo chamber about a fairy land called Stuyvesant. This is a great school, not a perfect one, and refusing to represent certain truths renders them invisible and devalues their effects on the student body. The experiences of a bubbly Open House leader are no more valid than those of students who forego extracurriculars because they are struggling academically, or of students whose emotional health has deteriorated due to Stuyvesant’s sometimes toxic atmosphere.

Students who struggle with, or are honest about, Stuyvesant’s negative aspects are not trying to ruin its reputation; if Stuyvesant is truly deserving of our praise, then the good will outweigh the bad.