Open Session has been part of the Menlo curriculum for two years, but the activity has received controversial opinions from Menlo students. Spread editor Kaitlyn Tom shares her take on the advocacy activity. 

by Kaitlyn Tom

Every single time I head into an Open Session, I think, “Oh no, here goes an hour of awkwardly sitting in a room.” As the cards are handed out to each of my peers, I wonder if I will actually be able to tell the room, on a 5 by 6 index card, an actual problem that won’t give away my identity.

Open Session was created so we could talk about our feelings in an open-minded group setting. Open Session has valid intentions, but its execution has been lackluster. The problem with Open Session is that it creates such an artificial environment. If I have a problem or feel stressed, I’m not going to express it on an index card, I’m going to talk to a friend or a trusted adult. Also, with teachers monitoring, the environment feels awkward and forced.

In my opinion, Open Session involves too many people, many of whom I don’t interact with on a daily basis. Open Session has tried to address that concern, emphasizing that the beauty of the program is that you get opinions from people that you don’t normally speak to. However, for the problems that have been expressed during the sessions require you to know the person in order to help them fully attack the problem. Anonymity simply does not help solve the majority of high schoolers’ problems.

In addition to being ineffective, anonymity also contributes to creating more gossip. The teachers (Open Session moderators) want students to feel that they are in a safe environment, and therefore, don’t want people to discuss the issues shared. However, people do discuss what is shared. Not only that, but people try, either consciously or subconsciously, to guess who wrote the card.

I have participated in Open Session for over a year and each time I hope that somehow it will achieve what the school hopes it will accomplish. The reality is that Open Session is never going to be able to provide a safe environment where students can share their most pertinent personal problems. Getting rid of anonymity would open up a Pandora’s box, and having teachers leave the room would most likely result in a free period.

We should just stick to small advocacy groups, in which we can form strong bonds with our peers and advocate, so that, any time that we feel we need to, we can wall up to these people, knowing that we will receive full support. This is what the goal should be, not creating a false environment that the majority of students don’t want to participate in.