Search this site

Deerfield Academy administered its second-ever climate survey on April 6. The anonymous survey aimed to capture feedback about student life on campus, with questions ranging from time spent reading for pleasure to hours spent on social media. The first-ever climate survey was administered in the spring of 2023. Many of the logistics of the first administration carried over into the second. Students remained in their last-period classroom during flex time to take the survey, and those with a free period were assigned to a room to complete the form. The Student Life Office (SLO) decided early on to re-administer the survey at a later date this year. As Associate Head of School for Student Life, Amie Creagh noted that repeating the survey in three-year intervals allows the SLO to compare how responses change for students in certain class years between their 9th and 12th grade experiences. She emphasized the importance of this practice to “look longitudinally at [Deerfield students’] experiences.” Results from the previous survey influenced SLO policy changes. In 2023, a question asked students if they believed they had an adult who could be a source of support in a time of personal need. Roughly 115 students stated that no such individual existed. Ms. Creagh noted that, as a response, the SLO focused on ensuring more students had these relationships. It implemented a survey to assess which students did not have these connections, then connected students in need of support with their advisor and grade dean. The planning process for the 2026 survey began in earnest about 9 months out, with the SLO collaborating with the Information Technology Services (ITS) and other departments to ensure the survey process ran smoothly. In designing the new batch of questions, Ms. Creagh highlighted various areas of focus. One priority was to ask many of the same questions from the past survey to track changes in the Deerfield climate over time. Another set of questions reflected new policy priorities for the school, such as promoting voluntary reading. Finally, the third focus was on finding “new influence[s] in the high school experience that [the SLO] want[s] to be able to capture,” such as the rise of AI tools, the growing influence of social media, and the increasing prevalence of substances such as THC. Much like in 2023, the SLO plans to perform much of its analysis of survey data over the summer. Afterwards, they plan to share their findings in the fall at a School Meeting, faculty meetings, and with the Board of Trustees. As with the previous administration, the SLO plans to compare results for many of the Deerfield questions with those of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a national questionnaire for teens and young adults that measures their behavior and their environments–serving as a national climate survey, of sorts. Reflecting on the overall experience, Ms. Creagh hoped that students continue to have faith in the survey’s anonymity. She emphasized that “no student is going to be pursued…for whatever their responses are [to the survey]….We did that 0 times in 2023. We’re doing that 0 times in 2026.” As part of this policy, the SLO noted in a school meeting announcement that it removed a potentially identifying question from the 2023 administration that asked international students about their nationality. As for the message the survey sends to students, Ms. Creagh emphasized that she hoped they feel “like their experiences matter and that [the SLO] want[s] students to have a good experience.” Finally, she acknowledged how the questions serve as a scaffold for the Deerfield community: “The questions we ask…are, in a way, signaling what we care about as a school….[such as] health and well-being, sleep, connections with peers, connections with adults, healthy habits.” With the 2026 administration done, and summer fast approaching, the SLO will soon begin to analyze the data, before using it to inform policy. Afterwards, it will turn its focus to the next administration.

After almost 15 years, Historic Deerfield altered its exterior signs from beige to blue as part of a larger project to redesign and install over 70 exterior signs. The goal of this change was to update information on the signs, improve wayfinding for visitors, increase readability, and strengthen Historic Deerfield's brand identity. Historic Deerfield is a museum featuring a collection of 18th and 19th-century houses, offering visitors insights into the diverse people and communities who lived in the site. The houses show a variety of artifacts that include antique furniture, English and Chinese ceramics, rare books and manuscripts, as well as open-hearth cooking displayed for visitors to see. In addition to displaying antique visual materials, workshops, exhibitions, and demonstrations are also made available to visitors for more hands-on experience. To balance the historical character of centuries-old houses while ensuring that their structures remain stable, lasting, and appealing to visitors, Historic Deerfield has “used historic preservation practices” as their primary approach, according to Historic Deerfield’s Director of Marketing & Communications, Danae Dincola. Since 2022, the museum has launched multiple successful initiatives. This spring, three new exhibitions centered on the Revolution in Deerfield have opened: Picturing the Revolution, Dressing the Revolution: Fashion and Politics 1760-1789, and A Town Divided: Deerfield in the Age of Revolution. Regardless of one’s learning style and interests, Historic Deerfield offers a wide range of educational opportunities, “from hands-on activities to historic trades demonstrations (blacksmithing, hearth cooking, metalsmithing, and more), to exhibitions, lectures, and academic forums,” Dincola said. Beyond its role as a site offering many archival insights into Deerfield’s past, Historic Deerfield serves as an educational resource on campus. In the senior elective River and Rock, co-taught by English Teacher Mr. Morris and History and Social Science Teacher Mr. McVaugh, students learn to analyze physical landscapes the same way they would with a written text. Mr. Morris integrates Historic Deerfield into the curriculum by treating the site as a primary source. “Historic Deerfield is a landscape. It’s a museum structured as a street, and as you walk down it, you clearly encounter unusual landscapes. Since our class is learning to read landscapes, it’s a super convenient place to take a look,” he said. Students at Deerfield currently aim to strengthen the connection between the student body and Historic Deerfield by highlighting how the museum offers much information about past events that ultimately influenced modern Deerfield. Gardiner Dietrich ’27, a student who runs the Historic Deerfield club and strives to bridge the gap between the museum and Deerfield students, said: “I created the club because I think the connection between the Academy and Historic Deerfield is very interesting especially with the Frank Boyden and Henry Flint collaboration in the 1920s … many students don’t know that they can go there for free!"

CoDA, a student rock band at Deerfield, was founded by Joshua Fang ’19 and Andy Han ’19. Q: Why did you choose “CoDA” as the name for the group? Andy Han ’19: “CoDA” is a musical term — it’s a passage that brings a piece to an end. We chose it because it’s short, it’s catchy, and it has meaning to us! It also ends in “DA.” Q: How do you decide which songs to play? Joshua Fang ’19: Typically, someone in our group will suggest a song, and Andy and I will take a look at it and see if it’s feasible with our instrumentation. Often we will have several songs on the docket for an upcoming performance, and the band will discuss what song will be best for what occasion. Q: How do you make instrumental adaptations of existing music? Fang: Andy and I will first look online to see if there are existing scores that we can adapt. Eventually, I will arrange the piece with Andy in the studio. Andy will normally lay out the big picture arrangement: the verses, the choruses, any solos, and I’ll brush up all the small details like horn fills, little rhythm section hits, etc. Q: How has your music evolved since you first started playing together? Han: We’ve all just become much more in sync. I remember the first piece we learned, “I Will Survive,” we rehearsed multiple times a week for multiple weeks straight before it was ready. This fall, we pulled together a completely new piece, “September,” in only a week! Q: What plans do you have for the future? Fang: Next year will be big for CoDA. We’re hoping to host some special concerts or jam sessions to bring Deerfield’s musical community closer together. We want to offer more chances to perform besides the two KFCs every year. After Andy and I graduate, we’re hoping to pass the band on to another pair of leaders that can arrange the music and keep its spirit alive. We’re proud of what we’ve done so far to help the music community here thrive and we can’t wait to continue in the future.

COURTESY OF DEERFIELD COMMUNICATIONS Deerfield Academy hosted its fifth Deerfield Forum on Tuesday, April 21, in partnership with the Munk Debates, North America’s leading debate series based in Toronto, Canada, on the motion: Be it Resolved, let’s engineer better human beings. The Munk Debates are a semi-annual series of debates primarily held in Toronto, focusing on major global policy issues. The Forum marks the first time a debate has been held outside of Toronto and within a secondary-school setting. According to History & Social Science Department Chair & Teacher Brian Hamilton, the planning process began last June when he reached out to Managing Director of the Munk Debates Ricki Gurwitz to discuss the possibility of inviting the program to the Academy. He explained that Head of School John Austin was “a long-time fan of the Munk Debates,” and that students “desired to see more clear disagreements on the stage [during Deerfield Forums],” leading to the decision to reach out to the Munk Debates team. Discussions about the topic and logistics continued throughout the summer, and in September, Gurwitz and her team visited the campus, closing the deal with a solidified topic. Gurwitz reflected on the experience, stating, “[Deerfield] reached out to us, and [we were] very happy to bring [the program] to a school…we were always looking for a chance to engage with young people in debate.” Gurwitz also mentioned how the Munk Debates emphasize “diversity of opinion and civil debate” as their mission. Mr. Hamilton echoed similar remarks, saying that Deerfield’s “ambition…for teaching students productive discourse and how to talk across differences” were ones that the Munk Debates program shared. As part of the debate’s emphasis on measuring the effectiveness of arguments and encouraging open-minded thinking, audience members vote on the resolution both before and after the debate, with the winner determined by whoever secures the largest percentage vote shift at the end. Before the debate, faculty members handed out clickers for students to vote—the pre-debate poll was 29% on the pro side and 71% on the con side. In collaboration with Munk Debates, the Academy brought in four professionals from their respective fields, including biophysics, philosophy, reproductive science, and healthcare, to debate the implications of gene editing. Arguing in favor of the motion was biophysicist and former director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at UCLA School of Medicine Gregory Stock. His debate partner was philosopher, futurist, and transhumanist advocate Max More. Arguing against the motion was oncologist, biophysicist, and former Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH Ezekiel Emanuel. His debate partner was Professor of Reproductive Science at University College London Joyce Harper. Moderating the conversation was Munk Debates moderator, bestselling author, and television broadcaster Rudyard Griffiths. The debate started with all four debaters providing a ten-minute opening statement. The pro side brought up claims about the use of gene editing to cure diseases, clarifying that their argument lay on the assumption that the technology was safe and accessible. Meanwhile, the con side addressed concerns about the possibility of this technology transforming into eugenics, arguing that widespread use would lead to homogenization and excessive control by different organizations and governments. Afterwards, each debater was allowed to provide a three-minute rebuttal, allowing for direct confrontation of the opposing side’s central arguments. Afterwards, Griffiths led a moderated question-and-answer portion, asking the debaters to expand on issues raised during the earlier conversations, including the difference between gene editing and eugenics, the effect of germline editing on diversity, and foundational moral concerns about human engineering. This portion allowed debaters to jump into the conversation freely, which they weren’t allowed to do previously. The debate concluded with closing remarks from each side, giving the debaters an opportunity to summarize their positions and persuade audience members before their post-debate vote. The pro side reiterated that gene editing, despite carrying certain risks, has the potential to improve lives, urging the audience to grapple with the issue instead of hiding away. The con side reconnected gene editing with eugenics, emphasizing its dangers in potential misuse and abuse. After the debate, students were allowed to vote again. The post-debate poll came in with 35% on the pro side and 65% on the con side, demonstrating a 6% swing that led to the pro team’s victory. Following the debate, students participated in a post-forum reception in the von Auersperg Gallery, where the four debaters, the moderator, and other Munk Debate members were available to meet with students and answer follow-up questions. Students noted how special the debate was compared to previous Deerfield Forums. Michael Clifford-Levy ’26 stated after the debate, saying, “It's been the best Forum in my four years…[and] both sides made very compelling arguments.” Casey Lee ’28 echoed similar remarks, stating, “It is really great. It was very rare to see the Deerfield audience so…voluntarily engaged for 90 minutes.” Some mentioned gaps in how certain scientific concepts were explained during the debate. Reagan Warren ’27 observed, “I would love it if the con side expanded more on what CRISPR [Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats] was. I think it was mentioned once in the argument that was alluded to afterwards. I think that would have ultimately benefited both sides of the argument.” Other students focused on how the debate framed the distinction between enhancing human traits and improving health. Kate Andrews ’27 stated that arguments about whether “healthy” and “better” are interconnected remained particularly impactful, stating that the idea of these concepts being connected “resonated more than the argument that they are separate.” Griffiths identified the issue of eugenics as a moment that created a split in opinion between both sides. He stated, “My sense was that…[the eugenics] argument of the con side…elicited the most debate”. At the same time, he noted a point of agreement between both sides when “they both agreed that the technology is in the future. It’s not here right now,” emphasizing a shared understanding that gene editing remains largely prospective. Con team member Harper emphasized the role of governments in shaping the use of technology, stating that “no matter what technology we develop, every country is under the control of the government. It’s in the power of the rich and powerful who are governing.” Her viewpoint was linked to broader concerns about how scientific advancements may be directed or limited by politics. Harper later addressed the role of digital platforms, noting that “social media is responsible for even more homogenization than ever.” She believed that social media “reduces diversity,” ultimately raising questions about how public perception of genetic enhancement may be shaped. Thinking about the experience collaborating with Deerfield, Gurwitz expressed how “it’s been very positive…[and] working with Deerfield is a dream; you guys have an excellent faculty…and it’s just so nice to be around people who are interested in engaging in different ideas and viewpoints.” Mr. Hamilton concluded by saying that it was exciting to witness the Deerfield community of “curious folks that are excited about exploring ideas.”

COURTESY OF DEERFIELD COMMUNICATIONS Vocal ensemble members, chamber musicians and dancers performed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City on the evening of May 13, in an event kickstarting the Academy’s new “Be Worthy” fundraising campaign. The campaign—with a goal of 500 million dollars, which would set a fundraising record for the Academy—has raised 340 million so far, Head of School John Austin announced at the event. Interim Director of the Arts and Choral Director Mike Pfitzer first asked his Vocal Ensemble class about who was interested in attending the event a few months prior. According to Ella Waag ’26, a singer in Vocal Ensemble, the trip was in high demand, and all of the seniors in the class decided to attend. The group had started working on their piece, a traditional Zimbabwe miner’s song, Shosholoza, in the fall, coming back to it to practice with the Met-sized group. At first, the plan was to perform two pieces, starting with a softer song that “fit [their] skillset more” Waag said. But after Dr. Pfitzer and Director of Music Thomas Bergeron met with the planning and coordinating company, Empire Entertainment, the group decided to stick to one high-energy, upbeat number for the night. According to Mr. Bergeron, the purpose of the performances was not to provide a far-reaching overview of the arts departments—a model they’d followed at previous external showcases, such as the trip to Carnegie Hall last spring. More broadly, Dr. Pfitzer said that the event was extensively planned “to cater to the audience experience, at all levels,” not to demonstrate the Academy’s high-level mastery of a specific discipline. The group of eight string players who performed during the main-course had planned, at first, to perform front-and-center, rather than as background music. When Mr. Bergeron first told the musicians about the change before the event, they still wanted to play. A few musicians expressed reluctance about playing only in the background. “For some of us, the octet was the only thing we played, and it’s not the best feeling playing when the entire crowd’s milling around talking to each other,” said chamber musician and Associate Editor for the Deerfield Scroll Naomi Kim ’28, but she did add that the performance was more relaxing and low-stakes. For Mr. Bergeron and Dr. Pfitzer, they felt that the event was good practice for the students to have an experience as artists tailoring their art to an audience. The two of them, Mr. Bergeron said, spent their lives learning “not only how to do what [they] do well but to think about the audience experience.” Dr. Pfitzer described the event as a series of small and specific moments in the schedule. On Empire Entertainment’s website, the company, an event production agency based in New York City, Los Angeles, and Tokyo, states, “We produce moments that matter.” When the music department received instruction from Empire to find “upbeat, lively music for cocktail hour,” they thought that the Other Doors, the Academy’s all-school meeting band, would be the best fit. A few months before the event, the dance department also began planning their portion of the night. Costume Designer Karen St. Pierre found out in March that the dancers would need seven entirely handmade costumes, after Director of Dance Heather Holohan-Guarnieri shared a choreography video with her as inspiration for the dancers’ costumes. After spring break, the two gathered to plan the performance—everthing from costumes, makeup and choreography to transport and logistics. At first, the team had a material concern and worried about static during the bus ride. And, Ms. Karen said, she had to think about the flips and tricks, constructing costumes with the dancers’ individual movements in mind. Each handmade costume was also stylistically personalized, modeled after traditional Grecian styles. “Each kid was their own classic tableau state,” she said. The octet opened the dinner portion of the evening, and four of the eight chamber musicians accompanied the dancers during their piece—which they’d also performed together at the Spring Chamber Music Showcase the weekend before—later in the programming. The group of instrumentalists, singers and dancers returned just after two in the morning.

COURTESY OF LONG RIVER PRODUCE MARKET Long River Produce Market is a local farmstand in South Deerfield, Massachusetts, with a strong commitment to selling produce sourced from within a 200-mile radius, with much of their produce sourced from Atlas Farm. They also run a community fund program within the market, where all customers who need it have access to a set amount of money to buy from the store, all donated from customers and local organizations. They maintain relationships with several community organizations where they directly donate produce to local kitchens, and have been working on a farm-to-school program in Deerfield and surrounding towns. Emphasizing their commitment to access to food, Hickey noted, “We have a 50% off section of day-old things that are like getting a little ugly but are totally fine to eat, and we have bulk ordering prices where you can get deals for ordering a little bit more.” The South Deerfield farmstand formerly known as Atlas Farm Store changed its name to the Long River Produce Market, after Atlas Farm owner Gideon Porth opted out of signing the Apartheid-Free Communities Pledge, a nationwide coalition opposing “Israeli apartheid and occupation.” Current owner of Long River Produce Market, Kelly Hickey, bought the farmstand from Porth in 2021. Hickey called the sale “an attempt to get the farm focused only on growing,” and to allow the store to run as a wholesale venue and market. Before purchasing the farmstand, she worked as a manager under Porth. Last summer, Hickey and the farmstand signed the Apartheid-Free Communities Pledge, which, according to the Apartheid Free website, states that those who sign “join others in working to end all support to Israel’s Apartheid regime, settler colonialism, and military occupation.” The Pledge is convened by the American Friends Committee and several groups. The organization considers the war in Gaza to be “apartheid,” which is defined in international law as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons,” as deemed by the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. As of May 5, 2026, the pledge has 1187 signers, including businesses, artists and municipalities across the world. The pledge has caused controversy around activist groups against antisemitism, such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement, who sent a letter to the municipality of Brampton in Ontario, claiming that the pledge “will cause real harm to Jewish residents of Brampton” and that “the council has chosen symbolism over responsibility and division over leadership”. According to café manager Molly Merrett, Long River found out about the pledge “from some other organizations ... and through being an activist with this cause.” She noted that the pledge’s “anti-apartheid” statement felt “really very important to [her].” As a pledge organizer, Merrett also spoke about how she tried to get other businesses in Western Massachusetts to sign the pledge. “I thought it would make sense to ask my workplace to sign the pledge as well,” she said, adding, “We’re a values-driven business … and that drives a lot of the choices that we make as a store.” “It felt like something that was important for us to do to show solidarity with our Palestinian neighbors,” Hickey said. “We wouldn’t be dropping products from the shelf because everything we carry is local anyway.” Porth, in response to being approached with the pledge, noted that he wasn’t comfortable signing Atlas Farm’s name. “I’d be the first to criticize Israel and the Netanyahu government and the war in Gaza, but there’s fault on the other side as well, and I couldn’t get on board with it,” he said. When Hickey found out this fall that the farm wasn’t aligned with signing the agreement, she decided, after a series of conversations with Porth, to change their stand’s name. According to Porth, Hickey had made an agreement before the initial shift to working independently in 2021 to change the farmstand’s name to avoid customer confusion around the ownership. For Porth, he felt that since he and Hickey were operating separately, it made more sense for them to operate under different names. He said that, until recently, Hickey never followed through in renaming the stand. Since signing the Apartheid-Free agreement, Long River, according to Hickey, hasn’t experienced any staff changes, and the responses have been relatively mixed. A few customers, Hickey said, have chosen to shop elsewhere—but some, she said, felt they aligned with Long River’s decision and recently began shopping at the farmstand for the first time. She said she “can think of three people who said, ‘I don’t agree with this,’” but also that “there are many more people who had maybe never heard of us who were really appreciative of taking a stand.” On the other side, Jewish Rabbi Benjamin Weinar, in an opinion piece for the Greenfield Recorder, wrote, “It’s hurtful that this store, a place that meant so much to me and my family, and others in my community, is being turned into yet another polarizing and hyper-politicized arena.” Porth noted that “despite [their] difference of opinions about the topic, there wasn’t any real bad blood,” and their “working relationship hasn’t really changed.” Currently, Atlas Farm and Long River Produce Market maintain the same working relationship and contract, now under different names.

HEIDI LIANG/DEERFIELD SCROLL On any given fall Wednesday, Science Teacher and Varsity Football Coach Jeffrey Crosby will spend more time with his football team in one afternoon than he does with his Honors Chemistry 2: Research class in an entire academic week. Both Varsity Football and Chemistry Research are meant to be the highest level of a team or a class that a student can be a part of at Deerfield. Yet, because of Deerfield’s curriculum and schedule, the football team will receive significantly more time with Dr. Crosby, who holds a PhD in molecular biology, than his chemistry students ever will. This pattern reveals a fundamental problem with how Deerfield approaches science. Unlike an English or history essay, science cannot happen in an isolated dorm room late at night. It requires access to laboratories, equipment, and mentors—all resources that Deerfield has, but doesn’t use. Deerfield's graduation requirements offer a starting point. While 28 terms worth of humanities classes are necessary to graduate, only 15 terms of math and science classes are required. Even if students routinely exceed those minimum requirements, the contrast emphasizes Deerfield’s preference for the humanities. The electives that seniors can take tell a similar story. While seniors can choose from over 18 history electives and 22 different English classes, students only receive 13 different choices of science electives and essentially a set progression for math classes. The problem isn’t necessarily that Deerfield overemphasizes the humanities, but that Deerfield does not provide the resources necessary to its students to fully pursue STEM, despite having the resources to do so. Yet the numbers only tell one part of the story. A student interested in historical or literary research at Deerfield can do so at any time, even in the comfort of their own rooms. The only requirements are a computer with an email account and internet access to JSTOR. Student-run initiatives that are sponsored and funded by the school show similar patterns. Clubs like the Scroll, Speech and Debate, Model United Nations, and Albany Road receive thousands per club in separate funding, making publishing and sending competitive teams around the world possible. The debate team has been able to send a delegation to the World Championships each year on the school’s dime, and the school has allowed students to miss more than a week of classes for the opportunity. Meanwhile, the MUN team has attended Harvard MUN and Yale MUN—the two most prestigious tournaments in the entire country—for at least all four years I’ve attended Deerfield. At both an individual and institutional level, we are given the opportunity and resources to succeed in the humanities at Deerfield. There are no similar opportunities in STEM. Original science research, now important in an increasingly competitive college admission scene, requires a laboratory with adult supervision, equipment, and often a faculty mentor. At Deerfield, that currently looks like taking one of the four research classes offered to seniors and the occasional junior. Even then, these classes do not produce original research but function more as a supervised familiarization with lab protocol. Worse, these classes meet for at most four hours a week—significantly less time than any cocurricular team would spend playing an away game on Wednesday, and a pitiful amount compared to the time necessary to conduct proper scientific research. The research background of competitive STEM applicants that our similarly well-funded peer schools have simply cannot be attained within the Deerfield curriculum. There's a reason that Deerfield, despite being in Massachusetts, sends far more students to Yale than it does to MIT. The cocurricular schedule exacerbates this issue. Although it is possible to receive a cocurricular exemption to pursue science research, doing so requires finding a faculty mentor, who is usually coaching a sport during that time. As a result, the precious hours in which lab work could be happening overlap with the very hours that every qualified science teacher on campus would be on the athletic field. In order to find time, Science Teacher Dr. Jenn Pousont goes out of her way to open the lab for Honors Biology 2 Research students before 1st and 4th period, during the 15 minutes before lunch, flex time, and even during school meetings, so that her students can have time to work on their projects. Outside of the curriculum, opportunities are similarly sparse. Student-run STEM clubs only receive the standard $300 budget every other club receives, far from enough to pursue any serious research. Moreover, with the exception of the American Mathematics Competition (AMC) and the Physics Olympiad (F=MA), the Science Department has stopped sponsoring olympiad science, the other alternative to research, even when students offered to find proctors themselves. Compared to our peer schools, we are sorely lacking in these opportunities. In the past five years, Deerfield has had, to my knowledge, four students in total qualify to either the USA Math Olympiad (USAMO) and the semifinal rounds of the USA Chemistry Olympiad (USNCO), or the USA Biology Olympiad (USABO). In 2024 alone, Andover and Exeter had four and five medalists, respectively, in the USAMO. While this could be because Deerfield has fewer STEM-oriented students compared to the humanities, that in itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy: students with a stronger STEM skill set who are accepted to Deerfield have less of an incentive to come to a school with a comparatively weak science and math program. There is no way that a dedicated science student can pursue their ambitions at Deerfield the same way that a dedicated humanities student can, whether that be inside or outside the curriculum. The problem with Deerfield STEM isn’t that the school doesn’t have laboratories, equipment, or extremely overqualified faculty. Students just cannot utilize them. Deerfield’s academic administration is at the root of the problem. Educational institutions, especially their curricula, reflect the vision of the people who lead them. Deerfield’s current academic leadership has been shaped far more by the humanities than the natural or formal sciences. Head of School Dr. John Austin holds a PhD in English and comparative literature and previously taught English. Outgoing Dean of Academic Affairs Dr. Anne Bruder holds a PhD in English Language and Literature. Dean of Studies Ms. Lydia Hemphill is a Latin teacher. Incoming Assistant Head of School for Academic Affairs, Mr. Brian Hamilton, chaired the history department. While the previous Dean of Academics, Dr. Ivory Hills, held a PhD in Organic Chemistry, Dr. Hills has since left Deerfield in 2024 to become the Head of School at St. Marks. This isn’t meant to criticize the capacity of any single individual or the Academic Affairs department. However, it is meant to demonstrate that when major decision-makers for the academic curriculum share the same humanities background, the curriculum they create may not capture the full needs of advanced science. The solution to Deerfield’s science deficit is straightforward. It looks like granting more science teachers exemptions from coaching duties to allow students easier access to the lab during cocurricular time. It looks like allowing students to pursue Olympiad science, just as Speech and Debate or MUN, is supported. It looks like implementing a program like Choate’s Science Research Program, where students are paired with university professors and can pursue serious science research projects for the entirety of their junior summer. A sanctioned summer program could allow students to continue participating in cocurricular activities while also being given access to the lab. As much as it pains me to admit, Choate’s current science curriculum and program give its students vastly more opportunities like the SRP than Deerfield’s. Deerfield describes in its mission statement that it aims to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. The administration recognizes the importance of science and technology in the future, enough to host the most recent Deerfield Forum on gene editing. Yet, despite that, it fails to grant the science students researching CRISPR gene editing technology in Honors Chemistry 2 more time with their mentor in a week than the football team does.

YONG DING/DEERFIELD SCROLL The Community Values Council (CVC) as described by the Student Handbook 2025-2026 is “responsible for upholding the Academy’s values, standards, and Major School Rules. Though it can occasionally serve a fact-finding function, it is not designed to be a court of law or a judicial mechanism. Rather, a meeting with the CVC is an educational process meant to help students understand the rules.” The council includes two sections–academic and student life–and is composed of seven members: a co-chair Dean of Studies Lydia Hemphill (for academic infractions) or Dean of Students Sam Bicknell (for student life infractions), three student members, and three adults (class dean and two faculty members). These seven members each have one vote. The CVC-ed student may choose to exclude one student member from the selection pool. For the meeting, the advisor and optional advocate (Deerfield student or adult) of the CVC-ed student will also be present. These two members will not vote. The CVC holds a strict, organized, and standard process for each case. If work comes into concern, the teacher is expected to bring the case to the department chair. If they believe there’s an issue, a meeting will be scheduled to first meet with the student who, then, with their advisor, meets with the CVC co-chair. According to the result of the meeting, the co-chair will decide if the case merits CVC action. Ms. Hemphill said, “Many students, it’s hard for them to come up with the whole truth right off the bat. But there's a window that is expected, within which a student should be willing to own up to what they've done.” Specifically, with the rise in AI-related breaches in recent years, the co-heads have more frequently exercised their authority to issue letters of reminder or warnings without a CVC meeting. Ms. Hemphill explained, “It was bringing together 10, 12 people in an afternoon or an evening, for sometimes what ended up being a 15 minute CVC. So we stepped a little bit back from that this year … it doesn’t change the outcome.” She continued to explain the trend in AI cases saying, “There tend to be more at the end of terms when there are projects due, and so, it’s been fairly steady. … it’s a tough environment for students to be making decisions about the integrity of their work given the technological temptations that now exist. And we totally get it.” When a meeting is needed, Executive Assistant to the Student Life Office Peg Scarborough or Administrative Assistant to the Academic Affairs Office Hannah White sends a BCC email calling for panel availability without naming the case or the CVC-ed student. The council then selects from the available pool. The CVC-ed student will first share a written reflection and then answer a series of questions from the council members. The advisors and the advocate will then speak on the CVC-ed student’s behalf on their character. Following, the CVC-ed student and the advocate will leave the room, while the advisor stays for a final discussion. “The council discusses whether or not they believe a Major School Rule was broken. Depending on that response, there’s a discussion and decision about what the appropriate response should be. Then, we sit down with the student afterwards to share the response and make plans for a Growth and Learning Plan or other next steps,” Mr. Bicknell said. Previously, the two council sections operated separately as the Academic Honor Council (AHC) for academic infractions and the Disciplinary Council (DC) for student life infractions. In the summer of 2023, the Student Life Office led the decision to merge the two councils. Mr. Bicknell explained that, “by having one Community Values Council, we could cover all the potential missteps that students make with one name.” Additionally, the council introduced the Growth and Learning Plan. When a Major School Rule is broken, Mr. Bicknell explained that the student "authors a Growth and Learning Plan which will have some goals, either specific to the infraction or just more generally, …with the support of their advisor and the grade Dean. They will meet periodically with the grade Dean, and at the end of that plan, it's kind of a celebration to appreciate all the growth that they’ve experienced.” The council has also modified how to balance open-communication and transparency with community confidentiality. Previously, cases that held CVC meetings and the result would be shared during All-School meetings without any naming. However, to support student reflection and in consideration of student comfortability, this practice is no longer in place. “I think there are two ways of thinking. I do think it is useful for students to understand what’s happening, because rumors start in the absence of concrete information. On the other hand, people felt like there was too much chatter and speculation around when there were announcements about CVCs,” Ms. Hemphill explained. The council emphasized the importance of confidentiality. “I lead with belief in the committee that they will honor confidentiality. I would be really upset if I felt that the committee members were not maintaining confidentiality. And I haven't heard anything about any transgressions from the committee,” Ms. Hemphill said, adding that she treated students on the committee as if they were peers. Student members support this. Two-year student member Sophie Simonds ’26 explained how “a lot of the meeting times are well hidden throughout the day in a classroom in the MSB. In the fall, in the spring, it’ll be after sit-down, or, in the winter, it would often be 3 p.m. and I think some students are very public about the fact that they’ve gotten a CVC.” Being on the council has provided opportunities for members to grow. English Teacher Andy Stallings reflected how his experience has helped him better evaluate rules. “It was surprising to me to be named because I was pretty new to the school when that happened. … And at first it was sort of a jarring thing. …What I did was pay close attention to how they [co-heads] thought about things, because they’d had a lot of experience,” he said. From the student perspective, being on the council gave an opportunity to interact more deeply with faculty members. Simonds noted, “that’s the moment where I feel most equal and on the same level as both my peers and the faculty. So having discussions with faculty that feel very open and where we have the same amount of power, same amount of vote is really helpful to my building relationships with those faculty.” Being on the CVC since 2012 and chairing since 2020, Ms. Hemphill reflected on her personal growth. “I mean, I'm not saying I love this part of my job, but you know, in my whole life, I’ve cared very much about, consistency, fairness, respecting the rules, but also knowing that there are moments to think ‘Are there mitigating circumstances that might make us make a different decision?’ I’ve gotten better at thinking about this in more complex ways as I’ve matured, so I feel proud of the process,” she said. Faculty and rising juniors and seniors apply to join the council during the spring term. Faculty belong to both sections while students belong to only one section, according to their preference on the application. Training sessions are then held for adequate preparation. “The most knowledge you can get is just from sitting in on a meeting. …you just kind of learn from your peers, and you learn from your peers’ behavior, and for the most part, the meetings are very respectful, and you’re asking a lot of insightful questions,” Simonds said. Simonds encouraged rising juniors and seniors to take the opportunity and apply. “There’s sometimes this idea or this reputation that, ‘Oh, you’re the [Non-Athletic Regular Person], you’re opting on these people or reporting on them,’” she said. But she rejects this, saying “I’ve been friends with people I’ve had meetings with, and that hasn’t really impacted our relationship at all.” The modifications to the CVC have improved the system to better benefit the Deerfield community. “In the last 10 to 15 years, we’ve gone from a system that I think was somewhat black and white…to a place where I think we really recognize the complexities of the adolescent experience and being at a high school and boarding school in this day and age,” Mr. Bicknell concluded.

Outgoing Editor-in-Chief Careless Whisper - George Michael (John Liu) Outgoing Managing Editor 12 to 12 - sombr (Joanna Chang) Outgoing Managing Editor Let Down - Radiohead (John Woo) Outgoing Digital Managing Editor The Thrill - Wiz Khalifa & Empire Of The Sun (Karen Park) Outgoing News Page Editor Dreams - Fleetwood Mac (Melody Zhao) Outgoing Buzz Page Editor Everlong - Foo Fighters (John Comite) Outgoing Arts Page Editor Georgia - Vance Joy (Josie Kalish) Outgoing Sports Page Editor River - Leon Bridges (Evelyn Kunde) Outgoing Photographer Editor Bazooka - Miami XO (Albert Yuk)

JONATHAN XU/DEERFIELD SCROLL Q: What’s something that not everyone may know about you? A: I was born in Carthage, Tunisia. Q: What’s your favorite book to teach–and why? A: I like to teach The Great Gatsby because I hope people find out that it's not what they think it is. But then, I also really love to teach this play that's called Disgraced because it's a lot of fun to read aloud. Q: Who is your favorite author–and why? A: I love Virginia Woolf. She writes the most amazing sentences. Q: How do you spend your free time? A: I hang out with my family, go on walks, take pictures, and like to garden. Q: What do you love most about coaching Girls’ JV Field Hockey? A: I love the energy of the team, and I love being outside in the fall. Q: What do you enjoy most about teaching? A: I love that our seminar table is a crossroads of the world, and I love that I'm learning every day. Q: If you weren’t an English teacher, what would you be doing? A: I would be a radio journalist. Q: What place have you always wanted to explore? A: I would love to go to India. I’ve never been. Q: What’s your favorite word in the English language? A: The word that popped into my mind is “serendipitous.”

NICANOR WILLIAMS/DEERFIELD SCROLL Spring has arrived at Deerfield, and so has the hacky sack trend, becoming a common sight across campus. Whether it is on the quad in the afternoon, during study hall in the dorms, or even during community time between classes, hacky sack is everywhere. Some fear that DA sports teams are becoming too obsessed with the art of “sacking”, speculating that some teams will transition into a group of full-time sackers and part-time athletes. Of course, only the greatest athletes can “sack” at a high level. Hacky sack is an activity where people gather in a circle and pass a small, filled bag of sand without letting it hit the ground. Despite seeming casual or easy, “sack does not have a fixed shape and absorbs impact instead of bouncing, valuing contact, rhythm, and skills over strength,” Arhan Baharani ’29 explained. “It is not a casual or arbitrary activity,” he continued. Etiquettes and rules are valued, and participants are expected to oblige. “First and foremost, no self-serve is the most important one, meaning you shouldn’t drop the bag for yourself to start the round,” said Baharani. In addition, like soccer, arms and hands are not allowed to be used throughout the game. “Hoarding” is, too, not preferable; instead, people are encouraged to pass along to keep the match flowing. Like any other sports teams at Deerfield, DA hacky sack, going by the alias Big Green Sacks, is also competitive and has gained significant recognition. In April, The Sack Network ranked Big Green Sacks No. 1 across all the schools in the nation based on factors such as popularity, comments, views on posts, reputation, and DMs to the account. Meanwhile, it is also important to note that its rival, Choate Rosemary Hall, came up short, ranking 10th. But why and how did it become so popular? Julius Rauhs ’28 explained, “I think what makes sack stand out from other popular summer games like spike ball or football is the fact that its culture is all about inclusion. In a sack circle, everyone is welcomed regardless of [their] skill level. The famous slogan: ‘spread sack not hate’ does a great job at representing this.” Indeed, students gather in groups and enjoy casual yet intense games where skill and fun are equally valued.

COURTESY TO DEERFIELD COMMUNICATIONS In the Brick, revolution stirs. Hordes of angry first and second waiters protest around the dining hall. Our insiders report that waiters have grown tired of exploitative working conditions in which they are constantly late for class, and no understanding is given. Many teachers and students are asking the same question: why now? The simmering dissent of the waiters has been unleashed thanks to the Liberal Arts education that Deerfield supplies. APUSH students have found themselves indoctrinated with dangerous and revolutionary tendencies. Perhaps they should focus more on the AP than their silly protest. Of course, there exists another group of revolutionaries: Euro students. Having recently studied Marx and Engels, they believe it is time for a change, demanding that the ruling class be overtaken by the students. On Tuesday night, the two revolutionary groups joined forces, drafting their list of demands: The Declaration of the Waiters When in the course of dining hall events, one group of students is forced to set tables, fetch food, refill water, and arrive late to class, it becomes necessary to declare rebellion. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all waiters are created tired, that they are endowed by Deerfield with certain unalienable duties, and that among these are plates, pitchers, and the pursuit of missing forks. The history of the dining hall is a history of repeated injuries. It has made first waiters carry impossible trays. It has made second waiters scrape mystery food from abandoned plates. It has allowed seated students to ask, “Can you get one more thing?” after the waiter has finally sat down. We, therefore, declare that waiters are free and independent students. Waiters of the Brick, unite. You have nothing to lose but your lunch block. The revolution ended once a new rotation was announced.