Search this site

Yankees. My grandmother owns horses and I used to ride in competitive horse shows when I was a kid. We spray painted the driveway up to one of the schools that we beat, Amity High School, with the score of the game and we painted their rock our school colors, green and gold. I don’t want a tombstone. I want to be cremated and have my ashes spread on Quigley Field, my home high school football field. Good question. I would pay off my student loan[s] and book the best suite at the Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas.

Not once during my time at Deerfield did I witness a large-scale conversation around sexism where everyone involved saw the dialogue as an opportunity to enhance our school as an educational system. The conversation around sexism at Deerfield seems to always revert back to arguments over the validity of experiences or the pedantic semantics of legitimate, painfully lived moments on campus. As a man, I can not even begin to accurately try to explain the ways in which sexism exists at Deerfield today. As a man, I cannot begin to understand what it is like to receive an email from the Head of School equating my dress with my “Self Worth.” As a man, I don’t know what it’s like to be told that there would be more female student body presidents if there were a larger number of qualified candidates. I have no experiences weighing down these keystrokes, so instead, I will try to speak to what is preventing us from moving forward: the forces that keep students feeling unheard. I am proud of Deerfield, and because of this, l feel secure in my complaints about the institution. Often, while trying to have conversations about Deerfield’s deficiencies, there was a group of boys and girls who felt the need to defend the institution. Each of these conversations were brought up in the hopes of change, but instead were met with brains that were only willing to refute the statements to save face on behalf of the institution. DA is not a politician. It is not even a person. It should not embarrassed by its failures. Its only goal must be to improve. The intense questioning of people who bravely share their experiences of sexism or discrimination needs to end. Instead of trying to find a flaw in their stories or assess the “validity” of their “arguments,” listen to these stories as no more than narratives. Subverting these words by “asking for evidence” or pointing out a small falsehoods in logic accomplishes very little. It does not improve the institution or address the concerns put forward. Instead, these stories should be seen as an opportunity to improve our institution. Change does not mean abolishing tradition – Deerfield must be pushed along to keep up with the world around it. No one would suggest using a US History syllabus from the 1950s to prepare students for the AP test in 2018. Why then should we limit ourselves to antiquated ideas and constructs as a basis for how we educate our students today? Equating sexism with “social problems almost every teenager deals with in high school” is absurd. The school itself exists as an elitist construct: we believe that we should strive to be the best in every category that exists to judge us. We constantly talk about vying to be the best in sports and the best in academics. Why shouldn’t we strive to be the best school ranked on equity and parity between all students?

I graduated from Deerfield and quit co-ed education cold turkey when I stepped into Wellesley College, where most students identify as women. I transitioned from a culture that revolved around the influence of boys to their presence hardly being felt. The refrain among Wellesley students to the first years was this: “After a while, you just don’t notice.” I noticed. Deerfield’s toxic gender culture is a hierarchy determined by the boys, and every action I took was just another charge of my worth for the jury of boys to deliberate. My Wellesley siblings gave me the freedom I so badly needed but didn’t know existed. Removing boys from my academic life was jarring, but it felt like quitting cold turkey: once you eliminate the harmful thing entirely, it loses its power over you. Leaving Deerfield helped me understand what it meant to be heard and to be respected for what you bring to the table and not how well you fit the mold. Single-gender education taught me what Deerfield couldn’t: self-worth is about the self, and not what “tradition” and “culture” prescribed to me. Women without limitations are a force to be reckoned with, and it is time for Deerfield’s women to defy the norm, own their power, and find their worth.

Former English teacher Sonja O’Donnell has filed a pending federal lawsuit against Deerfield Academy, alleging years of gender discrimination and retaliation for her advocacy on behalf of female students. The lawsuit contends that Ms. O’Donnell was unfairly sanctioned by Deerfield administrators for reporting sexual harassment by another faculty member, for standing up to her male colleagues, and for supporting female students, some of whom alleged they were sexually assaulted by fellow students. “Deerfield has created a culture in which female students and faculty who stand up to sexism face punishment,” the lawsuit states. “Male faculty and students who discriminate and create unwelcome or hostile environments for women and girls are not held accountable.” Deerfield has filed a response in court denying the allegations and has stated that Ms. O’Donnell was disciplined for multiple incidents of unprofessional conduct. “The irony of ironies is that this case comes when a woman is leading Deerfield,” Head of School Margarita Curtis said, when asked about the lawsuit. “Ms. O’Donnell was held to the same standards as all other faculty members.” Ms. O’Donnell taught English at Deerfield for 17 years, advising several student-run groups including the Feminism Club, and coaching the girls varsity swim team from 2000 to 2013. Deerfield did not renew her teaching contract for the 2018-2019 school year. Her husband, Michael O’Donnell, who taught philosophy, resigned abruptly last August. In a telephone interview, Mr. O’Donnell declined to comment on why he left Deerfield. The couple also declined to comment on the pending litigation. The lawsuit describes a series of incidents during Ms. O’Donnell’s tenure which she says represent a longstanding pattern of gender discrimination and demonstrate a “hostile working environment.” It states that Ms. O’Donnell was sexually harassed by a faculty member from 2003 to 2007. The faculty member, whose name was redacted and no longer works at Deerfield, allegedly sent emails to Ms. O’Donnell expressing love to her that was “not unconditional.” After Ms. O’Donnell and her husband reported the mistreatment during the 2006-2007 academic year, the lawsuit contends, Deerfield retaliated against the couple by removing Mr. O’Donnell from the Strategic Planning Committee and allowing the mistreatment to become known around campus. Deerfield has denied these allegations, stating that the faculty member’s employment was terminated in response to the complaint. In another heavily redacted section, the lawsuit describes several alleged incidents in which Ms. O’Donnell defended female students who reported being sexually assaulted on campus. In these cases, according to the lawsuit, Deerfield was “dismissive” of the complaints and the alleged perpetrators faced no disciplinary consequences. According to Assistant Head of School for Student Life Amie Creagh, reports of sexual assault typically lead to an investigation and an adults-only Disciplinary Committee hearing. The threshold for disciplinary action as a result of the hearing is “clear and convincing evidence” that a major school rule has been broken. By state law, all incidents of sexual misconduct or assault are also reported to the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families. In many of the cases that are reported, Ms. Creagh acknowledges, there are often conflicting stories, with one word against another. “It’s rare to have a third party witness who can share what they saw,” she said. “It is maybe the most difficult thing that our office has to grapple with.” Ms. Creagh said that students had been suspended in the past for incidents involving sexual misconduct or assault, but declined to say whether any had been expelled. She also declined to comment on the lawsuit or specific cases, citing privacy concerns. In October 2012, Ms. O’Donnell was required to see a mental health counselor. The lawsuit alleges that this requirement was unlawful and “unjustified by any legitimate concern about Ms. O’Donnell’s ability to perform her job effectively and safely.” Deerfield has stated the requirement was imposed in response to Ms. O’Donnell’s inappropriate behavior with students. According to Deerfield, a student complained in the spring of 2012 about Ms. O’Donnell’s use of expletives and conduct. Deerfield also stated Ms. O’Donnell was told she had “aggressively attacked” faculty when serving as an advisor or advocate in two Academic Honor Committee hearings, providing “staunch advocacy” for students but failing to support the mission of the school. “We asked you to undertake counseling … to help you deepen your understanding of what triggered these incidents and develop preventive strategies,” Dean of Faculty John Taylor wrote in a letter to Ms. O’Donnell in 2012. According to Deerfield, Ms. O’Donnell agreed to attend the counseling sessions but met with a counselor only once. Four years later, the lawsuit contends, after Ms. O’Donnell advocated strongly for a female student during a 2016 DC hearing, she was investigated for all of her conduct during her entire tenure at Deerfield. On Apr. 11, 2016, she was found to have violated Deerfield’s employee Code of Conduct due to her behavior during disciplinary hearings and criticism of her colleagues, according to a letter written at the time from Mr. Taylor. Ms. O’Donnell was required to attend at least ten counseling sessions, a requirement she says she protested and Deerfield claims was later rescinded. She was removed from her duties as an advisor to students and banned from serving as an advocate in disciplinary hearings. Her pay was reduced by 5%, and she was denied a cost-of-living raise for the subsequent year. Following these sanctions, Ms. O’Donnell filed a charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, which she alleges led to further retaliation from Deerfield. She says she was subjected to repeated internal investigations, and that Mr. O’Donnell was also investigated as a further form of retaliation. The lawsuit states that after multiple Deerfield administrators built a case for her termination, she was informed her contract would not be renewed for the following year due to her contact with students violating the sanctions Deerfield imposed on her in 2016. After Ms. O’Donnell learned her contract would not be renewed, she alleges, she had to “direct students not to speak to her or seek her advice” and was informed by an administrator if a female student were to report a sexual assault to her, she could be immediately fired. More generally, the lawsuit also alleges that Ms. O’Donnell was paid less than other male staff of similar seniority. It cites as an example that Ms. O’Donnell’s pay was less than her husband’s. Deerfield has denied these allegations, saying Deerfield faculty are compensated on the basis of their merit, years of experience, and, on occasion, professional qualifications and degrees. “Gender is not the determining factor in assigning salaries,” Dr. Curtis said. “We have demonstrated even and fair treatment in terms of how we support all our faculty.” The lawsuit, initially filed in October 2017, has been sealed— meaning the thirty-page complaint has been redacted and any supporting documents included in the court file are unavailable to the public. Deerfield requested that the file be sealed, saying it was “replete with allegations that are immaterial, impertinent, prejudicial and scandalous.” The last time Deerfield faced a civil suit was in 2015, when an alumnus alleged sexual abuse by former teachers Peter Hindle and Bryce Lambert. The case was eventually settled for $500,000. Ms. O’Donnell’s case is scheduled to go to trial in early 2019.

Dear Reader, When I heard about Mr. O’Donnell’s abrupt resignation from Deerfield last August, like many other students, I was intrigued. It seemed too timely to be a coincidence, considering Ms. O’Donnell’s departure at the end of the prior year. After a bit of searching, I soon discovered that Ms. O’Donnell had filed a pending federal lawsuit against Deerfield. I located the public court document online and found serious allegations—some of which described our school administration as dismissive of complaints of sexual assault and hostile to women and girls. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations, it seemed clear I needed to report on it. For the past four weeks, I have spent countless hours interviewing dozens of people, including many former students, and going through more than one hundred pages of court documents. I doggedly pursued every single lead as far as it would take me, determined not to shy away from asking difficult or uncomfortable questions. While many of the parties I interviewed are not quoted directly in the article, every perspective I heard was important in better informing my reporting. If I was going to write an article discussing topics of this magnitude, it had to be done right. It is important to acknowledge that the Scroll is not an officially independent newspaper. All of our operations are paid for by the Academy, and an article like this that draws publicity towards such serious allegations against current administrators is unprecedented for our newspaper. But Deerfield has stated that they want the Scroll to remain uncensored, and this has been a chance to witness that in action. I assure you that I have maintained total independence in my reporting and have strived to portray the facts without bias. While the article was proofread by the Scroll faculty advisors and my co-editor, every word in it comes directly from me. As a journalist, my role is not to serve as judge or insert my own opinion, but to present the facts and trust you, as a thoughtful reader, to draw your own conclusions. This article has likely been the most personally taxing project I have ever taken on. Both sides are contentious, tied up in a legal battle that will likely impact Deerfield for years to come, and in my reporting, I have inserted myself into the middle of the conflict. In talking with both the O’Donnells and the administration, in addition to working with Scroll advisors and editors, I have had to listen to and acknowledge many different opinions while staying true to my mission: to inform the community about newsworthy information that impacts all of us, even if it is uncomfortable to talk about. This news might be difficult to bear for many. Indeed, there was a lack of consensus with my co- editor about the publication of this article due to her concerns that it could negatively impact certain members of our community. I wish no member of this community harm. On the contrary, the reason we decided to publish this article is because we believe our community becomes stronger when we lean into uncomfortable discourse. These conversations may be difficult or even painful in the short term, but in the long term, everyone benefits when our community is better informed. I call upon everyone here to embrace these sensitive topics with maturity and strength. The real test of a school’s courage is our ability to look in the mirror and be transparent about our flaws. Deerfield is a community defined by each and every one of us. Let us strive to improve the place that we all call home. Joshua Fang Co-Editor-in-Chief

When I was a boy, I fell from a bridge into a cold mountain river in northern New York. I emerged relatively unscathed, but I remember vividly the panic of knowing I was falling and that the rocks below hurt. My mother wasn’t far, helping an elderly swimmer onto the shore, and in family lore, she ignored my agonized screams until her old pal was safely ashore. Looking back, I doubt this legend is true: my mother is a worrier and, like all mothers, deeply concerned about her children’s safety. But, at some point since my tumble, the notion grew in my memory that Mom thought my injuries insignificant, and I have relished the chance to tease her about that for decades. It’s funny—when I try to recall the fall, I still see the butterflies clustered on the bridge, drawing my attention away from balancing across its narrow span, and I see the woods tipping unnaturally as I topple over. But, when I “remember” the aftermath, I see the event from a distance. I see a crying blond-haired boy stumbling out of a rocky riverbed, running toward his mother, who dismisses him before realizing his distress. Memory is confounding like that. I know that I fell from that bridge—no one in my family disputes that—but none of us can say exactly how I got to my mother or how she reacted. Those details are lost to the vagaries of memory. Last month, the vagaries of memory took center stage during the confirmation hearings of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Specifically, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh about their recollections of the summer of 1982, when Dr. Ford says Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Both Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh averred their absolute certainty about what did or didn’t happen, and Senators were left to decide whom to believe. In the end, no authority reached a definitive conclusion about the events of 1982, and the Senate confirmed Justice Kavanaugh. While neither Dr. Ford nor Justice Kavanaugh wavered in their certainty about the accusation, Dr. Ford testified that she could not remember when the party had occurred, how much she had drank that night, and how she had returned home. Her critics leapt on those vulnerabilities, questioning the reliability of her memory, and President Trump mocked her publicly. Setting aside politics and the morality of believing sexual assault victims, this national spectacle sent dangerous messages about how we discuss, understand, and incentivize absolutism versus nuance and ambiguity. Scientists’ understanding of the brain supports Dr. Ford’s accounting of her memories. In light of the Kavanaugh hearings, Scientific American published a series of articles about how traumatic memories form; the articles are short, fascinating, and worth a Google. But that science—which reveals that the hippocampus stores central details of traumatic events but essentially switches off afterwards—was ignored in Dr. Ford’s case. Instead, the holes in her decades-old memories were exploited while Justice Kavanaugh’s unflinching conviction about his innocence stood, despite numerous, if unrelated, falsehoods in his testimony. The message was unequivocal: absolute certainty trumps nuanced certainty. But certainty can be tricky, even dangerous. You may recall Obi-Wan shouting at Anakin, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes!” (which, it’s worth noting, is itself an absolute). Precious few things in human life are absolute. Pregnancy and death come to mind—one can’t be a little pregnant or, The Princess Bride notwithstanding, mostly dead. Humans dwell in the gray, the murky middle defined by nuance, subtlety, uncertainty, and ambiguity. From personal relationships— What did she mean with that look?— to history—Was America’s use of nuclear weapons to end World War II justified?—to even the law— What, exactly, is a “well-regulated militia?”—we are awash in deceptive simplicity that belies deep complexity, and nowhere is this more true than in the deep recesses of our inscrutable minds. I’m sure I fell off that bridge, but years of my brothers’ and my teasing have colored our view of the aftermath. The truth of what happened is uncertain and irretrievable. Similarly, Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh likely believed themselves to be truthful in their testimony, but for such an important national debate to misunderstand and abuse one participant’s honest admission of the flaws in her memory imperils a key component of reasonable, nuanced discourse: ambiguity. As a learning community, we must resist reducing ideas and positions to absolutes. Rather, we should lean into nuance and uncertainty, and the accompanying discomfort. The Reluctant Fundamentalist may have struck some as un-American, but Mohsin Hamid admitted his intention to challenge dominant narratives and foreground American nostalgia. The dress code may seem anachronistic to some, but it provides comfort and security to others when standing out can be frightening. In the end, the vulnerability of Dr. Ford’s memory made hers the more authentic account, but the supremacy of Justice Kavanaugh’s improbable certainty dealt a blow to authentic, nuanced argument. At Deerfield we should remain committed to resisting that tide, one that seems to draw more and more Americans further and further apart each day.

At present, our country seems separated. Justice Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court appointment highlights all aspects of division in the United States: #MeToo, political maneuvering, biased media coverage, issues with social media and more. Many choose to scrutinize the current allegations against Kavanaugh in deciding his legitimacy to sit on the Supreme Court. This is unconditionally rational. However, I believe that the controversy surrounding Kavanaugh’s appointment means much more than just the seating of a Supreme Court justice. Rather, the recent events of the past two weeks (and perhaps two years) have strained our democracy to the core. No matter what transpired with Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment, I fear we may have unlatched Pandora’s Box and there’s no way to secure it. I’m not going to pretend that I know what occurred between Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford; no one except the two parties and witnesses can definitively say what happened. However, it is clear that both Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford are victims of the political battlefield brought on by both the Democrats and Republicans. It’s difficult to view either party’s actions in a positive light. Each move of the Democrats increasingly seems to be part of a political gambit. Why didn’t Senator Feinstein bring Dr. Ford’s accusations to the attention of her colleagues immediately if it was going to be “leaked” anyway? Why wait until after all the judiciary hearings to drop the accusation? Why did Dr. Ford’s lawyer at first insist she be heard in a hearing and then proclaim that there must be a full FBI investigation beforehand? It’s extremely likely that these actions are all politically motivated with intent to delay the Kavanaugh appointment. If Democrats frankly cared about Dr. Ford’s allegation and trying to find the truth, they would have brought it to the attention of the FBI and Senate Judiciary Committee weeks ago, or at the very least would have held a private, independent investigation. Now let’s talk about Republicans: they (at least most of them) were always going to vote for Kavanaugh’s appointment. They too care little about the actual allegations. Justice Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford are simply a means to acquire political ends. Republicans are trying to direct attention to Kavanaugh’s calendar, the map of said witnesses’ homes in Chevy Chase, Maryland, and his“impeccable” record. Republicans fail to recognize the emotional attachment that many have to Dr. Ford’s case and point. They refuse to see the legitimacy of such testimonies, ostracizing those who see such as of vital importance to the #MeToo movement, and perhaps to our democracy as well. In addition to this, Republicans fail to see the problem in appointing a Supreme Court justice whose character and morals are ambiguous. However, what is most problematic is the Republicans’ promise to equally oppose the Democrats’ Supreme Court nomination when it is their time around. This behavior further divides our country. As an eighteen-year-old, this is the type of political maneuvering I have come to know. It is the only type of politics I know. Quick Google searches can give me insight into the past: a world where Supreme Court Justices received 90+ votes from the Senate for their appointments, where partisan lines weren’t paramount, and where preserving our democracy was of utmost importance. An appointment to the Supreme Court will never again be so unanimous; it will only be a contentious affair, strictly based on partisan politics. Division, tribalism, party over country—these are characteristics that currently define the United States. Gone are the days where we strictly sought compromise in the name of justice. In are the days where every square inch of the political battlefield will be fought and clawed for; until there is nothing left. Pandora’s box has been opened, and these controversies and partisan actions may keep it open for good.

11 souls stand amongst the Pews of the Etz Chaim Synagogue. Among them are a primary-care physician, a couple married in the same room they stand in now, and a 97-year old grandmother. 11 pairs of hands reaching out to embrace their brothers and sisters around them. 11 voices raised in song. “Oseh shalom bimromav, Hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu.” “May the one who makes peace bring peace upon us and on all the world.” They call out. But the prayer is left unfinished, gunshots drown out the cry for peace, louder than the word Shalom. In 11 seconds 11 souls leave this world. 11 bodies lie bleeding on the ground. More than two look like my grandparents. And, no one left standing can recall the meaning of the words they spoke only moments before. The survivors no longer know what peace is. When I arrived on this campus 2 years ago, I had never directly experienced an act of Anti-Semitism. I was luckier than many members of affinity groups in this country, whom bigotry and xenophobia target on a daily basis. But, there is bliss in ignorance. For it wasn’t that anti-Semitism didn’t exist in the United States, I had just been one of the few in the history of the Jewish people who was privileged enough not to know it. Yet, my ignorance faded with the destruction of the Mount Carmel Jewish cemetery in Philadelphia two years ago. It melted faster when angry crowds marched the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, chanting “Jews will not replace us” and, most profoundly, when an unidentified perpetrator drew a Swastika on Deerfield’s own campus, accompanied by the word “heil” outside the Denunzio sidewalk. However, although I knew about the presence of anti-Semitism in the United States, I didn’t truly feel it in my heart until I read the names of the 11 victims in a CNN News Report, and replayed the sight of bodies falling to the ground over and over again in my mind. But, now I know. Anti-Jewish sentiments are alive and well and thrive along with every other form of hate in this country. And, that is not something I can shake from my conscience. It is true that I am angry at President Trump and other American citizens who give hatred a voice in the so-called “land of the free.” I am afraid to go to Saturday services for the alarming realization that anyone with malevolence in their heart and a gun in their hand could’ve walked into any Synagogue across the country that Saturday morning, including my own. And, I am heartbroken for my people. But I am not defeated. Recently, I sat in the front row at the Fall Theater Production of 12 Angry Jurors, watching Juror #10 deliver a monologue clouded by bigotry (as it was the playwright’s intentions to highlight its existence in the United States), with tears streaming down my face for the people of color massacred in the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church shooting of 2015, for the members of the LGBTQ+ community slaughtered in the Orlando Nightclub Shooting of 2016, and for the Muslim congregation who watched their Mosque go up in flames in the Texas Mosque burning or 2017. But, in the midst of my sadness, I came to this conclusion: it is time for America to practice love. It takes courage to love one another. But, in the midst of my sadness, I came to this conclusion: it is time for America to practice love. It takes courage to love one another. But there’s a reason we call ourselves the home of the brave. Let us also become the home of the peace-bringers, the justice- creators, and the love-givers. To my fellow Jews I say: “Oseh shalom bimromav Hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu V’al kol Yisrael, v’al kol yoshvei t’vel.” And, to my country I say: “veahavta lereacha kamocha: love your neighbor as yourself.” Love is our strongest remedy. It’s the only cure to the disease of hatred that plagues our nation, and at this point, it’s all we have left.

Let me start by saying this: I like to think that I’m a reasonable person with generally moderate political views. I didn’t want to write this piece, but a lot of people have asked me to, and I fear that if I don’t say something explaining the view a lot of members of this community hold, then no one will. Toward the end of the confirmation process for then- Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and two more women stepped forward to accuse him of sexual assault. I don’t think these allegations were supported. People have suggested that a more in-depth investigation would have helped shed more light on what happened that night. Yes, this might be possible. The FBI conducted a one week investigation of the allegations. We don’t know what exactly was investigated, or how it was done. Again, maybe a longer investigation would have helped. But we have to go on what we know, and clearly, whatever was found wasn’t enough to stop most of the swing vote senators from voting for Kavanaugh. Even a Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted for Kavanaugh after reading the FBI report. What concerns me is that the presumption of innocence, a core tenet of our judicial process, was cast aside in a lot of the national discourse on the Kavanaugh confirmation. A lot of people immediately said that they believed Dr. Ford and the other accusers, and that Justice Kavanaugh was a sexual assaulter. That’s not how the justice system works. Now some say that the presumption of innocence isn’t relevant outside the courtroom. Then let’s look at this without the presumption of innocence. If we do that, and focus solely on the evidence presented, it still doesn’t add up. The evidence presented to the Judiciary Committee against Justice Kavanaugh did not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted Christine Blasey Ford. Again, some say that outside the courtroom, proving anything “beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t matter. Then ask yourself this: is it really fair to torpedo a nomination based on something we aren’t that sure about? For me, the answer is no. The people Dr. Ford claims attended the party in question all say that they don’t remember the party. While it is true that one of those attendees says that she believes Dr. Ford’s allegation, she also still denies being at that party or knowing Brett Kavanaugh, and that takes us back to square one. I’m not going to get into the various letters associates of Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh have signed either asserting Kavanaugh’s innocence, or the truth of Dr. Ford’s testimony. I’m only going to look at the evidence here. And that evidence didn’t tell the Senate, and it doesn’t tell me that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford. There’s an old Roman principle that goes like this: “It’s better to leave unpunished a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.” That applies perfectly in this case. Now, others have said that Brett Kavanaugh shouldn’t have been confirmed based on his temperament and his visible anger during the second hearing. While this may be a fair point, I think some of that anger was understandable, given that he was defending himself against very serious accusations. However, I think that he went too far at certain points. Justice Kavanaugh realized that he stepped out of line during part of his testimony and apologized for it in an op-ed that ran in the Wall Street Journal the week after the hearing. The Kavanaugh confirmation, however, raises a completely different issue. It has little to do with Justice Kavanaugh. The fact that a number of my classmates and peers were afraid to share their opinions on Brett Kavanaugh with the community is the fundamental problem with American politics today. If people can’t express their opinions without fear of retribution, then we aren’t in America anymore. Over the past two years, all we’ve heard is screaming from both sides of the political spectrum. Nothing gets done in Washington because suddenly, it’s a horrible idea to reach across the aisle and get things done for the people who sent those politicians to Washington. All most of them care about now is what looks good for the base so they can launch a campaign for president in 2020. This toxic partisanship has seeped into the lives of everyday Americans, and now we can’t talk about politics without it turning into a shouting match. I’ve had enough, and I think most reasonable Americans feel the same way. Here’s what I suggest. Find someone you disagree with on any political issue, sit down with them, and talk. It’s not hard, I promise. The Kavanaugh confirmation fight is behind us now. It’s time to move on, and focus on regaining the civility and the decency that makes us American.

Over the past few years, Juuling amongst teenagers in America has increased significantly, and Deerfield has not been immune to this trend. High school students all along the East Coast are Juuling in bathroom stalls and classrooms. In response to the continued prevalence of Juuling on campus, Deerfield changed its rules on Juuling over the summer by reducing the number of strikes students can receive before a Disciplinary Committee hearing. Assistant Head for Student Life Amie Creagh said that national widespread use across high schools and colleges also helped influence the Student Life Office’s decision. “It would have been irresponsible for the Student Life Office to not do something,” she said. Juuls are non-combustible electronic cigarettes. They gained immediate popularity when they entered the cigarette market in 2017. According to the FDA, Juuls do come with published health risks. They contain nicotine, an addictive substance that impairs teen brain development, as well as toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde. During Family Weekend, parents were instructed on how to recognize Juuls. They were shown pictures of Juuls, which strongly resemble USBs in their small size and shape, and informed that Juuling does indeed occur on campus. “It’s marketed perfectly to the teen. We have a problem where Deerfield students are getting addicted to tobacco and nicotine,” Ms. Creagh elaborated. In April 2018, Juuling was declared a teen health epidemic by FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb. Popular e-cigarette brand JUUL, worth more than $16 billion dollars, claims that their product is a healthier alternative for adult smokers transitioning from combustible cigarettes. However, the company remains under fire for not doing enough to prevent minors from buying its product. On September 12, 2018, the FDA stated, “The FDA won’t tolerate a whole generation of young people becoming addicted to nicotine as a tradeoff for enabling adults to have unfettered access to these same products.” In the past, students’ first nicotine or tobacco violation resulted in the assignment of 7 hours of work detail and a talk with the Health Center on the harms of Juuling. A second violation led to more work hours and a Letter of Reprimand. The third violation led to a DC hearing. Over the summer Deerfield essentially removed a strike. Deans Kevin Kelly, Rebecca Melvoin and Sam Bicknell worked with Amie Creagh to change the rules so that the first violation meant work hours and a letter of reprimand, while the second moved to a DC. In the past, the number of Juuling DCs was “very, very low” according to Dean of Students Mr. Kelly because Juuling was viewed as a tobacco violation. Students in possession of a Juul can be taken to the Health Center for testing, which tests only for tetrahydrocannabinol (found in marijuana) or nicotine. Mr. Kelly clarified that “students who call sanctuary have no disciplinary consequences. However, students who acknowledge their use of contraband (when confronted by an adult) are required to go through the disciplinary process.” While students cannot be randomly drug tested, there is a community concern testing policy. If a student suddenly performs poorly in multiple classes for no plausible reason, misses classes, or has a pungent room, they can be tested. If there is a loud room of students on a certain hall after curfew and it smells strongly like cotton candy or creme brulee, the faculty resident might be justified in further inspecting the situation. However, there must always be specific reasons for testing a student. Yet this year, Mr. Kelly indicated that there have been a total of nineteen to twenty AHC and DC hearings so far. The exact reason remains ambiguous, even to Mr. Kelly. Looking forward, Mr. Kelly noted that winter term usually marks an increase in the number of DCs. “In the winter, it’s cold and dark. People are fatigued. Students plateau, the excitement of the new year wears off, and things seem to be more challenging for some folks in terms of making decisions.” Thus, the motive behind last year’s new Be Worthy Campaign was to help younger students struggling with alcohol and drugs. There is research supporting that having a mentor and building a positive relationship helps students stay away from contraband. Mr. Kelly shared, “It’s unrealistic for me to expect perfection from them all the time.” When asked if she believed the rule change had led to a noticeable change in the amount of Juuling on campus, Ms. Creagh said that because Juuls are nearly undetectable, it is hard to tell. In the past several years, Mr. Kelly clarified that the DC met on average between four to six times during the fall. A dozen would have been considered a large number. But his biggest concern about the high number of DCs is that he wants students to focus more on how they treat each other, and kindly look out for each other’s weaknesses. He added, “Kindness leads to trust, and trust leads to positive relationships. I want kids to be very very conscious about how their actions affect others.”

With midterm elections having recently concluded famous figures, from ex-presidents to celebrities, have joined in political activism. Many have voiced their political stance and emphasized the importance of voting. Deerfield has felt the effect of this growing push for voting and civic engagement. Driven mostly by students’ desire to teach others how to become politically engaged, CSGC-run initiatives for political advocacy have become increasingly prominent on campus. These events vary in purpose. Some focus on the process of registering to vote, as many Deerfield students are eligible to vote in this coming election. Others show students and members of the community how to actively advocate for issues that are important to them. Science and Computer Science teacher, Megan Hayes-Golding, who has been active in these efforts explained, “The intent was to get students there who were thinking about voting in the next couple of years and maybe students who aren’t eligible to vote in order to learn how they can still advocate for causes they still care about. We educated folks on what a ballot looks like, what types of races are on a ballot, how to research causes you care about, and contact your representatives about those issues that you care about.” Recognizing that the majority of the student body cannot vote because of age or nationality limitations, these community forums also inform students on other ways to be civically engaged. As Maggie Tydings ’20, a CSGC board member emphasized, “Even if you can’t vote, there are so many other ways [for your voice to be heard]. [The CSGC] does letter writing [workshops on], how to call your representatives, and things that you can do when you’re under 18 to voice your opinion that would have an impact on something maybe even greater than [just] voting.” These initiatives go beyond events held by the CSGC, as the Young Democrats and Young Republicans clubs have also hosted joint meetings, like their Change My Mind event. Alexa Brown ’19, a leader of the Young Democrats club explained that these joint events have been organized with a main goal of, [raising] political activism on campus and [promoting] political discussion and political discourse. Though the intent of these events has been well-thought out and planned, some students feel that the impact has not been as substantial. Jazmine Ramos ’20 said, “I feel like it’s good that Deerfield is trying to promote political advocacy, but I don’t think it’s super effective on campus because I haven’t seen a lot of students paying attention. I personally haven’t gotten anything out of it.” However, political advocacy for many individuals in the Deerfield community remains extremely important to their lives. Tydings shared, “I think that it’s really important to be civically engaged, and one way you can do that is through politics… it’s important that you know what issues you care about.” Focusing more on the importance of the discourse political activism fosters, Alexa Brown ’19 stated, “A lot of views that people have are different, especially on this campus… I think that everyone has their own views and it’s important to share them.” Yet there tends to be an imbalance of dialogue regarding political issues. As Tydings said, “I think at Deerfield we tend to hear only one side of the story. Students and faculty from both sides of the aisle should be encouraged to voice their opinion to encourage diversity of thought and equality.” Trying to grasp the reason behind this apparent disconnect between Deerfield students and politics, Hayes-Golding stated, “The fact is, [for the students] it’s hard to see how our representatives affect [their] lives.” For many of the students, politics may not be a priority, especially compared to the busy, hectic schedules and demands that come with being a Deerfield student. As Alexa Brown ’19 explained, “People are so consumed by their work. It’s important to stay aware and awake, but things get so overwhelming at Deerfield to the point where people don’t prioritize it.” However, political activism can be much more simple, nuanced and personal than many people may think. Sharing her own experiences as an advocate and elaborating on how being engaged does not demand as much time and dedication as many think, Hayes- Goulding stressed “Following politics doesn’t have to be your hobby. The issues I care about are small piece of what our representatives do on a daily basis. That’s where my interests lay and it’s very narrow.” Political advocacy, civic engagement, and open discussion are the main goals of the recent initiatives organized by the CSGC and student-run clubs. They have already put in a significant amount of effort in teaching students the importance of being aware and how to voice their opinions on issues that are important to them. However, as Alexa Brown ’19 put it, “There’s more we can be doing as a community to make it easier to be civically engaged.”

Among one of the most distinctive characteristics of a Deerfield humanities classroom is the roundtable. As Academic Dean and Chemistry Teacher Ivory Hills said, “The point of these discussions is to teach students the importance of educated debate and to also ensure all students have chance to have their own perspectives heard.” Despite these intentions, there is always a possibility that some voices and perspectives may overshadow others in a discussion. As a result, teachers have been working to ensure as many perspectives as possible are heard. There are no school rules mandating teachers to expose students to diverse perspectives. Instead, teachers in classrooms are given a fair amount of freedom on how they choose to style their classes. Dr. Hills stated, “Generally we don’t tell teachers what to do in their classrooms … but what I think every teacher should do, beyond presenting perspectives from an external source, is make sure that every student in the class is able to offer their perspective.” Many faculty agree that spreading diverse perspectives is a vital part of a classroom. When asked about the school regulations on the matter, History and Social Science Department Chair and History Teacher Julia Rivellino- Lyons said, “The department itself thinks breadth of perspective is important, but I don’t think the school has any rules about it. Teachers are expected to pursue development, and the institutional idea of increasing learning.” As a matter of fact, one of the classes Mrs. Rivellino-Lyons is teaching this year is Honors US History, which has to follow the AP curriculum. Her biggest worry is snuffing out this breadth of perspective, as the fast paced curriculum does not leave as much room for debate has she had hoped. History is constantly changing and being rewritten, and she is worried there isn’t much time to address all the new perspectives constantly arising. Naturally, the issue of varying perspectives and interpretations extends beyond history. English Teacher Christian Austin agreed wholeheartedly in the importance of the matter, commenting, “Regarding breadth of perspective, I do my best to ensure that everyone knows they may share an opinion, [popular or not], as long as it’s done so with good intentions and sensitivity.” Although this issue is more obviously present in the humanities, according to Dr. Hills, it is present even in STEM subjects. Dr. Hills commented, “I think it’s relevant beyond the humanities. Every student in every Deerfield class should feel comfortable in a respectful fashion, in every class, to say what’s on their mind. Even if, or perhaps even more so, if it disagrees with someone else.” To Dr. Hills, the issue in the sciences is that accepting other perspectives is required to encourage teamwork in solving problems using applied sciences. He commented, “Solving the world’s problems requires groups of people, working together towards a common goal. And that can only be done when people are able to listen to, and respect, each other’s ideas.” Of course, when everyone is encouraged to share their perspectives, the community faces another issue: conflict and disrespectful disagreement. Many teachers indicated, though, that they have not experienced these sorts of problems in the classroom. Mr. Austin commented on the matter, saying “This type of conflict is rare in my experience. I think that this is in part thanks to the norm-setting we do at the beginning of the year.” Ms. Rivellino-Lyons agreed with Mr. Austin’s points, saying, “It’s extremely rare for our conversations to become disrespectful, so it is not a problem I have to manage.” However, there is one other issue that sometimes holds back the spreading of diverse perspectives: the power dynamic between students and teachers. Referring to history essays in particular, Ethan Chen ’20 remarked, “When one walks around the dorms or the library the night before a test or essay is due, they can often hear students worrying that this might not be what my teacher wants me to write.” However, many teachers emphasized that they in fact want to hear diverse perspectives in students’ arguments in the classroom and on my paper. Ms. Rivellino-Lyons commented, “I’m happy to get a different interpretation if it’s based on the evidence … If there is trust between a student and teacher, they should be able to look at the facts and talk about a difference of opinion, if it arises.” Mr. Austin agreed with this sentiment, stating, “People who think differently than I do make the world go round. I couldn’t get by without them. Disagreement is healthy and productive. No one’s ideas are above reproach.”