Search this site

I believe there is gender inequity at Deerfield. I do not believe, however, that Deerfield students hold an unusual concentration of gender prejudice relative to those around the country. It is a societal issue, not a Deerfield issue. Our general perception seems to be that this is very much a Deerfield issue. So, the question becomes: why is this an extra-sensitive issue at Deerfield when no one on campus directly opposes the idea girls and guys be given equal opportunities? Deerfield is a small, isolated school with traditional qualities, a competitive attitude, ingrained social patterns, and little tolerance for experimentation. People feel the effects and constraints of an iniquitous society much more strongly here. One potential solution is a greater tolerance for experimentation in gender policy; more opportunities to cherish our tradition and incorporate as many voices as possible in discussion about change. There are less-openly recognized factors that tend to inflame and thereby inhibit or even reverse productive conversation. A mistaken sentiment resides that differences between gender roles always and solely represent inequity. We must consider the complex factors other than gender which are present in all social situations. Let’s examine the gender-divided viewing arrangement at boys’ hockey games: guys on top bleachers, girls on the edge of the rink. This is a manifestation of inequity and an example of Deerfield’s ingrained social patterns. There are factors at play that are not always acknowledged. In general, guys love viewing aggressive sports more than girls, and it’s a boys’ hockey game—the players are dormmates and teammates with guys. Guys are more likely to claim those bleacher seats first. As I said before, I do believe gender inequity is represented at hockey games. I also believe that consideration of other factors suggests a lesser degree. Another example is the concern about gender distribution between first and second waiters at the dining hall. I understand the benefit of mixing the two jobs equally between guys and girls, but it is silly to think that this historic divide represents a product of gender prejudice. There is no need for perfectly even gender distribution when guys, in general, have an easier time carrying the heavier second waiting tray. These factors should be considered when first and second waiting is used as an example of gender inequity at Deerfield. The manner of the campus-wide discussion about gender inequity often leaves guys feeling blamed, insulted, and consequently resistant to change. This introduces the false perception that guys are acting out of conscious self-interest. This polarizes discussion. Girls and guys at hockey games are simply following tradition, as we all do in many social situations. When the gender inequity discussion arises, there is a tendency, or a perceived tendency, to blame guys for promoting iniquitous gender roles. Girls are then blamed for buying into the roles. From what I’ve seen, no one—girl or guy—is consciously acting to preserve gender inequity. Societal forces create gender roles—we follow expectations. The current students of Deerfield should not be blamed for following old, culturally-ingrained social habits. To get all students, particularly guys, on board with a totally equitable Deerfield, the community needs to take care not to alienate them first. Instead we need to maintain objectivity in discussion and focus on increasing self-awareness and awareness of social forces and the factors that contribute to them.

Since 1989, when girls were reintroduced to the Deerfield campus, Deerfield has not quite lost hold of its Good Ol’ Boys vibe. We cling to tradition—it’s part of our mission statement. Tradition is not bad. But because there is a strong sentiment of holding fast to the past—and because many inevitably associate this past with Deerfield’s long stint as a single-sex institution—there exists both a lack of integration between male and female students and varying sentiments of inequality between the two genders. Male sports, for example, get much more attention than female sports. Females, however, dominate the art, dance, and theater departments in terms of raw numbers. They also tend to have higher averages than males. And males have historically held the majority in Student Council (until last year, that is). There have only been two female Student Body President in Deerfield’s 23 years of co-educational history. At this school, male and female students are unequal in just about every field. We are steeped in a culture that has formed acceptable roles for males and females, roles from which the majority of students do not stray. In terms of social standing and overall respect from the community, male students have the advantage. Many students I have spoken to believe this is partly the girls’ fault—that a change in the system is up to us as a gender to stop being submissive and to empower ourselves. Such opinions arose after last year’s aforementioned gender equality initiative. Many opposed it on the basis that equality of opportunity, not equality of representation, was right. Yet part of the reason girls are less likely to be leaders in the community is that we are not visibly oppressed—we are given equality of opportunity, and we are not seriously thought to be inferior except by perhaps a margin of boys—thus there is not much fuel for activism. Subtleties and community cultural trends would be good to discuss, to be aware of, so as not to fall into backward-thinking traps of boys oppressing girls and girls being submissive. These are thought processes that I’d like to think few students would vocally support, though sadly I think these are somehow facilitated or magnified by Deerfield’s entrenched all-boys’ culture. Leadership seems to be a good place to strive for improvement beyond campus discussions about culture, which is difficult to change. I don’t mean leadership in the sense of being a proctor or a peer counselor, but more of figures whom the school would listen to for guidance on a more intellectual and less emotional level. Those positions are important, but because we have gender-segregated dorms, those positions inherently cannot have as much influence in ameliorating gender relations on campus. Student representation affects the way students perceive how gender works on campus, and is a field above all others that should strive for equality. Mandatory equality of representation is good because it gives incoming female students the impression that they don’t have to develop an inferiority for themselves based on Deerfield’s past—not in skill, talent, or leadership qualities. In a few years, no students will be left to remember when positions and roles were not equal. Girls being assertive and bold and running for representative positions will be commonplace. This is something for which we should strive.

As Republican presidential hopefuls campaign for the party nomination, the Tea Party is stirring confusion throughout the nation with its increasing support of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, an organization that offers Tea Party training, claims, “They don’t care what party you’re in; they just want to know if you reflect their values—limited government, fixing the economy.” With limited government as one of the most important facets of the Tea Party platform, it’s interesting that Tea Partiers should support Newt Gingrich, who has historically supported big government ideas (compared to the traditional conservative).Gingrich supported an individual healthcare mandate, he “did not oppose” the TARP bailouts, and he openly advocates for increased federal education intervention. In his infamous radio interview with Glenn Beck, Gingrich reaffirmed his support of an individual healthcare mandate and called himself a “Teddy Roosevelt conservative when it comes to healthcare.” Teddy Roosevelt is, to say the least, not admired by Tea Party activists, for he is credited with issuing 1007 executive orders during his presidency, whereas all ten presidents from Lincoln to McKinley only issued a combined total of 158 executive orders. Why, then, in a Republican Nominational Preferences Poll conducted from December 1-5 and publicized by Gallup.com, did Gingrich have a 47% approval rating from Tea Party supporters? (The next highest Tea Party approval was given to Mitt Romney, with 17 %). Why did 82% of Tea Party members claim Gingrich was an “acceptable” candidate, according to a Tea Party Candidate Acceptability Poll conducted in early December? Finding one answer to these questions is hard to do, but what is clear is an inconsistency in the Tea Party and its values, among which is small, limited government. The Tea Party’s support of Newt Gingrich is truly puzzling. John Avlon of TheDailyBeast.com recently published an article attempting to answer these questions. He suggested such support could have spawned from Newt Gingrich’s early assistance to the Tea Party during their creation in 2009. In his article, Avlon wrote, “Gingrich supported the Tea Party movement in its earliest days and helped it achieve critical mass…He earned his affection from the Tea Party despite all the subsequent contradictory details about his high-yield gigs as a historian for archvillian Freddie Mac…” If Avlon is correct, are the Tea Partiers selling their votes to someone who does not represent their political values? We often claim we vote for one candidate over another because we support their political platform and ideals, but is the Tea Party-Gingrich support system an example of the presidential election becoming a popularity contest? Another Gallup poll recently published shows voters take into consideration friendliness and “how comfortable voters would be having a beer with the candidates” when voting. We need to realize we are not going to be having beers with the President of the United States. We need to vote for the candidates who best represent our principles and our political ideals.

Christina Pil made her first announcement introducing a choral concert series a little less than two years ago during the spring term of her sophomore year. Since nervously encouraging her peers to come to the concerts because “classical music is good for your brain and so good for studying,” Pil has lead her peers as the face of the choral concerts. While she is known here for her prowess as a cellist, her musical career actually began with piano lessons. But that did not exactly work out, as Pil jokingly remembers, “I always ended up asleep by the end of a lesson,” she said. She tried playing the cello for the first time during her sixth-grade year at her public school in New York City. When she first began her career as a cellist, her teachers were skeptical about her ability to play the instrument because of her petite size. As many here know, Pil “has very small hands,” in her own words. But that did not stop Pil. She simply found a pragmatic solution in a small cello called a “Ladies’ seven-eighths.” Pil’s cellist career really took off during her eighth-grade year after she met a small eighty-year-old man who became her teacher. “He got me serious. If I did not make enough progress during our after-school lessons, we practiced an additional five hours on Saturday.” Despite shoulder pains and calluses, Pil auditioned for a spot at the Manhattan School of Music where she practiced every weekend from nine to five during her freshman year. When she was accepted to Deerfield, Pil had to make the difficult decision to leave MSM in pursuit of new opportunities here, such as participating in the founding of Deerfield’s student orchestra. Pil insists the key to learning a musical piece is repetition: “When I was younger, my mom would burn any piece I had to learn onto a CD and then play it on repeat in the car.” Pil maintains a similar technique in her study of music today, listening to every new piece many times before even attempting to play a note. Beyond being a part of the program from the start, Pil loves Deerfield’s student-led practices: “We run our own practices and decide how many times to play each piece,” she said. Pil believes the program has developed quickly and she has been able to grow over her time here because “Mr. Warsaw pushes for faster, better improvement by the deadline of each concert.” You can hear Pil play along with her fellow cellists, violinists, and viola players during choral concerts held each term two nights in a row.

MLK Day benefited greatly this year from increased student contributions. All members of the Diversity Alliance deserve praise for taking the initiative and attempting to make MLK Day more relevant and interesting for students, more artistic and media-based, and less focused on the customary single speaker. The film The Witness offered a new perspective on Dr. King, refreshing after many years of rewatching the famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Dr. Curtis’ message of translating our institutional values of diversity and respect into action gave us an opportunity to honestly appraise our school and our behavior towards each other. Speaker Michael Fassberg delivered a thought-provoking, encouraging exhortation to have dialogue from both sides about race. Perhaps a more unifying theme for the day, and longer or more narrowly focused discussions, would improve next year’s event. Sustained discussion of diversity, tolerance, and contrasting perspectives will underscore the importance of the day.

If playing baseball, like writing a novel, is an art, then one could call Chad Harbach, whose book The Art of Fielding is his first, rookie of the year. Harbach manages to weave an unaffected, comprehensive story that makes for a quick, enjoyable read. Set at the fictitious Westish College, a small school on Wisconsin’s shore of Lake Michigan, The Art of Fielding is about the tried-and-true American pastime of baseball, but Harbach infuses the topic with new life and meaning. He writes of the sport: “You loved it because you considered it an art: an apparently pointless affair, undertaken by people with a special aptitude, which sidestepped attempts to paraphrase its value yet somehow seemed to communicate something true or even crucial about the Human Condition. The Human Condition being, basically, that we’re alive and have access to beauty, can even erratically create it, but will someday be dead and will not.” The novel’s protagonist Henry Skrimshander appears to be a weakling in the eyes of the bulky, Marcus Aurelius-reading Westish baseball player Mike Schwartz. But Skrim-as he is called for short-subsequently amazes Schwartz, the rest of the Westish team, and later major league scouts across the country with his artful skills as shortstop. Henry seems to embody Renaissance sprezzatura , executing nearly impossible, stunning plays with little effort. Henry fields with simplicity, restraint, and a Zen-like strategy taught to him by his favorite book (which shares a title with this novel) by his favorite shortstop-the fictional Aparicio Rodriguez (a tribute to Luis Aparicio of the White Sox). He applies this philosophy to his life as well, not ever doing much besides playing baseball, eating, and sleeping. But as he submits to the inevitable liveliness of campus life-and of being a celebrity gaining national hype-and forms more relationships, thus spending more time thinking, caring, and trying-rather than just playing-Henry’s game begins to lose its effortlessness. He begins to hesitate and double-pump in his throws, screwing up plays that he used to perform perfectly, mindlessly. Harbach uses Henry as the point of commonality for all characters in the novel, each of whom has an individual, fully-realized story that contributes to driving the plot forward. Other narrators include Guert Affenlight, the campus president (who develops a dangerously close relationship with Henry’s gay, black, environmentalist roommate Owen), his married, conflicted, talented daughter Pella; and the lumbering, coach-like Mike Schwartz, whom Pella dates. The Art of Fielding reveals the art in baseball, while exploring the meaning of such art in the midst of a confusing, chaotic life. It is a wonderfully complete, surprisingly profound first novel for Harbach.

It’s Saturday afternoon and you find yourself in line at the Greer, grabbing a snack before you head off to cheer on your friends in one of the number of games that take place on campus each week. As you and your friends decide between an Arnold Palmer or an iced chai and a chocolate chip cookie or Twizzlers, you also decide which games you will stop by. The same is true for the group of friends behind you in line. And the group of friends behind them. Do you choose to cheer on the varsity team or the thirds team? The boys’ team or the girls’? What factors lead you to choose certain teams over others? Do you select the team your friends are on? Or the one that an announcement was made about at lunch? Does it depend on who the game is against? Athletics are a hallmark of Deerfield. While some athletes are of a professional caliber and will play long after they leave the Pioneer Valley, the mission of the Deerfield athletic program is not to create a student body of professional athletes. Instead, it provides a structure that allows students to develop their athletic skills, while, at the same time, learn the values of teamwork, leadership, and integrity. If these characteristics were not important, then Deerfield would not insist upon all students taking part in some co-curricular activity. Every team at Deerfield serves the same purpose: to provide individuals with a place to develop their athletic skills and build character. Of course there is a difference between varsity athletics and thirds teams: many varsity team members have been playing their respective sport(s) for years, while thirds team members may be trying new sports for the first time. Upon your arrival at Deerfield, it doesn’t matter if you walk onto the field with fifteen years of experience or fifteen minutes. You will be given the opportunity to bleed green in the gym, on the court or field, on the slopes, or in the pool. Or does it matter? Behind the cheerleaders’ jubilant shouts and fans’ enthusiastic support lurks the sentiment that Deerfield, as an institution, “favors” certain teams, the ones with more fans and campus support, over others, leading those teams to have “better” equipment or “better” fields than other teams. While not shared by all, the sentiment does seem to be something that blooms each year like one of the other perennial topics, such as dress code, increasing stress levels, or parietal policies. I do not think Deerfield “favors” certain teams over others. I do think, however, that certain teams are more well-known than others on campus. The high attendance numbers at these teams’ games or increased interest in the teams is not the result of administrative favoritism, but rather students’ passion. Student athletes on these teams, whichever ones they may be each season, expend countless hours making announcements about upcoming games at meal times, designing customized team apparel to show their pride, or talking about their team with other students. This is not a mischievous plan to make their team popular. Rather this is the byproduct of true passion. Passion at Deerfield isn’t just found on the athletic field. With over 200 academic courses offered at Deerfield, some of the brightest students learn and grow in the classroom under the careful guidance of dedicated teachers. No one believes that Deerfield “favors” more advanced students because of smaller classes. Walk through the Memorial Building and see the student artwork that graces the walls. Head to a dance on a weekend with friends and see the commitment to campus life by the student DJ’s. Thought-provoking white houses, guest speakers in the Garonzik, more accessible peer tutors, and everything else that happens on campus is the result of a group of dedicated individuals. Sports are no different from the plethora of other interests of Deerfield students.

Student Council is currently working on a principle addressing respect that will examine its applicable meaning and the importance of its presence in a community. In the last ten years, there have been twelve disciplinary hearings for respect-related cases. Student Body President Theo Lipsky ’12 and Student Council Chair Charles Jones ’12, encouraged by Head of School Margarita Curtis, decided a student-initiated policy would be more effective than an imposed regulation. Chairman of the Philosophy and Religion department Michael O’Donnell is leading a committee of several faculty members who will contribute to the process. The Council and committee will hold an open forum on February 9 during the faculty meeting period to discuss this issue. “We have worked on many drafts and will ultimately present our top ones to the student body for a vote,” said Student Council member Teddy Romeyn ’13. “I hope the principle that the students adopt will be like a Boyden quote—something we will recite to our kids decades from now. If we embrace the spirit of this principle, we truly will be worthy,” said Jones.

Murmurs of disgruntlement about the loss of faculty break and anticipation of the typical “drinking-and-smoking-are-bad” presentation filled the air as John Morello stepped onstage to perform his one-man show, Dirt . Despite the tension of varying expectations, laughter soon filled the auditorium as Mr. Morello began a casual conversation regarding school mascots, and a rather bold impression of Deerfield students cheering on their beloved door. However, not all were amused. “At first I thought the jokes were a bit off-putting and arbitrary,” commented Christopher Lin ’13. Garam Noh ’15 added, “I thought that, in the end, it was more geared toward a day school experience. It just felt somewhat removed from the boarding school experience, regardless of what it was trying to convey.” Other students found Mr. Morello’s laid-back performance more enjoyably relatable. Kay Calloway ’14 said, “I really liked it. The characters were really interesting, and it was so funny. I wasn’t really quite sure what to think of a one-man show. I was actually kind of expecting a train wreck. But I really felt the performance. It was also all up for interpretation, and it was so personal.” This personal nature also resonated with Annie Blau ’13, who commented, “Regardless of whether or not the message is explicit, whether we like it or not, inappropriate activity will continue. But his performance captured the student body’s attention. I have alcoholism in my family, and it was refreshing to get a lighthearted approach on heavy issues.” Dorie Magowan ’15 also enjoyed the hands-off approach. “I loved that he wasn’t lecturing. He just told us stories and let us take away what we wanted. Overall, it was really effective,” Magowan said. Others, not entirely moved by the educational aspect of the piece, commented that the show was, if nothing else, entertaining. “I thought the one man show was really impressive,” commented Camil Blanchet ’14. “It was incredible the way he morphed from character to character.” Many students agreed that Mr. Morello seemed to lace a comedic thread through his piece, shedding light on challenges that need to be discussed. “These issues need to be brought up,” said Sarah Sutphin ’13, “and I think it’s important to keep in mind that every story of every character Mr. Morello played was somehow related. We affect each other so much on a regular basis, and everyone has problem. Silence is a total hindrance in allowing ourselves to step forward as a community.”

Award-winning mathematician and physicist Stephen Wolfram will speak to the community about his experience as the CEO of his successful company, WolframAlpha. Dr. Wolfram, who was invited to campus by Meghana Vunnamadala ’12 and Jade Moon ’13, will speak after dinner on February 19. While the majority of the speakers who come to campus specialize in the humanities, Dr. Wolfram brings another story thanks to his combined knowledge of complex mathematics, science, and business. Dr. Wolfram received his Ph.D. in particle physics from the California Institute of Technology at the age of 20, and joined the faculty at the age of 21. Dr. Wolfram has, since 1982, studied the theory of Cellular Automata, a theory in which simple rules can result in complex behavior since 1982. Later, he created computer program Mathematica and founded WolframAlpha. “In our Advanced Calculus and Differential Equations class, [math teacher Richard] Mr. Bonanno allows students to use Dr. Wolfram’s program, Mathematica, extensively in class. Meghana and I were inspired by Mr. Merwin’s visit in October to contact Dr. Wolfram and bring him to campus,” explained Moon. Moon and Vunnamadala hope Dr. Wolfram’s lecture will expose the Deerfield community to the wonders of current mathematic studies. “I also think it is beneficial to show the students that they can pursue a career in both mathematics/science and business. He could show us that these two seemingly different fields can mold and become one,” commented Vunnamadala. Though all students are strongly encouraged to go see Dr. Wolfram’s lecture, only students in AP math classes are required to go. “He speaks at a very high and sophisticated level, and the AP or older levels/students can appreciate his advanced work more,” noted math teacher Nils Ahbel. “Dr. Wolfram seems like a complex puzzle, so it would be interesting to see him with my own eyes. In addition, his personality and achievements are so intriguing,” reflected Christina Pil ’12.

Documentarian Ken Burns, notable for directing The Civil War (1990), Baseball (1994), Jazz (2001), and The Natural Parks: America’s Best Idea (2009), will answer questions in an open session hosted during an upcoming faculty break by History Department Chair Joseph Lyons. Mr. Burns’ most recent work was a series on Prohibition, released by PBS in 2011. He has received 12 Emmy awards and two Oscar nominations for his work and has been awarded over 25 honorary degrees. For those familiar with videography, Mr. Burns is also known for popularizing “the Ken Burns effect,” in which a frame pans across a still picture to create the illusion of movement. “Probably any student who has taken history here has, whether they know it or not, seen a clip of his work in class,” said Mr. Lyons. “He’s really the best in his field.” Mr. Burns will visit Deerfield on February 23, 2012.

In the past few years, male Canadian hockey recruits have crossed the border to attend DA as new juniors. When asked “Why Deerfield?” the boys all had different motivations. Jay D’Amour ’13 said his decision to enroll was based on more than just hockey. “I decided to come to Deerfield for the experience. I never really liked change and was always afraid to step outside of my comfort zone. Now that I’m here, anything is possible.” Jarred Kubas ’13 explained, “I decided to come to Deerfield because of the educational opportunities it offered and how accommodating the people were.” Varsity hockey co-captain Ben Masella ’12 said, “Coming to Deerfield gave me the best opportunity to play high level hockey while having a great education. It’s really one or the other back home. It’s the best of both worlds.” The athletes may not share the same reasons for coming to Deerfield, but they did unanimously agree on missing poutine , a Canadian food dish. “It’s French fries with gravy and melted cheese,” Masella explained. When asked if the Canadians were a clan, Masella clarified, “We like to think of ourselves as a clan, especially because people single us out in the classroom and around campus. ” Though Kubas was new this fall, he predicted what Masella expressed. “It’s early in the year, but I definitely think we will have a close group of guys.”