Search this site

Does Deerfield train us to solely focus on the destination, rather than to immerse ourselves in all that the journey has to offer? When students receive bad test grades, rather than asking themselves what they can learn from their mistakes and how they can become better students, their train of thought turns to an unhealthy corner of self-pity, anger, and fear: “OH MY GOD. I got a 76 on my math test. I am never going to get above a 90 in the class, so I’ll never get into Harvard, and then I’ll never find a job, and I’ll turn into a coke-head hobo…” and so on and so forth. This mindset also shapes how we choose to use our time as students at Deerfield Academy. Rather than immersing ourselves in clubs or organizations that genuinely interest us on campus, many students focus on securing certain leadership positions, participating in advantageous co-curricular activities and maintaining a high GPA, the ultimate goal being an Ivy League School. I am guilty of this—everyone is guilty of this. We must remember, however, that though most of us come to Deerfield so that we have a good shot at the most exclusive colleges in our nation, DA can and should be so much more for us than just a stepping stone. It’s easy to point fingers at what the cause could be for this decline in commitment to character and citizenship. I’ve heard excuses such as technology, the increased competitiveness of our peers, lower acceptance rates at highly-ranked institutions and the overall Deerfield pace of life. But while just one of these is not enough to fully account for the flaw in our system, it is clear that in recent years, as the demands and pressure on our students have increased, participation in some clubs has decreased. “It is not surprising that the significant demands made of students require them to prioritize how they allocate their time,” remarked philosophy and religion teacher Neil Jacobs ’69, whose days at the Academy were focused on character-building and individualized education rather than checking off boxes on a To-Do-for-Success list. He added, “This may, in some instances, result in less than robust participation in certain school activities that often make a broader set of perspectives available to our students.” Needless to say, Deerfield has continued to be an esteemed academic institution in the last 20 years, furthering and maintaining its position as a feeder to some of the top universities in the country. But just in the last four years, I have seen the caliber of student character drop at our school. This year Ivy acceptances dropped in number as well, and although I don’t want to draw any conclusions as to why this may have happened, it might be because our school is failing to teach us how to be interesting and interested citizens of our world.

I would like to start this article with a disclaimer. The following op-ed is made up of the opinions of a 17-year-old boy in high school. In no way, shape or form was this written to offend anyone or anyone’s beliefs. These are merely my observations and opinions. You can ignore them or take them as they are. The choice is yours. First, I would like to start off by recognizing that there is a clear division between boy and girl culture at DA. This division is reflected in the different courses of action taken by boys and girls when a student gets in trouble. In my opinion, when a boy violates a major school rule (aside from bullying or hazing) for any number of reasons, no male witness would ever go to the administration. Generally speaking, boys will either ignore the violation or handle the issue themselves. Even if this boy were my mortal enemy, I would never, ever talk to the administration about his actions. In contrast, it seems to me that in most cases girls will immediately go to the administration and seek a harsh course of action against the offender. Yes, the boys at Deerfield definitely have a “pack mentality,” but to me, this seems a better alternative to the girls’ culture of passive aggression. No, this culture is not necessarily shared by all girls at Deerfield, but this behavior appears frequently enough between girls at DA for the community–including us of the opposite sex–to notice. If boys at Deerfield have a pack mentality, our girls, in contrast, have more of a clique mentality. Sometimes I see girls getting caught up in a “clique war” between friend groups that can only end in hurt feelings and a detriment to their self-esteem. Boys can definitely hurt each other’s feelings, but their interactions are much more confrontational than the way girls handle their disputes. Confusingly enough, I have noticed that even when girls are mad at each other, they still pretend to like each other, whereas guys will straight up tell one another if they have “beef.” Although pretending to like each other might make the dispute more socially acceptable, this avoidance of direct confrontation may result in hatred that is more long-term. Being confrontational, on the other hand, might involve some physicality, but will solve the problem then and there. As a student at Deerfield, I hope that the issues I have addressed can soon be fixed, but these differences in boy and girl culture are not exclusive to Deerfield. They are an aspect of teenage culture that may last in high-school America for a very long time. All in all, I feel that Deerfield is actually a very safe environment. In fact, we constantly make it even safer as we seem to have an exceptional talent for criticizing our own culture to constantly find new ways to improve it. Though I am guilty of criticizing our student body as well, I think Deerfield needs to develop a culture of self-congratulation as well as one of modesty and self-deprecation. We deserve it.

It’s true: compared to last year, fewer Deerfield seniors have gained admission to Ivy League universities. But the reason for this decline in acceptances is not because our seniors are less committed, involved, athletic or intelligent. As I understand it, the lower Ivy admission rate is due to today’s tough competition, thanks to a huge increase in national and international applicants. For Yale University alone, the number of applications has increased by five thousand in the past four years. Faced with tough competition, many applicants, Deerfield’s included, turn to other sources for support, for that extra boost: money and connections. Admit it—we at Deerfield all know someone who got into some Ivy or another because his/her parents called the school and generously donated a new pool or business building. Clearly, this scenario is not applicable to every Ivy League acceptance, but we can’t deny its existence. These accepted students, I’m sure, are well-qualified and well- educated (they go to this school, after all), but what sets them apart from the rest of the applicants is not their commitment to the Debate Club or Choral Society. It’s their family background and their connections. Subsequently, we might conclude: rejected students are not to blame at all, and neither is Deerfield. We attend a school that encourages its students to be proactive and responsible global citizens. I believe that, in this aspect, Deerfield is doing a fine job. The Academy provides us with numerous opportunities to be involved with many clubs and organizations on campus. Students are welcome to immerse themselves in these co-curricular activities. College admission is a crazy process, and a rejection from an Ivy definitely does not mean that a person is not involved or committed enough—it just shows that there are too many well-qualified applicants to accommodate everyone.

The College Board recently announced that, come spring 2016, the SAT will be redesigned—full details to be released later this month. The goal of this dreaded test’s new version will be to evaluate students on problem-solving skills judged to be most important for college success. Here at the The Scroll we believe that there is great value in making the SAT more practical for all students across the globe, especially in removing the most formulaic parts of the test. One of the eight key changes is that the one open-ended section of the test—the essay— will become optional, and be prompted by a passage rather than an obscure quote. Additionally, rather than testing obsolete vocabulary words that demand rote memorization, the new SAT will focus on vocabulary more pertinent in the real world. These changes, as well as an increasing portion of students opting for the ACT, seem to the Scroll Board a recognition by the public and by the College Board that not all students can be squeezed into the same box. Given the modern-day demand for creative thinkers both in college and in employment, we believe it is not in the nation’s, or in any school’s, interest to produce students who all think in the exact same manner. But is the devaluation of students’ ability do the formulaic—to memorize—really in our best interests? If committing formulas, vocabulary and sentence structures to memory is so “trivial,” then why isn’t everybody scoring a 2400? Oftentimes, the commitment to memorize is half the battle and is often an indication of a prospective student’s drive. But no matter what direction the content of the test takes in coming years, we believe the SAT and other standardized testing have value in providing a common point of reference for colleges when evaluating students from all different backgrounds and educations. We hope that the revamped SAT will result in a more equal testing ground for future generations.

As of March 2014, there have been seven school shootings in the United States this year. With such a shocking number of school shootings in three months, perhaps it is not surprising that the recent security presentation at school meeting left more people concerned than reassured about safety on campus. In light of this student response, it seems appropriate to The Scroll Board that Deerfield re- examine the safety of its campus. To start off, the Board would like to recognize the hard work and diligence of our campus security, who, through their work behind the scenes, make our school days and events safe and enjoyable. During the day, Security continuously checks dorms and buildings to make sure that there are Deerfield staff and faculty around. During the night, they make sure that all buildings are locked before 12 a.m. while supporting faculty chaperones at dances. On Wednesdays and Saturdays during sports games, they direct traffic for parking. Most importantly, they tirelessly patrol campus to ensure that there is nothing out of place. However, it has come to many students’ attention that in contrast to many other private schools and colleges that require visitors and guests to check in before they enter the campus, Deerfield lacks any kind of a security checkpoint. The Scroll board believes it is important for Deerfield’s campus to remain a welcoming space, but how can students be expected to differentiate between visitors and unwelcome individuals given the completely open nature of our school? Even in the case of a legitimate security concern, communicating with Deerfield Security can be more difficult than expected. Almost every student has experienced calls to Security not going through until the fourth or fifth time. Due to poor reception and the lines being clogged up by students locked out of rooms or classrooms, there is concern about how quickly a legitimate concern can reach Deerfield’s Security headquarters. Another point of concern is that Deerfield dorms and academic buildings do not require passwords or student ID-cards to be opened, allowing anyone to roam in. Furthermore, most students leave their doors unlocked during the day. While Deerfield continues to believe in its values of trust and community, students and faculty need to feel protected on campus. Moving forward, we must question whether our trust in each other can be extended to outsiders—or whether our naïveté might be leaving us open for disaster.

At Deerfield, many students swipe their Greer cards nonchalantly when asked for a donation. Either the Community Service Board or an extracurricular club generally organizes these collections to fundraise for a charity or an event. While students’ generosity supports several worthy causes, some community members question whether or not Deerfield fundraises in an ethical manner. recently discussed these fundraising practices with several students in Pocumtuck Dormitory, and many girls agreed that they had been “guilted” into donating, or had done so to receive something in return, like a t-shirt or candy. “It is kind of sad that we need to receive something in order to donate,” acknowledged Ally Edwards ’17. Some wonder if students truly understand the causes they’re supporting and whether the organizations involved have been properly vetted. Others argue that these issues have risen from a lack of communication between the fundraisers and the donors. “Fundraisers address the information pretty well, but no one really listens; they just buy or donate for the food,” Yasmine Deswandhy ’16 said. “When people hear Hi-Chew sale, they are primarily buying for the candy, not the cause.” David Miller, Director of Global Studies, believes that students who fundraise must research and find out exactly what the organization they support does and how it operates, so that the school can ensure the institutions supported are effective and well-managed. “There can be, in schools, an epidemic of thoughtless fundraising,” he said. “People who are raising money need to be more thoughtful about where the money is going and how that money is being spent.” Despite such concerns, there are many community members who believe that intent is the first priority, and that fundraising at Deerfield is ethical because the community is helping those in greater need. Bernie Baker, Director of Community Service, explained, “Many student groups fundraise at Deerfield Academy with varying degrees of transparency about how the funds will be used. All groups are supposed to fill out a form from the Dean of Students office if they wish to do a fundraiser. If the intention is to use the funds for an activity or the group itself, the form requires a signature from one of the deans. If the funds are to be charitable donations to external organizations or causes, a signature from the Director of Community Service is required. There is, however, no formal control over the extent to which a group publicizes its intentions to the whole school.” “Whenever the Community Service Student Board raises funds,” he continued, “Board members make frequent announcements at meals of where the money will go. The most notable example this year—the multiple fundraising efforts for the MLK Day project with Kids Against Hunger—was publicized with announcements, posters and DA Bulletin postings. Similarly, the Student Board’s Color Run in the fall explicitly stated that the money would support the Rosenberg Fund for Children.” Mr. Baker concluded, “Refining the system to increase the transparency of all fundraising efforts that take place at Deerfield is probably a worthwhile idea.” Members of the Community Service Board were also willing to address any fundraising concerns. Maddie Nelson ‘15 explained, “Any club or organization wishing to raise money using a troubadour is only able to swipe students’ Greer cards if they are giving something to the students in exchange. This isn’t due to a regulation set in place by the Community Service Board, but a regulation set in place by the administration. Nelson continued, “To the students who think we are raising unethically, I’d like to point out that in the end the Community Service Board helping people in need.” Caroline Dye ‘14, head of the Community Service Board, added, “The dilemma is reflective of a culture problem on campus. It is impossible to raise money without selling something. Measures are in place in the preliminary stages of a fundraiser to try to involve students in projects without asking them for money.”

In early April, newly accepted students gathered on campus for Spring Visit Days, during which they toured the school and further acquainted themselves with Deerfield life. Yet these accepted students represent only a fraction of the total that applied for the 2014-2015 school year. According to Ms. Pamela Safford, Dean of Admission and Financial Aid, 1900 students applied this year for a total of 180 openings for new students here at Deerfield, which translates to an admissions rate of 15 percent. According to Ms. Safford, the student body has grown too large in relation to “the ideal experience,” and the school has been making efforts to decrease enrollment from 647 students to between 625 and 630 students. The effort to downsize the school has been most greatly felt by those applying as new juniors or sophomores, and the number of students enrolled in these grades will become relatively smaller in the upcoming years. With this sudden decrease in acceptance at Deerfield, many people raise the question–how does the admissions office decide which students to accept and which to deny? Ms. Safford explained, “While we recognize the value of enrolling a range of students in terms of background, perspective and interests, we also think that there are core attributes and competencies that best position students to be desirable, happy and successful here. Indeed, the Admission Office endeavored into a months-long process, starting last September, out of which developed a ‘picture’ of the ideal incoming student. Excerpts from this composite include characteristics like Love of Learning, Creative & Critical Thinker, Intellectually Curious, Intrinsically Motivated; Kind, Empathetic, Humble, Sincere and Authentic, Grounded; Emotionally Intelligent and Self-Aware.” In response to question about whether having siblings at Deerfield offered any advantage to applicants, Ms. Safford responded, “We are thrilled to receive so many sibling as well as legacy applications, and DA is somewhat unusual in having so many. While we are inclined toward sibling applicants, that is we give them an extra look during the process, there’s still no guarantee that, even if qualified, they’ll be admitted to DA since there are other compositional needs that we must also keep in mind when composing the incoming class. Statistically speaking, siblings and legacies have been admitted at more than twice the rate of other applicants, and that has remained true this year.” Ms. Safford also offered insight into applicants with a family history at Deerfield. “While a family’s history of supporting the school financially does not play an official role in our admission committee selection process,” she said, “a few of us are aware of this history, and in some cases, when the student is otherwise qualified, this fact may serve to enhance a student’s candidacy, just as other compositional elements serve to influence admission outcomes (legacy, sibling, geography, talent, etc.).” Another common question on campus regards a shift in the “ideal” Deerfield student. “I would use the word ‘evolving,’ not ‘shifting,’ to suggest how we’re thinking about the ideal DA student,” responded Ms. Safford. “It’s important to keep in mind that there are some core elements for which we’re looking in all student applicants. The fact that we are bringing a first-class arts building on line does, indeed, challenge us to include, among our many other needs, students who have expressed strong interest in the visual and performing arts. I think that the school has had these kinds of kids in mind for a while now and having a new facility simply reminds us of the importance of this aspect of the program.” The Admission Office expects a percent yield of 61.5% of the 292 accepted students this year. Ms Safford explains how this number is determined, “We look at historical yield trends by sub-category, consider tuition, amount of financial aid and other macro-socio-economic conditions such as the state of the national economy, other academic competition (the increase of online, home-school and charter schools, for instance). Unlike colleges and universities, it’s the rare independent school that has developed sophisticated enrollment models and/or has an institutional research and planning department. And while we generally get pretty close to our original prediction, it’s in the case that we don’t meet our yield prediction that we rely on a robust waitlist. If, on the other hand, we over-enroll, it’s harder to retract back to that original enrollment goal.” Many applicants are placed on the waitlist every year. Ms Safford expands on this process, “Of the 1900 applications, 292 were admitted, about 800 waitlisted and 800 denied. This number of waitlisted students may seem large but keep in mind a few factors: there are 20 sub-categories in which we look to enroll students (9 day boy, 9 day girl, 9 boarding boy, 9 boarding girl, etc. all the way through the PG class), so this averages out to about 40 students on each sub-category waitlist. Also, we never know who will choose to stay active on the waitlist and who will happily choose another school, so we tend to “pad” our waitlist accordingly. Finally, our current practice is to waitlist otherwise qualified students, and many of the students applying to Deerfield are qualified. We will be examining this practice in the future to determine if we might reduce our waitlist numbers.” She continued, “The vast majority of students applying to Deerfield are interesting, accomplished, ambitious, compelling. So one of the biggest challenges is to weed otherwise very fine students out in order to meet our [numeric] enrollment goal.”

Following the Ukrainian Revolution, which culminated as rebels ousted President Viktor Yanukovych on February 22, a serious crisis developed in Crimea, a region of Ukraine that previously belonged to Russia. In early March, the Russian parliament approved President Vladimir Putin’s request to use military force in Crimea. It also issued an ultimatum forcing the Ukrainian troops in Crimea to withdraw from the area. Two weeks later, on March 16, 97 percent of Crimean residents voted to rejoin Russia, according to Russian sources. The United States and other countries supporting Ukraine declared the referendum illegal, warning they would impose sanctions on Russia and provide economic support to the Ukrainian government if it was upheld. However, the sanctions did not effectively stop Putin from signing a bill on March 18 to absorb Crimea as part of Russia. On March 24, Ukraine removed all of its military forces from Crimea. This withdrawal signaled their military surrender, although the conflict continues. This dispute not only affects Crimeans, but also Deerfield students with connections to Russia and Ukraine. One such student, who wishes to remain anonymous, said, “the fact that more than 90% of the people living in Crimea voted to join Russia reveals a lot about the nature of the crisis. If we support democracy and self- determination in Tibet, we shouldn’t do the opposite to [the Crimean people] just because Russia is not on our side.” Alex Patrylak ’15, an Ukrainian-American student, thinks differently. “The situation might be more complicated, as the voters have been heavily exposed to propaganda,” she explained. Reflecting on these recent events, history teacher Mr. Thomas Heise said, “I’ve found myself thinking about the principle of national self- determination which, ever since Woodrow Wilson, we’ve tended to see as a reliable guide to the solution of international problems. But what happens if two nations exist within one country? Should we respect the wishes of the Russian majority in Crimea? Or should we pay more attention to majority opinion in Ukraine as a whole? One could make an argument in the name of democracy for either approach.” He concluded, “The principle of national self-determination may provide us with less certainty than we hoped.” In addition, many people question the United States’ involvement in the Crimea controversy. As philosophy and religion teacher Neil Jacobs ’69 summed it up, “Geographically we’re too far away and Russia is too close. We can’t put troops on the ground. We can’t bomb anyone. There’s not much we can do except appeal to a high moral standard.”

Dear Reader, This marks the end of a wild ride for the 2013-2014 Scroll board. As we prepare to hand off the reins to Henry Cobbs and his team of editors, I want to wish them the best of luck in both furthering goals we set out for ourselves a year ago and, even more importantly bringing their own perspective and attention to community issues. It’s key for the mission of a paper to constantly be under the scrutiny of fresh eyes, and I am confident that next year’s board will bring a waterfall of new opinions and ideas to the table when they take over this spring. Like all things in life, leaving the Scroll is bittersweet. The experience made us realize that every student deserves an equal voice and has the power to make that voice heard. We were able to stimulate discussion, push against invisible boundaries and ask questions that people sometimes didn’t want to hear. Nothing that was printed was intended to offend, and every piece was included for a reason. The Scroll only matters if people read it; we could print a million copies, but if they just sat on the floor the significance of it all would disappear. For not letting this happen I applaud you, our readers, for there was nothing more gratifying than to hear people debating article topics at sit-down meals or being sent their thoughts in hopes of their being shared. If anything has been accomplished this year, I hope it is that students and faculty alike see the Scroll as an open forum with the purpose of strengthening the community, not pulling it apart. We’re all in this together, so to speak, and I hope that mentality was translated effectively over the last 12 months. As a senior I can’t help but think about graduation; sooner or later it starts creeping up and we’re forced to consider what leaving Deerfield means to us. In a smaller way, “graduating” from The Scroll mirrors what I imagine I will feel Memorial Day Weekend. So here’s to signing off for the last time: keep it classy and don’t waste a minute of your time in the valley because life won’t wait for you to catch up after the fact. Sincerely, Charlotte Allen Editor-in-Chief

On February 5, 2014, CVS Caremark announced that CVS will stop selling tobacco products before October 1, 2014. The chain, which has more than 7,600 stores across the U.S., will become the first national pharmacy not to sell tobacco. According to CVS, the company’s projected loss will be approximately $2 billion in annual sales. In an interview with The Scroll, Troyen A. Brennan, M.D., the Chief Medical Officer at CVS, explained that the move is not necessarily altruistic. But rather, as the company furthers its mission to be recognized as a healthcare provider, the sale of tobacco products simply did not align. “Cigarettes are unalterably bad for people,” Dr. Brennan said. “There’s no way you can use them in moderation. A lot of the other things that we sell, including soda, chips and other things like that, when eaten in moderation, are not harmful, but there’s no such thing as moderation associated with tobacco.” “I am not aware of any pressure applied to CVS to stop selling tobacco products,” said Lieutenant Commander Matthew Sullivan ‘91, an official at the Food and Drug Administration who works with the regulation of new drugs. “The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, however, did issue a press release praising the CVS decision, and openly requesting other retail outlets to follow suit.” Barri Blauvelt P’15, a leading cancer researcher and CEO of Innovara Inc, a healthcare development company, explained the various risks associated with tobacco use: “The U.S. President’s Cancer Panel had previously identified tobacco and obesity as the leading causes of cancer in the U.S.A. It is a major cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and is also a major contributor to cardiovascular diseases, including high blood pressure, leading to stroke or heart attack and death.” “When I was at Deerfield 25 years ago, tobacco use among my peers was still fairly common,” recalled Dr. Sullivan. “Although I’m obviously not a high school student now, I think that the winds have shifted, and cigarette smoking at least is far less popular. Smokeless tobacco, however, doesn’t seem to be declining in popularity quite as fast as smoked tobacco, although it is used by a far smaller number of teens.” On campus, chewing tobacco remains a popular practice. Statistics from the Deerfield Health Center reveal that just six percent of ninth graders at Deerfield use smokeless tobacco. But by senior year, an astonishing 33% of boys admitted to using dip regularly. Around one third of those respondents use upwards of three times per day. Although tobacco has not proven to be more harmful to teen users, “where there is a huge difference is on the cumulative lifetime effect between these two individuals [an adult and a teenager],”explained Dr. Sullivan. “The teen smokers have decades in front of them in which to rack up the number of cigarettes smoked,” explained Dr. Sullivan

Heralding the Chinese New Year, the Asian Student Alliance (ASA) presented a fashion show during School Meeting oil February 5. The effort to formally celebrate and acknowledge this important day in the Chinese calendar drew a mixed response from both students and faculty. ASA President Anthony Lauw ‘14 said, “The general goal of the fashion show was just to commemorate the Chinese New Year. Our objective, in the simplest sense, was to let people know that it was that time of year. We never aimed to make it an informational presentation, so I do believe that it served its purpose as an entertaining commemoration of the event.” Allison Dewey ‘14, a Chinese language student, chose to participate in the fashion show and thought that the experience helped deepen her understanding of Chinese culture. “Even though I was skeptical of what to expect when I was asked to help with the Chinese Traditional Wear runway show,” she said, “I definitely think that it was a fun experience, and I formed a better idea of what traditional wear really looks like.” Some aspects of the fashion show were seen as racist and homophobic, despite the intention to be lighthearted and informative. Maddie Moon ’16 was particularly offended and said, “I thought that the Chinese Fashion Show was a nice attempt to educate Deerfield about different cultures at the holidays they celebrate. However, it was executed very poorly. Some of the students, I feel, went up there just for fun and made racist poses.” Dana Wensberg ‘14, one of the chosen models, defended his actions, which caused a stir in the community and were seen as both offensive to Asians and homophobic. “The mixed responses that I have heard going around really demonstrate how overly sensitive the Deerfield population can be,” Wensberg said. “The show was put together with the intention to entertain, not offend. And judging by the laughter of the audience, I can draw the conclusion that it was well received.” Lauw responded to these concerns by acknowledging the distasteful behavior of some of the models and attributes the misconduct to lack of preparation. “The idea for it was brought up before Long Winter Weekend,” he explained, “and the show’s one-hour rehearsal only took place the night before it happened.” Lauw continued, “The models were given costumes, and they were instructed by the leaders of the ASA to ‘be entertaining.’ I completely understand how it came off as offensive to some people. Many of the moves were incredibly insensitive, and the fault lies with the lack of preparation.”

Scroll: What is your job description? MY: My job is to help Deerfield Academy think about all issues related to diversity – gender, ethnicity, race, religion – and help the administration look at how we are addressing all these issues. I get to work with everybody on campus, Dr. Curtis and the Dean of Students included. In my first year, I am mostly observing Deerfield so that I can draw up a plan for how Deerfield can be intentional in including everybody in the community. Scroll: Why has Deerfield decided to create the role of the “Director of Inclusion”? MY: Many schools in the league of boarding schools that Deerfield belongs to have a director of diversity. These schools try to keep competitive and mirror each other’s movements. The goal of the Director of Diversity is to make sure that non-traditional boarding school students feel welcome. By non-traditional boarding school students, I mean students who don’t have a legacy here. The families of these students have a gap in experience, because they need to figure out everything from the financial to cultural aspects of sending a student to a school like Deerfield. Small things like figuring out Parents’ Weekend or transportation to and from home are easy for families that have sent multiple kids to boarding school, but not so much for a family that is sending their child to boarding school for the first time. Scroll: Is it a misconception that students believe that your administrative role has more to do with racial diversity than other kinds of diversity? MY: Absolutely: I think it’s a big misconception. In America, broadly speaking, whenever we bring up diversity, race is the first thing that people’s minds go to. Big as racism is, diversity is much bigger than that. I address mental health issues by working with people in DA’s health services, I am part of the curriculum committee, and I am also looking at day students, to see how we can make them feel more like a part of the Deerfield community. My job spans across the entire community, but I think a lot of people generalize in saying “She’s just here to sustain students of color.” In fact, the very first sustained dialogue that I held was about gender issues, not about race. Scroll: What exactly is sustained dialogue? How is it any different from conversations we’ve had about inclusion in years past at Deerfield? MY: The idea of a sustained dialogue is that it’s a conversation . Part of talking about the issues is not just raising questions, it’s coming together and getting to know each other, then getting to talk across differences. And once you identify a problem, there is an action step that allows the people who held the discussion to take action, or induce another group, say the administration, to take action. You could have a conversation with a group of friends if something goes bad during the day, but for such a conversation to qualify as sustained dialogue, you would have to ask yourself whether you are revisiting that issue, whether you are taking action, and whether you are asking the institution to look at the problem in a different way. Scroll: When is sustained dialogue happening? MY: The first group that participated in sustained dialogue met in fall term. We met every other Thursday during faculty break. I originally invited the… entire school to participate in these sessions, and sent out another reminder after MLK Day as well. But after the second sustained dialogue, I had to close the group so that we could start to do real work with the people who were regularly coming to the meetings. The point of sustained dialogue is to reach an action step, and the worry was that this couldn’t happen if people were coming in and out irregularly. These meetings have been fruitful, and this group of seven students meeting over six times has led to the proposal and adoption of the open-dorm pilot program. Scroll: Do you think student culture can be changed by the administration? MY: I think it’s a two-way street. I definitely think there are strategies that can be put in place to facilitate change. One example is the open-dorm policy. There was a general consensus during our sustained dialogue meetings that girls and boys are often segregated at Deerfield. The impetus for the proposal was that we want girls to feel comfortable just walking into a common room in a boys dorm to hang out. In a sustained dialogue, you recognize that you can’t do everything, but you pose the question of what you can do, realistically speaking. Our goal is that, for the next grade coming to Deerfield, the stigma around boy-girl relations and “hookups” will not be a norm. Scroll: Many students called the school meeting at which we were introduced to sustained dialogue superficial. What are your thoughts? MY: I think they’re absolutely right: that school meeting was definitely not the ideal way to hold sustained dialogue. But my goal was to whet the appetite of the community for this group [faculty- break sustained-dialogue sessions]. I think my first year here is a time for me to figure out how the community is going to respond to initiatives I take. Scroll: Many students believe the race issue has been blown out of proportion in the sustained dialogue model at Deerfield. Do you think this is true? MY: No. I think it is very hard for people to understand a reality that they don’t live every day. Just because we live in America doesn’t mean that we have one “American story” that looks the same for everyone. I think that when people hear other people’s stories, they can either embrace them, or reject them, saying “There’s no way that happened here.” Sometimes it’s easier to choose the latter, but if you really listen to these people who tell these stories, you realize that these are everyday parts of their lives and they really happened. Scroll: What do you think of students who say our frequent discussion about division are discussions that are very Deerfield-specific, which they will never have to hold again? MY: We can say Deerfield is an artificial environment, this is not the “real world,” but this will happen again in college. You will have to study with, live with, and work with people who are very different from you in your life after Deerfield. The world around us is changing rapidly in terms of demographics. We cannot say that issues about race and gender are issues we will never have to address again beyond high school. Scroll: Do you think diversity alliances are divisive? MY: I think people need to understand why diversity alliances exist in the first place. I wonder how many critics of diversity alliances have actually been to a diversity alliance meeting. There are several goals for diversity alliances. One is to educate our campus about that particular culture, with the International Dinner for example. Another goal is to have a time and space for people who are marginalized in institutions like Deerfield to relate to people who are like them. Scroll: A lot of the accusations about diversity alliances being divisive have been towards ethnicity-based groups, rather than Christian Fellowship, GSA, or JSA. Why do you think this is? MY: We need to realize that we live in America. There are systems in place that were established way before we were born. America is a country that has a history of slavery, a history of immigrant populations being discriminated against, a history of hierarchy, and a history of religious persecution. These things are real, and we have inherited them. I understand in some way when students say they feel penalized for wrongs they didn’t commit. But nobody is blaming them. Marginalization is not just perpetuated by the student population. We live in a system that values certain characteristics, personalities, and skin colors over others. We live in a country that is racially and economically divided. But for us to say, “This is not my fault, and this discussion makes me feel uncomfortable,” is not the right way to approach any problem. We need to take responsibility for our reality. You need to lean into your discomfort to have meaningful conversations. Scroll: What do you think defines the “dominant culture” here at DA? MY: There are families who have been attending Deerfield for many generations. I consider them dominant because they have knowledge and confidence in sending a kid here that puts a family that is sending a child to boarding school for the first time at a disadvantage. The dominant culture comprises people who are familiar, well-versed, know the ins and outs, and can really take advantage of being at Deerfield. Is this bad? Not necessarily. But we need to figure out a way to make sure that the people who don’t start out with those advantages can adapt to Deerfield life, too. The Deerfield administration is currently trying to bridge that gap. Scroll: What can we do about socioeconomic differences here? Can these differences be bridged through administrative efforts? MY: A sustained dialogue about socioeconomic differences is not going to be the type that has a resolution. But the goal here will be a mutual understanding, and a better awareness of the lifestyles and cultures that other people come from. Scroll: Many students have expressed discomfort at attending diversity alliance meetings where they are not part of the dominant ethnic group present. Thoughts? MY: If white students go to a diversity alliance meeting and feel uncomfortable, these students must realize that there are students of minorities who feel uncomfortable every day. And although some of this is a product of the environment, it is also the responsibility of each one of us to overcome that feeling of being different whenever we happen to be in the minority in a room full of people. Scroll: There have been calls for the creation of a White Student Alliance. What are your thoughts? MY: I think that is a very interesting proposal. What I want to know is whether students want a White Student Alliance as a means of retaliation because Asian students, black students, etc. have their own alliances. If students could form a WSA with a vision, to address actual issues that involve this group and need to be shared with the administration, that would be valid. But “white” is a very broad term, and there is a danger in that. Dominant culture people are always connecting with each other. They are “ group.” There is a large population of people on this campus, who, when they look around, see 50 more people who look like them. I think for these students, the opportunity to talk to and connect with others like them present themselves in every moment of the day. I would ask these people to remember that the point of diversity alliances is not to embrace certain student groups at the expense of other people. Institutionally, there are support groups for everyone, academic and medical, among others.