Search this site

“I will act with respect, integrity, and care for others.”  This is the student pledges of Deerfield Academy, one we have gotten familiar with after almost half a year of Peep the Pledge announcements at school meetings. Yet, there’s a distinct barrier—both intentional and unintentional—that separates us boarding school students from the rest of the world.  Yes, obviously everyone has experienced reading the annual Scroll article on how dreadful our civic bubble is at some point, but the solution isn’t just shaming students to be more aware of the world. For Deerfield to truly fulfill the goals of their motto and student pledge, there needs to be a joint student and institutional push for greater civic participation in the communities that surround our campus.  Anna : I went to a Baptist school from kindergarten through 8th grade, a fact that everyone who has shared a class with me is well aware. As many problems as that school had, one thing that it did incredibly well was service. Each grade had a special charity project they worked toward: in kindergarten we raised money for the sea turtles. In fifth grade we held fun runs to raise money for service dogs for veterans. Every single year, each class was required to bring in a different element of a “meal on wheels.” Somehow, I was always on Chewy Bar duty. To be completely honest,  I was lucky to go to a school where most families had the available resources to give back to the community. I would argue that’s even more true at Deerfield, a school with an over $900 million endowment. So why has the only community service experience I’ve had at this school been my freshman fall visit to a local church, helping sort food donations? Why are service hours not a graduation requirement, as they are in many public and private high schools? Why do so many co-curriculars get out of community service without any consequences? All of these questions have remained unanswered. The answer lies in a lack of institutional opportunities, but also a personal failure. I have often justified my failure to act by reassuring myself that I help my community over the summer, I volunteer with my troop. Yet I being away from home shouldn’t give me a get-out-of-jail free card for service. Billy : This summer, I worked at the Massachusetts Statehouse as an intern under the office of Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use and Recovery. There, I learned about the opioid crisis occurring in our literal backyard. From 2023-2024, The Massachusetts Bureau of Substance Addiction and Services reported 143 emergency room visits in Greenfield for opioid related overdoses, 13 being fatal. In Greenfield, you are 124% more likely to be checked into a hospital for an opioid related overdose than the rest of the state, with the average age being 18-25 years old.  More than just shocking, it was shameful that I didn’t know this earlier. In the last 4 years, I regularly make trips to Greenfield with my friends to eat out and buy snacks, I’ve walked the streets listening to music, and I never noticed the needles and homelessness besides me.  Maybe that’s just me, but I’d wager most of the student population here shares in my ignorance. We’ve somehow deluded ourselves that as a student body, we’re models of citizenship engagement and civic excellence while turning a blind eye to our lack of involvement in the communities around us. We as the student body must make an active effort to engage in our direct community, not just expect information and service opportunities to be placed in our laps.  Nico: If we want Deerfield Students to be civically engaged then we must change our school’s view on service itself. To most Deerfield students community service currently exists as either A: a day off from co-curriculars when you complete a mundane task, or B: an activity to add to your achievements list for college.  Sadly, both options are prevalent throughout American society, where many students see community service as an activity not done out of empathy but instead to bolster one’s resume. In a society where cut-throat competition is encouraged, it is no wonder students see community service as simply a leg up over one’s peers. Civic engagement can no longer be only a box to be checked, and that will take a reversal of our school culture and America as a whole. Yoonsa: As a day-student-turned-boarder, my community service experience can be summed up in these two words: mobility and incentive. I could only contribute to my hometown of Amherst, MA’s community through the access to a car a parent willing to shuttle me around when necessary only thirty minutes away. In fourth grade, I spent an embarrassing amount of time prying open my piggy bank—which I believed to be the entirety of my life savings at the time—to collect a whopping sum of around $24 dollars for the World Wildlife Fund, dedicated to protect the endangered animals I dearly loved (and yes, I counted each individual coin). As humans, we have an intrinsic desire to help other people, one we can see in the behavior of younger children. At Deerfield however, we see ourselves as too grown up, too busy or maybe too cynical to bust open our piggy banks for a cause we care about. There is a second part to our school pledge that I worry many of us overlook: “I will seek to inspire the same values in our community and beyond.” What better place is there to start than here, in our own community? At Deerfield, where ambition and privilege go hand in hand, we do indeed have the resources to travel hours or days spending our service dedicated somewhere else, as the Center for Service and Global Citizenship demonstrates over breaks. The number of students that sign up for these trips is a testament to how much our student body cares, how much our school wants to give us opportunities to care. However, to “buy in” to service does not necessarily mean one must go all out regarding location and distance. To truly become global citizens, as the office’s name so aptly suggests, Deerfield must provide further resources for us to start here, right in our own backyard. If we turn a blind eye on our own community, how will we ever be able to give back to the far-reaching hills and valleys “beyond” our Deerfield Bubble? We hope that, for these reasons, you will allow us a break from our normal Global Updates and allow us to focus on events happening closer to home.

On a chilly October night, just days before the United States presidential election, I was sitting with a fellow editor in the Scroll  room discussing the upcoming election. Since I had watched the video essay “Why Economists Hate Donald Trump’s Tariff Plan” from the Wall Street Journal just a few days ago in preparation for my HUSH class, I opened our conversation by asking what he thought of Trump’s promised fiscal policy. To my surprise, he loved the policy. Praising how Trump’s tariffs would tax foreign exporters to the US, he seemed delighted that a president would actually work toward protecting US producers instead of offshoring work to foreign countries. Only, he was wrong. Tariffs tax domestic importers of foreign goods, not foreign companies. In other words, they are a tax on US companies and an indirect tax on US consumers that would financially hurt the vast majority of US citizens.  The economy remains one of the most central concerns under the status quo. In Head of School John Austin’s A Framework for Schools , Dr. Austin speaks of the importance of advancing “the ideal of expressive freedom” in independent schools. To this end, it’s crucial that the dialogue concerning the economy finds its balance between freedom and truth. Mass media breeds an environment of misinformation, and when these claims are spread as truths, they will result in a generation of uneducated, unaware students.  We should combat misinformation with education.Thus, Deerfield Academy should offer economics as a course to all students, not just as a senior elective. An economics course would prepare students for their future, educate them on political literacy, and fight against the rampant misinformation prevalent in today’s society. In our mission statement, Deerfield claims to “prepare students for leadership in a rapidly changing world.” In an interview with the Dean of Academic Affairs Anne Bruder, she mentioned, “So much of building a curriculum is making a series of choices and we do that based on our hopes of who students will become in the future.” She added, “We [the Academic Affairs Office] are actually not in the business of preparing you right now for a specific career. What we should be doing is filling your brains with what you’re not gonna get every single day of your life after you’ve finished your formal education.” Essentially, Dr. Bruder argues that Deerfield should serve to provide a holistic education for students instead of specialization at such an early age. However, given the current capitalist society in which we live, I’d argue economics is just as integral to a holistic education as math or English. Even if we don’t go into finance or any field even tangentially related to economics, it is still important for us to understand basic economic theory for one simple reason: the world revolves around money. We’ll all eventually wind up in the adult world and be forced to deal with the complexities of labor markets, wage negotiation, savings accounts, and more. An economics education is not merely vocational, it aims to inform students about the fundamental problem that all humans face at all times: the problem of scarcity. Thus, limiting students' access to economics education is as detrimental as canceling our other so-called “core-curriculum classes.”    Additionally, an economics course would foster an educated student body that is more fluent in the economic language commonly used by politicians. Given that, according to an October 2024 Gallup poll, the economy was the number one issue for American voters in the 2024 presidential election, an economics education is essential for students to engage in contemporary politics and advance expressive freedom at the Academy. On the other hand, being unaware of economics would facilitate a generation of politically illiterate students out of touch with the national political landscape and ill-suited to participate in government.  In his framework, Dr. Austin addressed an argument against expressive freedom being that speech is “a weapon wielded by the powerful to subjugate the oppressed.” Here, the prevalent power difference between students at high schools and colleges stems from a knowledge gap between students, as those who wield the knowledge control the power. Throughout history, education has always been the means to uplift the ignorant. Education would also mitigate one of the greatest dangers of expressive freedom, the spread of misinformation. In The Link Between Misinformation and Radicalism  by Elise Ingelson and Wesley McCann, Ingelson and McCann have found “strong theoretical reasons to believe the former [misinformation] may facilitate the latter [radicalism].” Furthermore, the National Institute of Health noted that such misinformation is most easily impressed onto adolescents. By using economics education to combat misinformation, the Academy would reap benefits of expressive freedom while avoiding the negative repercussions, such as a growth of radicalism amongst students. I firmly believe that economics should not just be relegated to a senior elective at Deerfield, but rather a course available for all students who have passed Precalculus. An economics course would promote Dr. Austin’s expressive freedom within the Academy, teach political literacy and combat misinformation, and provide students with a more holistic high school education, setting up students for future successes.

Every four-year Deerfield student takes at least two years of history before they graduate. History, the study of the past, shapes our understanding of the events that have come before the present day. Andrew and John debate on how they believe Deerfield’s history department should teach history, guided by frameworks or free from their inhibition.  Andrew : I think that Deerfield’s mandatory underclassmen history courses don’t really educate students on true critical thinking. Deerfield requires only two history courses, one our underclassmen years and US History during our junior year for all three to four year students to graduate. In my experience, I think these courses are characterized by a stringent structure of themes, central ideas, and values that reflect a selected historic interpretation. What I mean by historic interpretation here is systems of thinking we study frameworks with, such as the seven themes of Honors European History. I believe a good history course should invite students to form and express their own judgments of history. In general, teachers should take a more non-intervention approach to class, yielding space to students for them to think freely. This could be accomplished with a few changes in class structures. In my opinion, a successful class should be based on seminars rather than lectures. It should also incentivize students to research on their own, instead of simply consuming what the source packets and textbook offers.  John : I agree that the majority of the history courses offered at Deerfield follow some overarching framework. If we take European History for example, the class loosely follows the seven themes that the College Board identifies for the AP European History course and exam. I don’t think these overarching themes limit the course. Instead they act like guardrails for curricula, teachers, and students in the task of undertaking the momentous task of understanding modern European history. Covering all of modern European History in one year is really hard, and without these guardrails, I think the course would be unmanageable. Similarly to European History, while Honors US History at Deerfield doesn’t follow the AP curriculum, the course is still divided into seven themes.  Where I disagree with you is your point that history courses should be a place for students to form and express their own views of history. The foremost goal of history classes should be to teach us students what happened in the past. Especially in content-heavy courses like European and American history where there are hundreds of names, events, and sometimes countries involved in complex wars, revolutions, and relationships, I think classes should prioritize cultivating a common understanding of what actually happened. I don’t see the inherent value of letting students have free reign over forming their interpretation of history if that comes at the expense of not actually knowing historical events happened.  I don’t think learning what happened in history and forming your own opinions about the past are mutually exclusive. But learning the facts comes before forming opinions. Because they’re so many facts in history, frameworks restrict classes to be manageable enough.  A:  I agree with you that a framework facilitates a common understanding, but I think that being able to think freely is more important than a common understanding.   From my view, there could not exist a productive framework which does not infringe heavily upon academic liberty. The value of the framework is in the potentials drawn from the subjective lens of perception. For example, Marxism is a valid framework for studying history, arguing that all history is the history of class struggles. Then why do we not utilize Marxism for theming Honors Euro? As you have mentioned, there are seven themes in Honors Euro, and how did we choose those themes? Ultimately, the themes are individual interpretations of history with strong socio-political inclinations. We risk corrupting our education system with political messages through teaching with frameworks. I disagree with another assumption on frameworks made by the history department, best examined by one of Africa and Latin America’s big ideas: “History is the set of stories we choose to tell.” I don’t think history translates into a set of stories. Reality is different from books. A literary production has limited content and usually has a set of didactics that serve as its purpose. Here we would analyze the work for a common understanding and take-away. However, an infinite set of events comprises history. With a framework, crucial historic events outside the framework will be ignored, and this would only give more room to politics in history as someone could now choose which events to teach. In education, I believe it’s crucial to respect students’ freedom and foster their own understanding of history. It’s better to teach skills and leave the stance-taking to the students.  J:  I agree that a historical framework can limit what opinions we form about history. But as you say, there’s “an infinite set of events” that make up history. Without a framework, how can we study every single event that’s ever occurred? It’s a worthy sacrifice to be made, to at the very least, make history a bite that we can chew.  I think frameworks become more powerful when you realize that they aren’t comprehensive. Frameworks aren’t the gospel, nor should they be considered as the word of god. Rather, they help highlight the most important historical events and ideas. What’s important is going to differ from school to school and country to country. At Deerfield, a boarding school in Western Massachusetts, learning about Lowell Mills is going to be an important part of history. In a public school in Texas, Texan Independence is going to be more important than mills in New England. We can easily go on a tangent about what events frameworks should consider “important,” but I think you understand what I mean.  I’ll pose a question back to you. You said that, “In education, I believe it’s crucial to respect students’ freedom and foster their own understanding of history.” But if the set of historical events is infinite, then how do we, the students, start forming our own understanding of history?  A: I think the most important point is that students should be the ones who form the majority of the subjective judgements regarding history. I believe the infinite set of history I mentioned before should be presented to students as untainted and as comprehensive as possible, and frameworks taint and limit our perspective of history. The implementation of this in a classroom setting isn’t as complicated as you think it is.  First of all, teachers should select evidence and sources that are as encompassing as possible. Instead of merely presenting students with pieces of writing , I think teachers should host scholarly discussions regarding the readings, so that the rationale behind the readings is not to prove a point.  I also believe in increasing research outside the classroom. Teachers should turn more assignments and essays into open-research writing, allowing students to engage in their own historical understanding. Typically, from my own experiences, many history essays mostly draw on sources from a source packet, so all the essays are more or less written with similar stances under the same framework. It would be almost impossible to produce something remarkably original with the restricted selection of choices. Unfortunately, this form of writing trains formulaic writing more than research skills. Open research essays will force students to conduct research for themselves to prove their own beliefs, which I believe, will be more beneficial for them under the current multilateral society.  J: I agree with you that reading entire essays and documents can help us form more encompassing opinions about history. Research as well. But as a history student myself, I don’t really think I need more history homework… (RIP my double-history junior year sleep schedule.) At Deerfield, and really in any high school, I think history classes are foremost content-based classes. We learn what happened in the past. If I had time to read the  Communist Manifesto , I would love to. If I had time to fully research the origins of the numerous French Revolutions, trust me, I would! But two problems; we don’t have enough time, and we lack the historical context to dive into research.  On my first point on time: We take more than just history. At most we have five other classes. It just isn’t feasible to cover the same content in the same amount of time doing research instead of reading a textbook. As you say, history is an infinite set of stories. I think textbooks narrow down the vast expanse of historical events to a certain story that balances coherence and factual accuracy and saves so much homework time for everyone. On my second point on context: My favorite part of European History last year was a research project where I chose to look specifically at the politics in the role of the collapse of Weimar Germany. But, this project wouldn’t have been possible if I didn’t know the course of 20th century history in Europe. I think history research is like building a skyscraper. Without a foundation of how a certain historical event fits into the grand scheme of things, you can’t build up with nuance.  A:  To your point of not having enough time, I agree that at Deerfield we don’t necessarily have the time required for extremely nuanced history research. However, our history classes should be oriented to as much student research as possible to allow students to practice their thinking.  Back to the point of subjectivity in history, I think we should pursue a generally non-opinionated and disinclined class from the teacher, but a vibrant and thoughtful atmosphere amongst the students. The reason is simple: a subjective history course could very easily develop into a tool of propaganda. From personal experiences growing up and attending public schools in China, I know just how dangerous history classes could become. The textbooks are factually accurate by large, but the sheer emphasis on certain historical events and shunning on others turn the textbooks into effective machines of government propaganda. These textbooks also often fuel prejudices, nationalism, and ethnic hatred, so much that the textbooks had already incited multiple instances of ethnic-targeted violence. I am not saying our education system currently holds this issue, but this could become an unfortunate reality if we don’t shed our ill-suited frameworks.

“Isn’t the Scroll censored?” A rather spoken "unspoken" belief that I've heard aplenty during my three years at Deerfield: our school newspaper is a trustee mouthpiece under the thumb of the administration. And it's easy to think that way, especially now that the entire Scroll has fallen under the review of the Academic Affairs Office, following what I know from secondhand experience was the editorial nightmare but a linguistic masterpiece that was Oliver Browne's Op-Ed "On Palestine, or the Violence of Colonization." As a three-year Op-Ed writer for the Scroll, I feel at least a little qualified to comment on whether the Scroll is censored or not. "Censorship" is a touchy subject on its own, and since I'm rattling a hornet's nest, as boring and cliche as semantics are, I feel that it's necessary to define what I mean by censorship. While Oxford Languages defines censorship as "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, and news that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security," censorship of the Scroll disproportionately manifests as the suppression of "politically unacceptable" perspectives, as, importantly, determined by the administration. Reflecting on my three years writing for the Scroll Op-Ed page, I've reached the conclusion that I don't think the Scroll is censored—except under two very specific circumstances: self-censorship and the editorial board's fear of repercussions from administration. When I was in elementary school, my mother would often remind me to "think before you speak." It's a form of censorship everyone practices every day, and the same goes for writing a Scroll Op-Ed. Because my name is affixed to the articles I write, I'm ultimately tied to the arguments I advance and the beliefs I stake. Oftentimes, I hesitate whether I want the words I write to be read by the Deerfield community, or at least the faculty—it's a startling experience to say the least when Head of School John P. N. Austin approaches you in the dining hall to say he read your last article. This hesitation is a major part of what separates a Scroll Op-Ed from just a "hot take." As I write articles, I selectively self-censor my most extreme arguments or controversial beliefs out of fear of uncomfortable conversations that I would rather not have with less familiar peers or teachers—there's a boundary for the opinions I'm willing to share. This self-censorship is healthy. Particularly in journalism outside the Deerfield bubble, writers are held responsible for the beliefs they hold. I don't mean this as a pledge of support to cancel culture, but writing a Scroll Op-Ed means showing enough care about a subject as to be careful in the words you select. The Scroll is censored in the same way my second-grade self was censored by my mother, restricted to staying within the boundaries of an implicit social contract of "acceptability," defined by how much conviction you have to own up to your own words. The only time I've been explicitly censored in the Scroll was when I wasn't allowed to use the word "conservative" to describe Deerfield. While it's a separate but censored article on its own to assess whether Deerfield is conservative or not, I find it quite ironic that I can employ my arsenal of vocabulary provided by English Teacher Joel Thomas-Adams to call Dr. Austin's policy of Principled Neutrality "iconoclastic" and "luddite," but the editorial board prevents me from using an everyday, arguably uncharged, adjective to describe Deerfield. Even if it was just a singular, unimportant adjective in a singular article in three years of Op-Ed writing, I think the context and reason for censoring the word "conservative" was quite significant: the editorial board feared that the administration would look unfavorably upon my word choice. This instance highlights the ambiguity surrounding Scroll censorship, which fuels confusion and speculation among students. Because there aren't clear guidelines in the student handbook or any official Scroll policy that lays out what is and isn't acceptable for publication, the editorial board and self-censorship of writers assumes the place of explicit censorship boundaries. In longer reflection, yes. The Scroll is censored. Scroll writers censor themselves. Scroll editors guess the imaginary line that administrators and SLO draws to censor adjectives. But just because the Scroll is censored doesn't mean the publication exists just to make the school look good and that its published writing doesn't hold meaning. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism," and I think that quote, which I found in Mr. TA's classroom, translates to love for a school as well. I love Deerfield. It's a wonderful school where I'm amazed by the people that surround me everyday and the lessons I learn from the amazing people around me. But because I love Deerfield so much, I know painfully well that it's not perfect. Each time I criticize Deerfield, I write from a deep love for my school and home. The Scroll might be censored, but I ask the Deerfield community and Scroll writers to continue dissenting, pushing and defining the boundaries of censorship, fueled by love for the school we attend. RYAN BAI/DEERFIELD SCROLL

Only hours after President Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, Trump signed Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) Programs and Preferencing. For months prior to election day, Trump campaigned on routing diversity initiatives from the federal government, proclaiming in his inaugural address, "We will forge a society that is color blind and mer-it-based." According to the New York Times, Trump has already gone after D, E, and I initiatives and similar civil rights legislation, undoing a 60-year-old anti-discrimi-nation executive order enacted by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And while I share in Trump's sentiment to want a society that is "colorblind and merit-based, I would be foolish and naive to delude myself into believing that America is a meritocracy where the labor force is hierarchically ranked based on skill. Contrary to what Trump asserts, his policies attacking DEI won't forge a meritocracy. Instead, I believe the Trump administration's continuous assault on DEI initiatives will actually weaken the merit of the work-force, deepen racial and economic inequality, and even destroy American education itself. Firstly, what are DEI initiatives? In 2020, as a response to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in America, Civil Rights Activists sought to address the historical underrepresentation of certain marginalized groups in the labor force. DEl emerged as their framework to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially from minority groups that have been subject to discrimination based on identity. Diversity, Equi-ty, and Inclusion programs include harassment education, cultural awareness education, pronoun introductions, and more. Likewise, DEI initiatives seek to open equal opportunities to all groups of people. And because DEI increases the potential pool of applicants, it is actually conducive to helping businesses. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has reported a 21% increase in profit for companies in the top quarter of gender diversity in Minnesota and a 33% increase in profit for companies in the top quarter of racial and ethnic diversity in Minnesota. In short, because DEI initiatives seek to find qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds not usually given the opportunity, they are composed of the most skilled workers, increasing the meritocratic system in America. While Trump and his administration look to abolish federal DEI offices on the grounds of instilling a meritocracy, putting thousands out of jobs and affecting thousands of others, his actions have already proven his words to be hypocritical. In a January 21 executive order "Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation," Trump eliminated DEI hiring in the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration. On the same day, Trump fired the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Linda Fagan and the entire Aviation Security Advisory Commit-tee. On January 29, 67 people were killed during a collision between an American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter in the deadliest air disaster in over two decades. Seven more people died two days later in a medical plane crash, and two more crashes in February left another eleven dead. In the month that Trump has been in office, it is already apparent that his hatred for DEI is unfounded in that it leads to a less able workforce. Contrarily, PBS suggests that abolishing DEI can be a detriment to society and has already proven itself to lead to fatalities. Furthermore, not only is Trump's DEI policy dangerous, but so is his rhetoric. The Hill has reported that the Office of Personnel Management released a memo to all heads of departments and agen-cies, saying that they "are aware of efforts by some in government to disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language," and are directing employees to report these "obscure" connections to them. However, as Trump's administration did not specifically men-tion what DEl policies are, even merit-based companies can look like they include DEI policies so long as certain minorities are in positions of power. NBC has already reported workers talking about a culture of fear emerging as a result of Trump's directives in the federal government, the largest employ-er. Currently, Trump is fostering a workplace environment similar to the Red Scare in the 1940s and 50s. The Department of Government Efficiency (not an official government department) is asking all federal employees to hand in weekly reports to monitor their efficiency just like how federal employees were analyzed to determine whether they were sufficiently loyal to the government. Trump's DEI policies are pitting workers against workers and the more he continues on his path of destruction, the more fear and hysteria will only grow, eventually to the point of impeding government efficiency and even function. Similarly, even though Trump's policies only apply to government controlled departments and firms, many private companies are scaling back on their DEI efforts to not be targeted by Trump's administration. The Wall Street Journal has reported that J.P Morgan, Google, Pepsi, Chipotle, and more have all removed DEI friendly policies from their websites and canceled their DEI departments, attempting to curry favor with Trump to reap financial benefits. In a society plagued by racism and stereotypes, I fear that without DEI guardrails ensuring that qualified applicants of all backgrounds have equal opportunities to secure jobs, white-collared workers will eventually be representative of only one group, while manual laborers will be composed of a disproportionate amount of minority workers, perpetuating the wealth divide in America. At Deerfield Academy, a private institution, we pride ourselves on our diverse student body. On our website, we boast about how our alumni span from over 80+ countries, 44% of our student body are students of color, and even explicitly state that "Deerfield is dynamic, diverse, and delightful". We openly acknowledge that diversity within our student body is beneficial. It is quickly apparent that current DEI initiatives help breed a stronger generation of students, whose skills and intellect might fall should DEI be abolished. We should all care about what Trump is doing right now regarding DEI as it deeply affects us. In the classroom, diverse upbringings lead to a plethora of complex ideas. Intellectual, motivated peers drive us to achieve excellence in school, on the field, and beyond. Minority groups contribute so much on campus and beyond, that marginalizing and stereotyping certain groups as undeserving, underqualified, or a "DEI hire" is reductive of their capabilities.

We don't have a culture of respect at this school. Mmmmmm, the student body responds, proving our point. We don't think it is a hot take to say that our behavior during the Martin Luther King day school meeting was embarrassing. People were falling asleep, using their phones, and chatting nonstop. While we admit that Dr. Keisha Blaine's talk was more akin to a college lecture than a school meeting presentation, there is absolutely no excuse for our behavior. It demonstrates entitlement to believe that speakers must alter their presentations for the sole purpose of entertaining us. In addition, about a ⅓ of the upperclassmen didn't show up to the Q&A section after lunch—so much for acting with care, integrity and respect. Pay attention, and you'll notice this behavior everywhere. We yell names and whoop in concerts like we're at a rave when there are clear rules of conduct stressed to us be-forehand. We trash our dorms to prank our friends without thinking of repercussions on our hard working custodians. Yes, we know it sounds very paternalistic-be quiet, sit down, listen, don't cause trouble—but it's not wrong. No one cares about your SNL-worthy quip about someone on stage during school meeting. No one thinks it's cool that you can't respect basic hygiene standards in the dorm. Quite frankly, it's embarrassing for parents to send their child to a boarding school for 80 thousand dollars a year only for them to urinate down a stairwell. Our culture is a double-edged sword. We want people to feel comfortable enough that they treat Deerfield like a home. We smile at nicknames given by faculty members and get excited when they invite us to play with their pets and get to know them outside of the classroom. We laugh and joke with the people who work in Greer, and most of us ready our best quips for Jake and Kevin when we get to their windows. We treat our peers as siblings; together we microwave 1 a.m. popcorn and cringe as we are reprimanded for being late for curfew. The problem isn't our closeness. The problem is when we feel like this closeness exempts us from basic courtesy. As a community, we've slowly fallen into the belief that if something is humorous people have to let it slide, no matter how tasteless or ill-timed. We only consider our viewpoints when deciding whether to fart spray other rooms or act belligerently off campus. We've limited our decision-making to only consider the feelings of our tiny social circles. If a bike is stolen and no one checks the security cameras, does that action even constitute theft? We've decided it doesn't. In the dining hall, we constantly crowd the kitchens even after the staff told us to keep the way clear for carts and food countless times-be-cause the only thing that matters is our convenience, and if it isn't about us we shouldn't matter. We treat the people who keep this school running like they're invisible, we don't think about the messes they have to constantly clean up after us. We understand that the obsession with humor above all else is not just a Deerfield phenomenon. Browse X or Instagram for fifteen minutes and you're bound to see comedy that is overtly racist, misogynistic, or xenophobic, posted and reposted because our culture values a cheap laugh more than empathy. We've collectively decided that the means always justify the end, so long as the end is a killer punchline. This kind of behavior doesn't just go against Deerfield's student pledge, it goes against being a decent human being. Being considerate of the work that other people do to make your experience at Deerfield smooth shouldn't be an enforced rule, it should be something we just do. We shouldn't treat those who tell us to behave better as killjoys; we should pause, realize what we've done wrong, and course correct. You can prank your friends without disrupting the lives of your dorm mates or custodial staff (The Scroll Board would like to commend the Midnight Cheeser). You can zone out of school meeting without being blatantly disrespectful to those on stage. You can talk with your friends during lunch away from the kitchen entrance. Respect isn't hard, so as school, let's embrace it.

In June 2023, the Supreme Court found in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and  SFFA v. University of North Carolina  that educational institutions’ race-conscious affirmative action policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The rulings prohibited higher education institutions from discriminating against certain races and ethnicities through direct racial categorization in the admissions process. Two years after the ban on race-conscious affirmative action, the Deerfield community adapts to the resulting changes. The elimination of race-conscious affirmative action policies has already had immediate and noticeable effects on college admissions, including a downturn in minority group enrollment and an increase in Asian and white college acceptance rates. According to a 2024 study by The   New York Times , the percentage of Black students entering Amherst College dropped from 11 percent to 3 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of White students and Asian American students enrolling rose from 33 percent to 39 percent and 18 percent to 20 percent respectively. At M.I.T., the percentage of newly enrolled Black students dropped from 15 percent to 5 percent, while that of Asian American students rose from 40 percent to 47 percent. These trends show a decrease in admission rates for previously favored racial groups and an increase for racial groups that were previously disadvantaged under race-conscious affirmative action.  Despite the ruling, colleges are still striving to maintain diversity in their student bodies. “Colleges still value diverse populations…and [want] to find students from different walks of life and backgrounds to add to the diversity of the campus,” explained Dean of College Admissions Mark Spencer. Colleges retain the right to assess the impacts of racial factors on an applicant’s life. Mr. Spencer believes they do so with essay questions about “lived experiences.” These prompts invite students to discuss significant impacts in their lives, of which racial background could still play an important role in admissions decisions. When asked about his thoughts regarding the ruling, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid Chip Davis expressed similar ideas on how race and culture “inform how [students] think and what their values are.” Mr. Davis said racial and ethical factors are “underlying data.” He commented on how colleges  “can't take that variable and surface it and then use it as kind of a fulcrum to make any decisions.”  However, when asked if the ruling would dramatically alter the college admissions process, Mr. Spencer believed that colleges have been, and will continue to, “figure out the student’s story.” Even before the racial consideration was removed, an applicant’s essay and personal story played an integral part in the admissions process. Mr. Spencer described the responsibility of the Deerfield college advising team, stating, “It is part of our job to have relationships with colleges, understand what changes they're making, and understand how they are looking for things.” This process includes helping students discover their true identity and write their authentic story.  He emphasized that, ultimately, students should not approach their application by trying to “game the process” but rather by embracing what makes them stand out. “What stands out [is] you being authentic, right? What is your story? Who are you?” he asked. His words highlighted that, instead of focusing on their race’s impact, students should feel more encouraged to build their application around the depth of their own experiences and personal narratives.  The removal of race-conscious affirmative action means that colleges can no longer categorize students solely by their race. Instead, the admissions process has since worked towards putting more weight on personal essays and lived experience, allowing students to showcase their values, aspirations, and unique perspectives in ways that transcend racial categorization. Though diversity remains a priority for colleges, the emphasis is now on the individual’s story as opposed to the predetermined label of race. In this evolving landscape, students work to express who they truly are, shaping their own narratives in the admissions process.

Courtesy of Megan Hayes-Golding On February 15, 2025, the Deerfield Robotics Team placed first in the Battle of Lexington. This middle and high school robotics competition organized by the First Tech Challenge has been hosted at Lexington High School in Massachusetts since 2004. Deerfield’s robotics team placed first out of 27 competitors, marking its best result in the past few years. At Lexington, the team earned the highest score in the competition’s history and also qualified for the state championship. Preparation for the competition started in September. Deerfield Robotics Team Captain and Scroll Online Editor Kevin Yang ’25 talked about the difficulties the team faced in the preparation stage designing the robot. “It [the robot] could literally be any shape; we had to go through a lot of iterations to figure out what worked best,” he said. Yang explained the team needed to design and redesign the robot multiple times before creating their final product. In addition to working on the robot, the Deerfield Robotics team also attended various scrimmages in the Fall Term to get more used to the competitive atmosphere. First Tech Challenge competitions require two teams and their robots to work together in accomplishing a task. To succeed in the competition, the robot must not only complete the tasks it is assigned but also collaborate effectively with other teams. Additionally, Yang explained that the other strong contenders in the state really affect the result. “It [the final result] really depends on the robots we are working with and the robots we are competing against,” he said. When recalling his favorite part of the competition, Yang said, “It was great seeing all the team members work together.” The Deerfield robotics team is a small team of eight students, which makes each member and their cooperation especially valuable. “Program is really difficult,” Yang said. “It is dependent on students, the knowledge that they bring to the program.” Yang thinks that this victory bringing more visibility to the team might be a way to overcome this challenge. Science and Math Teacher and Robotics Coach Megan Hayes-Golding echoed his statements, “I am happy that this success has made the robotics team more visible. Robotics hasn’t been the most visible team in the past.” Yang also mentions reliability in their robot as a major contributing factor of the victory, saying “We are definitely not the flashiest robot, but that is all we can do while being reliable.” Mx. Hayes-Golding also comments on this by pointing out, “In the past we tried to do everything, now it’s more of a trade off for a more reliable robot.” She relates that this strategy of being more reliable rather than reaching too high is a valuable lesson that the team learned by saying, “In the future I hope we can remember this lesson, and I am excited for us to remember this lesson.”

Albert Yuk/Deerfield Scroll On February 23, speakers at the tenth annual TEDxDeerfield event took their ideas into flight around the theme of “The Butterfly Effect” in the Elizabeth Wachsman Concert Hall. The production spotlighted the messages and stories of eight Deerfield and external speakers. “I do believe in TEDx as an amplifier for voices,” Language Department Chair and TEDxDeerfield Organizer Dan Houston said. “It’s an opportunity to get a message out there.” Compared to past programs that took place at night, the 2025 TEDx event sized down the audience and ran during the daytime. Dr. Houston said, “Our decision to make it a more contained and manageable event...made the student [organizers’] workload manageable.” The decision also lightened the load on catering for the event. From promoting parental communication around disabilities to recalling a teenage daughter’s passing, many of this year’s presenters touched on awareness, advocacy, and emotionally challenging topics. Health Advocate Brigitte Cutshall, for example, drew on her experiences as a cancer survivor to expound on how humor empowers patients. She said, “I shared my experience with how—over 15 years of some crazy health issues—I’m still here, and that’s because of the small steps and being consistent.” Kate Doerge, the CEO and co-founder of Penny’s Flight Foundation, launched her nonprofit in honor of her daughter Penny to raise awareness for neurofibromatosis, a rare genetic disorder involving the development of tumors. “My topic was how to find your purpose and how to affect people’s lives in the most wonderful and surprising ways,” Doerge explained. “What we have done in launching Penny’s Flight Foundation has really been turning our pain of losing our daughter into purpose.” Doerge’s speech engaged with poignant and moving stories. She said, “I led with my heart...I had Penny with me. In planning it truly, I felt her with me. It resonated that a couple people in the audience were crying in rehearsal, so I knew that at least I was on the right path to delivering it.” In her speech titled “They CAN Handle the Truth: Why Children Should Know About Their Disability,” Reagan Warren ’27 explored her upbringing with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and the cause-and-effect of withholding information from children about their disabilities. Warren said, “My parents told me about my disability, and when I found out that that isn’t a common way to go about raising a child with a disability, I thought it was going to be really important to get my message out there.” This year’s organizing team—a committee made up of Avery Zakowich ’25, Hannah Horner ’25, Ellora Devitre ’26, Deerfield Production Services Technician Steven Dierks, and Dr. Houston—began preparations for the event in May of 2024 Dr. Houston commented on the smooth-running licensing and organizing process: “A lot of that had to do with Avery...she had a very clear vision for what she wanted to do, and she really got her act together and locked in early on.” In addition to advertising TEDxDeerfield and contracting Frontier Community Access Television to produce the event, the organizing team helped speakers edit their presentation drafts. “Dr. Houston...happens to be my hall resident, so I would stop by his office and just get tips on how I can improve,” Warren said. “And so it was just a continuous effort: read, revise, say it out loud, see what Doc [Dr. Houston] thinks, just make sure that I’m ready to go on Sunday.” Cutshall agreed, saying, “I had some good feedback from the tech people...I couldn’t have done it without the people doing the filming. And then beforehand, I got some good feedback on the speech from Avery.” The presenters resonated with the theme of “The Butterfly Effect” in different ways, with some external speakers travelling from other states to deliver their TED talk. “Deerfield had the Butterfly Effect [theme], and I thought it was really in line with my topic, which is about small changes,” Cutshall, who drove to Deerfield from Atlanta, explained. “People always talk about these massive changes. Well, that doesn’t help you in the long run. You have to stick with the smaller steps and the Butterfly Effect fits in with that.” Doerge acknowledged how her nonprofit deeply aligned with the TEDx theme, saying, “When a friend had sent me that the TEDx theme was the Butterfly Effect this year, we all knew it seemed to be a sign because our foundation is all about spreading your wings and shining your light, and this idea of the butterfly effect, and how the simplest act, such as the flap of a butterfly’s wing, can cause a revolution. And we are causing a revolution.” This year’s TEDx event was especially meaningful to Tene Ouedraogo ’25, who for the past two years, had helped set up microphones behind the scenes for the program. “I never thought there’d be a day that I would be on stage,” Ouedraogo explained. “But come my senior year...I recognized that this would be the last opportunity where I could partake in something as life changing as this. For me, TEDx talk is a bucket list item that not many people get to participate in.” Each speaker hoped to not only share their stories but also strike a chord with the audience. Kathryn Sparrow, who presented her speech “The Art of Strategic Quitting: Redefining Quitting as a Strategy for Success” said, “I really wanted to be able to suss out a topic that I thought had meaning for people more than just myself.” For Warren, that meaning came as a wakeup call to action. She said, “I really hope people take away the fact that—I actually said this in my speech—you cannot be a bystander in your child’s life. It’s really important to be able to nurture an environment where your child can grow up confident in themselves.” Many speakers, organizers, and audience members appreciated how TEDx could amplify storytelling. Associate Editor Chelsea Shen ’27, whose speech examined the effects of labelling personalities, said, “This was a great opportunity, a really rare chance, to get up in a professional setting, a recording place, to give my talk and have that impact on a wide range of people.” Doerge also valued the TEDx opportunity. She said, “TED is such an incredibly powerful platform. I’m so grateful for the opportunity to tell my story, and my hope is that people hear it and that they are inspired, and they, too, will do something that allows them to have a TED Talk.” Reflecting on the event’s success, Dr. Houston expressed his respect for the speakers who took the stage that weekend. He said, “I’m really proud of those who came out to do this...doing it just out of either a desire to spread a message or out of their love of connecting with people.”

During Long Winter Weekend, the Center for Service and Global Citizenship hosted their first two travel programs of the 2024-2025 academic year. One program traveled to Washington, D.C., where nine students and three faculty members explored the freedom of speech, religion, press, and protest in the Constitution and its contributions to contemporary life. Another program embarked to the Florida Everglades, where eleven students and two faculty members learned to acknowledge the value of conservation of nature and natural resources. History and Social Science Department Chair Brian Hamilton led the Washington, D.C. trip along with French Teacher Matthew Westman and Math Teacher John Dollhopf. Mr. Hamilton volunteered to lead the trip this year after having “had the pleasure of serving as an assistant last year when Dr. Friends led the trip.” He has always had a soft spot for Washington, D.C. since childhood, and as a current historian of the United States, he finds it “fascinating to see the way that the present and past intersect in the District.” With the support of the Trustees, the Washington D.C. trip was able to experience “an unbelievable set of opportunities that do not come along very often in people’s lives,” according to Mr. Hamilton. In addition to meeting U.S. Senator Andy Kim from New Jersey, students watched one of the oldest television shows, Meet the Press, talked to Kristin Welker of NBC News, and met with Brett Kavanaugh, the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Kavanaugh discussed the court’s history, landmark rulings, and what a day in the life of a justice looks like. He further elaborated on the importance of building trust in court, consistency, and decisions being listed as overruled. Lucia Kinder ’28 noticed the connection between the political and legal fields, and reflected on why judges cannot and are expected not to be partisan and politically affiliated. “Yet in the current political environment, people tend to associate them with the parties of their appointees,” she said. Kinder found it interesting to see how Justice Kavanaugh “actually didn’t speak that freely,” which reflected “his perspective around a judge’s need for neutrality.” Mr. Hamilton spent “an exciting time at Washington, D.C. with all the transformations underway with the new presidential administration.” As a “news junkie,” he said he appreciated getting to hear “different people in different positions in different institutions” around the city talk about what the changes underway meant for them. Setting aside “these once in a lifetime opportunities to meet these American luminaries,” Mr. Hamilton especially enjoyed getting “a chance to hang out with nine amazing students that very few of whom [he had] had the chance to speak with.” Dean of Ethical and Spiritual Life Jan Flaska led the Florida Everglades trip alongside Chemistry Teacher Cynthia Fidanza. Mr. Jan proposed the trip, having been to the Everglades twice with Deerfield students prior to this year as a CSGC travel program. Referring to it as “a place like no other,” Mr. Jan said, “The Everglades is basically a reference to never-ending grass and a slow moving river of grass.” Tommy Li ’28 recalled biking in the Everglades National Park. Despite getting his socks wet and being frightened by seeing alligators along the track, Li described this experience as “something he could not imagine back home.” Hailing from Beijing, China, Li had only been familiar with industrialized life—far away from nature—before travelling to the Everglades. Li said, “The Everglades is one of few places where nature is preserved in the modern day, and where creatures are thriving.” In addition to Li’s reference to the Everglades as a place “as pure in its natural form,” Mr. Jan added that there is always something new in the Everglades. “There is a bird you have never seen before. There is the biggest gator you have ever seen. There are tree trunks coming out of the water,” Mr. Jan said, “You don’t need a guide to see how remarkable the place is.” Adriana Enriquez ’28 described her favorite moment of the Everglades trip. When she was three-quarters into the 15-mile bike ride in the Everglades National Park, she “stopped and took a second to realize how vast this place really was.” Enriquez said, “It just stretched for miles and miles. It was beautiful.” Enriquez applied for the Everglades trip because she had never gone to a National Park before. “My family isn’t really into the outdoors, so I don’t think I would have had the chance to travel to a national park if it wasn’t for this trip,” Enriquez said. The Long Winter Weekend CSGC programs helped students to gain a deeper understanding of the world around them, continuing to provide them with a global perspective hard for them to see in their daily lives. Six CSGC programs will embark to Spain, the American South, Panama, Tanzania, the Bahamas, Berlin, Prague, and Krakow during spring break. Seven more CSGC programs will head to the Dominican Republic, Italy & Sicily, Mexico, China, Croatia, Balkan nations, South Korea, and the Connecticut River during summer break.

As winter goes by, the Academy continues renovating its dining hall. Started in the summer of 2024, the project aims to increase the size of the main dining area and kitchen while modernizing the space. So far, all of the project’s concrete has been poured, and the metal framing for the North and South bubbles has been put into place. Currently, construction crews are working on the roofing, replacing the ceiling, erecting walls, and installing the A/C. Window installations are slated to begin later this month. In its campaign surrounding the dining hall renovations, the Academy has presented it as a way to enhance and fully commit to its core tenants of inclusion and community by allowing all students to eat in the dining room during sit-down. As a campus hub, the dining hall will have additional amenities such as a print room. When describing what led to the decision to undertake the renovation project, Chief Financial Officer Matthew Sheehy noted, “We always had buffet lines pushing out into the dining space [and] tables moving out in the lobby, moving back in... there were just really inefficiencies in the operation.” Mr. Sheehy points out that the new renovations aim to combat those inefficiencies. New insulation, in addition to sets of triple-glazed windows, will reduce the loss of heat from inside, making the building more energy efficient. A solar array will also be added on the south slope of the hill. New, updated kitchen equipment will reduce the dining hall’s carbon footprint, as well as improving the overall cooking process. The addition of a grind energy system—when compost is ground into a liquid inside of the dining hall and transported to an anaerobic digester—will improve upon the previous solid composting process. Furthermore, a larger designated servery space will serve walk-through meals. As Mr. Sheehy noted, this will end the practice of dining hall buffet lines spilling out into the main dining hall and the ensuing constant movement of chairs and tables. The tables themselves will be new and 6 inches larger. They will be accompanied by new glasses, plates, trays, and silverware. As to the current versions being used in the dining hall, Mr. Sheehy said, “Our goal is to donate much of that to local organizations that can make use of it.” The renovated dining hall will also come with changes to the waiting process. With the renovated dining hall will come a transition from side tables to waiting carts, a change previously tested on a small scale in the old dining hall. Mr. Sheehy described, “[these carts] will allow a first waiter as an example to go and load up their cart and come to their table and set their table as opposed to back and forth, back and forth....Everybody can serve because it’s not about can you carry the weight of the tray or whatever else, and so we’re really excited about [that].” Construction is currently on track to finish in November, with the first meal anticipated to be served in January 2026, after which the temporary dining hall’s deconstruction will begin.

Deerfield’s Varsity Boys Hockey and Lacrosse Captain Lance Roberts ’25 has been commended by many coaches and teammates from both teams for his leadership and constant positivity. Dean of Ethical and Spiritual Life and Philosophy and Religion Teacher Jan Flaska has coached Roberts both on the lacrosse turf and in the hockey rink. As the assistant coach for both teams Mr. Jan has been able to observe Roberts’ leadership as a whole, not just on one team. Mr. Jan commented on Roberts’ personality, saying, “Lance is kind of a man of few words...He chooses his words wisely. I think he does not draw attention to himself, and I think he does his job.” He recalled how Roberts’ displays leadership both on and off the rink. “Leadership, actually, it’s action. It’s off the ice, it’s in the locker room, it’s in the classroom, it’s at sit down meals,” he said. “I think the players look up to him in a way; he puts points on the board, but I don’t think that’s why. I think it’s the other stuff that’s not necessarily on the ice, that’s what allows him to derive value and leadership qualities.” When asked about Roberts and his interactions with other players, Mr. Jan said, “Lance is certainly loved.” He further highlighted the fact that Roberts chose his locker in a position such that, instead of being next to many other returning seniors and upperclassmen, is next to newer members of the team. This locker choice has given him the opportunity to get closer to and get to know more of the younger players, helping create a closer team dynamic between all grades. Mr. Jan said about Roberts’, “He wants to reach out.” Roberts commented on how, as a leader, he relies on his other two captains, Justin Tavares ’25 and Ryan Diffley ’25. He said, “We have a strong leadership group.” Roberts also further highlighted that the hockey team’s successful performance thus far can be attributed to the multitude of seniors present on the team: “We have a lot of seniors this year ,and I think that leadership aspect has carried throughout the entire team...I think we’ve started off as a team really strong.” According to Roberts, another factor contributing to the hockey team’s success with eight wins and three losses, is their close-knit community. When asked about any special traditions the team may have, Roberts commented that the team has not done anything differently than they have in past years but “[is] a lot closer than [they]’ve ever been.” He attributed the team’s close bonds to many players living in nearby dorms, allowing them to hang out together outside of practice, team dinners, and staying in hotels together during preseason and tournaments. Roberst spoke to the team’s closeness, saying, “I feel like the hockey team is probably one of the closest teams I’ve ever been a part of.” On another note, Roberts will be taking on the role of captain for the lacrosse team in the spring. He credits his co-captains Tavares and Will Wright ’25 to organizing many lacrosse captains’ practices. The three hosted captains’ practices on Sundays during the fall, and during the winter organized conditioning training at least once a week on top of the weekly captains practice on Tuesday. As a result, while Roberts has mainly been participating in hockey this winter, he has also continued to be involved with the lacrosse team. After Deerfield, Roberts hopes to continue pursuing hockey by playing in the USA Junior Hockey Leagues (Juniors), a hockey league that high school students typically go to for one or two years after graduating to prepare for competition at a higher level (college or the National Hockey League). Roberts hopes to continue competing in hockey at the collegiate level.