Search this site

Expanding on previous years’ changes, Deerfield modified its cell phone policy to require students to leave their phones in their dorms throughout the day. The change builds on a series of prior changes to the Academy’s phone policy. Dean of Students Heather Brown described the change as creating a “phone-free campus.” According to the student handbook, students’ phones must remain in the dorms at all times, with the exceptions being off-campus travel and independent exercise. This extended on the previous policy, which required phones to be kept in the dorms from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. from Mondays through Fridays. According to the Head of School John Austin’s letter to families this summer, the change derived from Deerfield’s commitment to creating a “heads-up culture.” Dr. Austin wrote that even when phones are not actively being used, their presence can “divide attention, thin communal ties, and degrade the quality and depth” of students’ interactions with one another. The Academy has also conducted week-long trials in which students voluntarily gave up their phones entirely. Dr. Austin wrote that feedback from those students was “overwhelmingly positive,” with students reporting “more free time, more time with friends, enhanced focus, lower stress, and better sleep.” Based on the positive feedback, the Academy decided to extend the phone-free period beyond the academic day. Ms. Brown said the goal of the new policy is not simply to prevent phone usage, but to remove the decision students have to make about whether to use them in the first place. By keeping phones in dorm rooms, she explained that students experience fewer opportunities to use their phones throughout the day. In doing so, prioritizing “face-to-face interactions and shared experiences” becomes a subconscious choice for students. Assistant Head of School for Academic Affairs Brian Hamilton similarly connected the policy to Dr. Austin’s broader vision for Deerfield as a “pro-social” community, particularly during a “time when people are becoming more isolated.” He said Dr. Austin’s approach has been influenced by research on phones and social media, as well as concerns about the effect of constant scrolling on students’ ability to focus deeply. Mr. Hamilton added that phones can “shatter our attention,” and Deerfield has developed a shared commitment to help students interact more purposefully with the environment around them. The policy also reflects Deerfield’s leading position in moving to a phone-free campus among its peer schools. According to Ms. Brown, the policy evolved from collecting phones overnight to requiring students to keep them in their rooms. During conferences with deans of other schools, she said that Deerfield Administrators were asked about how the school has been able to successfully implement its phone policy. “I think Deerfield keeps pushing what is possible to expect of our students compared to our peer schools,” Ms. Brown said. Students have experienced both benefits and drawbacks from the change. Helen Yang ’28 said that she has become less reliant on her phone since the policy was implemented. Last year, she would often bring her phone with her even when she did not need it, “just in case.” Now, she leaves it in her room and has realized that she does not always need to have it with her. Other students have noticed more interaction in public spaces. Lucy Linnenbach ’27 said that “people are more responsive on campus. On the path, at all times now, especially in the Greer or public spaces on the weekends, no one is awkwardly on their phones.” At the same time, Linnenbach said that the policy has changed the social environment of dorms in a different way. Because dorm rooms are now one of the few places where students can use their phones, she said she feels “less connected to people in the dorms.” Yang has noticed a similar change in the atmosphere of campus, particularly on weekends. Although she has become less dependent on her own phone, she has also noticed “less movement on campus and less conversations happening during our free times,” adding that “especially on weekends you can notice how quiet it is.” The possibility that students could become less social is something the administration is monitoring. Mr. Hamilton explained it would be “foolish if we were to wade into a policy that ends up undoing the good work we’re doing here.” To oversee this potential drawback, the school is monitering student participation in activities, attendance, reports from faculty and other measures of student engagement. “We want to make this a very pro-social place where students learn how to interact with other people face to face,” Mr. Hamilton said. The administration is still considering whether phones alone are to blame for changing youth social lives. Mr. Hamilton emphasized the importance of “weigh[ing] the evidence” and continuing to evaluate the policy to make sure it’s “informed by the best thinking.” Neither Ms. Brown nor Mr. Hamilton anticipated major changes to the cell phone policy. Mr. Hamilton said there have been no discussions about making the optional phone lockers in upperclassmen dorms mandatory, and he would “be surprised about a rollback or accommodations” in the near future. Ms. Brown similarly said that the school needs to “learn how this year goes” before making further adjustments. As Deerfield continues to adapt to a campus without phones, the school will be watching whether the change produces the community it hopes to create. Six weeks into the school year, students are already noticing changes, but the longer-term effects of the policy remain to be seen.

TAYLOR HO/DEERFIELD SCROLL In September 1902, Frank Boyden took over as headmaster of a version of Deerfield with only 14 students from local farmers. Within the local community, he promoted the idea that every child should have an education, and he invited more surrounding farmers’ children to Deerfield. Over a century later, during the all-school meeting on September 30, 2026, Dean of Residential Life Lina Al Samawi and Associate Head of School for Student Life Amie Creagh introduced the plan for converting Deerfield into an all-boarding school. I, along with my peers, reacted with shock and skepticism. Deerfield, with more students, more resources and a larger endowment than ever before, seems to be closing the door Boyden opened to the local community. The best part of my residential life as a freshman was living in the same dorm complex with everyone else in my grade. It created more accidental interactions, built shared identity and lowered social barriers when friend groups were still forming. Ms. Creagh acknowledged that “having the [freshman] contained in one building is a wonderful concept.” However, to not “limit or constrain wonderful kids because there’s only X number of rooms in that building,” she added, the school needs to add John Louis to the freshman village. In my opinion, separating the freshmen into two separate buildings weakens the sense of shared identity and shared experience. Early in freshman year, students are more likely to become friends with people they repeatedly see; having two separated freshmen dorms not only reduces spontaneous encounters but also creates two social centers where students gather. I believe that by removing this common ground and creating geographical separation, the freshman classes in upcoming years will be more fragmented. There are consequences for day students as well as freshmen. Day students are already a minority and this transition will only put them under more social pressure. Director of Communications Jessica Day describes the transition as “rolling;” the school will convert to full boarding by simply not accepting any day students to the Class of 2031. This means that the existing day student population will gradually shrink over the next three years until there are no day students left. I believe that during the transition, day students will feel more conscious of their minority status because fewer and fewer students will share the day student identity. Additionally, unlike off-campus day students who will eventually be replaced by boarders after the completion of the rolling transition, faculty children will remain day students post-transition. Ben Soifer Hamelin ’29, whose mother works at Deerfield and lives off campus, said, “When I heard that all the faculty kids and employee kids were not [turning into boarders], that definitely hurt. And it’s kind of unfair to the faculty kids.” Faculty children will remain left out from the boarding experience with fewer students sharing the same status with them. This, according to Hamelin, “puts more social anxiety” on an even smaller number of students who do not have a choice. Most importantly, transforming into 100% boarding will lead to a town-gown relationship — a distinction and separation of local college town residents (“town”) and the students and administration of the academic institution (“gown”) — directly contradicting Mr. Boyden’s original intention. Sue Carlson, a 25-year Deerfield dorm residential head, teacher and counselor, emphasized that, “in my recent interactions with people in nearby communities, people expressed a feeling of being ‘let down.’” They questioned how going full boarding shifts Deerfield’s position and relationship with the local community. In the past, Deerfield has maintained a healthy relationship with the local community through donations, partnership and charity. However, eliminating day students will change the texture of the connection from relational to transactional. Day students create representation; the fact that the local residents have the opportunity to attend Deerfield while staying connected with the local community is important. According to Mrs. Carlson, the local community cares about “the feeling of being represented, impactful and valued by the institution.” Day students’ bridging role is unquantifiable, but merely having them makes the local community feel accessible rather than sealed off. Subsidizing the neighborhoods but cutting off their input will trigger and escalate the town-gown relationship. The Hotchkiss School, on the other hand, strategically maintains its 96% boarding school percentage without turning into 100% to keep a door open to the local community and families. Hotchkiss Dean of Student Life Andrew D’Ambrosio said, “That small percentage signals something about who we are: a boarding school with deep ties to its region, rather than one that simply happens to be located here.” He added, “We believe the residential experience is at the heart of a Hotchkiss education, and that it is strengthened, not diluted, by the presence of students whose lives extend beyond our campus.” Deerfield leadership has clearly communicated the benefits of becoming a 100% boarding school: “it makes sure everyone has a full Deerfield experience,” said Ms. Samawi. However, who defines what a “full Deerfield experience” looks like? Neither the school nor the students have the right to define a “full Deerfield experience” solely by themselves. For students still defining their “full Deerfield experience,” understanding that Deerfield is intertwined with the local communities is equally important as having an immersive residential experience. To me, not becoming exclusively boarding is a constant reminder of where we came from, who we are and what it means to be worthy of our heritage.

I took one of the above photos of a lakeside restaurant near Lake Eerie, and the other came out of Midjourney, an AI image generator. Can you tell which one’s which? Probably. We’ve become really good at telling what is AI and what is not. So good, in fact, that the school community instantly flagged Greg Lukianoff’s school meeting presentation as entirely AI-generated. From ancient philosophers to aliens gathered around a UFO, we saw, time and again, the same distinctive artistic style screaming, “This is AI slop!” in our faces. As the crowd hummed with whispers in response to his “slop slides,” a different question popped into my mind: How developed is AI image generation really? I refused to believe that Lukianoff’s glaringly AI-generated visuals were truly the final frontier. As it turns out, AI is getting really good. Even through cursory internet browsing, I’ve realized that these models are, in truth, much further along than I ever expected. They were nothing like the ones on Lukianoff’s slide deck. To give you an idea of what I mean, neither of the above images is real. Lukianoff’s presentation, though, is not problematic just because he used AI. The real issue is that his use of bad-quality images further desensitizes our community from the growth of AI image generation. Moreover, these images are becoming harder and harder to flag, as evidenced by a study from Microsoft AI for Good. Researchers found that participants’ ability to distinguish between AI and real was only slightly better than random chance. This statistic was worse when participants were given landscapes instead, where the success rate was as low as 21.5%. In my search for more of these photos online, I came across an article about AI art from Shalhevet High School’s newspaper, based out of Los Angeles, CA. In it, the writer includes artwork made by Midjourney, an AI image generator. Glancing through its visuals, my fingers stiffened on the trackpad. I was shocked: the art wasn’t just human-looking, it was moving. It elicited feelings of nostalgia and appreciation so profound that I had to snap myself back into reality, tell myself hey, this isn’t human made. But what does it matter what the person or thing behind this artwork wanted me to feel? That’s when it hit me. We’re past the point of being able to tell if art is human-made or not. While this does raise fundamentally disruptive questions on what art actually is, I think the biggest issue isn’t addressing these new questions, but rather getting more people to recognize that the ability of this technology simply isn’t what it used to be. I think we are most definitely at the point of AI being good enough to replicate realistic-looking images, and we’re certainly way past the point of our art being replicated. Despite the obvious philosophical complications that arise from this, I think it’s more important for us as a school community to focus on what this advancement actually means and what it looks like. It’d be impossible for us to consider the ramifications of a new technology if we don’t know the extent of its abilities. The audience’s reaction to Lukianoff’s presentation, therefore, does not make us a school that is thriving without AI, but rather one that is oblivious to what it’s capable of. The fact that most of my conversations with fellow students ended with jokes about how terrible the slides were should deeply concern us. By treating an emergent technology like a joke, we significantly diminish its implications, which are real and imminent. We cannot pretend for any longer that the growth of these influential technologies has halted, nor can we deny that we are barreling toward a future where we can’t control this scarily advanced technology. Of course, this is not to say that we should shortcut all things creative, elbowing past each other to crank out Midjourney photos and never have to think for ourselves again. My goal here is not to question the Deerfield mission of fostering intellectual curiosity, but to raise the point that we simply cannot be intellectually curious about the things we do not know about. The moral, even existential questions that new technologies raise can only be asked if we understand what they are capable of. So what does this mean for our community? It means that Lukianoff’s slide deck should have been flagged for its misrepresentation of AI’s abilities, which can have deep-seeded, albeit unseen impacts on an already-insular community. Lukianoff’s presentation, therefore, was a hidden disaster for the school community. While it might seem like our reaction is confirmation that AI is not taking jobs anytime soon, it’s just evidence that we as a school community are simply unaware of its terrifying new abilities. The more we cherrypick examples of AI slop to inform what we believe about these technologies’ capabilities, the more we will perpetuate an echo chamber of denial. To that end, let’s take Lukianoff’s presentation as a warning for just how sheltered we are from AI’s growth. Disruptive technology isn’t waiting for graduation to rear its ugly head. It’s already posing new existential issues. It’s already disrupting realms of human creativity thought to be untouchable by machines. How can Deerfield students hope to answer these dire questions if we graduate without even knowing what AI is capable of?

Let’s admit it — the study of linguistics is Eurocentric. For early grammarians — European of course — Latin and Greek were the standard for language study. Many languages, like Native American languages Quechua and Nahualt, were labeled “exotic” for being more linguistically complex than or having structures that varied from classical language rules. And the social implications are immense. Certain marginalized groups have been stripped of opportunities because the manner in which they speak is viewed as inferior. In a University of Buffalo profile on Professor Baker-Bell, she noted that the “fluid, informal speaking style of many Black Americans — currently known as African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) — is often actively dismissed by those in the fields of education, business and politics as being inferior to the more formal, rigid style that is used by those of European descent.” As a result, marginalized groups feel the obligation to present themselves a certain way in more professional settings, either to find belonging or to even be taken seriously. This phenomenon is known as “code switching.” In a study measuring the frequency in which people of color code switch, ninety-six percent of participants reported code switching over a two-week period. In my conversation with Anthony Ortega ’27, he explained how the way he talks has changed after arriving at Deerfield. He said, “I began using bigger words or focusing on articulating myself in a way that would make me look knowledgeable, and I think I did that because I was nervous or worried.” There is nothing wrong about adopting different speaking mannerisms, but what makes Ortega’s story — along with many others — scary is that he felt the need to conform to this “ideal” way of speaking as a means to fit into a certain environment, not because he had the innate desire to change. What Ortega described is more than a loss of personal tongue. How we speak is a reflection of our heritage and background, and diminishing that takes away an integral part of a voice. Standardization has already leaked into our education systems. Now, generations of students learn how to fit into linguistic molds. Deerfield Academy, despite being an international institution, mandates linguistic studies to revolve around a certain form of academic expression. However, Deerfield gives less attention to the social history behind those standards. In addition to that, we rarely explore how diverse linguistic practices can be. I believe that we cannot teach academic English without scrutinizing the reasons behind the linguistic structures we use today. I urge Deerfield students and teachers to pry on why certain forms of expression carry greater prestige and to understand that these current conventions of language are in no way neutral parameters. Although it’s difficult to counter the hundreds of years of preferential treatment towards European languages, the first step towards change is recognizing our bias. Linguistics doesn’t live in a textbook, and there are real social consequences that come from that partiality that we see around us.

Dear Reader, A few weeks ago, President Trump suspended journalist access to the White House for CNN, MS NOW and Politico. On social media, Trump posted that these news sources “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES.” In response, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC — the five networks that provided television coverage of the president — collectively suspended their television broadcasting of President Trump. The New York Times, The Washington Post and other outlets also followed suit in pausing the publication and distribution of photographs taken from the White House pool coverage. When President Trump held a South Lawn ribbon-cutting ceremony on September 21, no traditional news media covering the president were present to provide live feed; he was inaudible in his remarks that were livestreamed by the White House on Youtube. The three suspended outlets also sued the president and his administration. Journalism is often called the fourth (and unofficial) branch of the government for this reason. Its role, similar to the other three branches, provides checks and balances on the federal government, exposing corruption and questioning authorities when the formal checks fall apart. In a way, it is also the most influential branch of the government since it directly communicates with the public. The other branches are products of bureaucracy with power granted by what are more or less written contracts. Yes, we do attribute an inherent sanctity to the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence also tells us that it is the people’s rights to abolish the government when abuse occurs. And the people’s judgement of the government, to an unignorable extent, is shaped by the press. In fact, journalism and the press occupy such significance in every institution, including Deerfield. Here, we’re part of a unique institution in that information is conveyed through a central administration; our community is small enough that one person at a podium can broadcast news and ideas to everyone. But that does not mean journalism lacks a place in the Deerfield community. The Scroll, for one, offers an alternative perspective to the official administration through our mission to serve as a platform for student voices. We bring in a different voice that is so crucial in understanding what Deerfield is really about. That raises the question: is the Scroll qualified to take such a role? It is perhaps no secret to you that the Scroll is under censorship. Our journalism is merely neutral, not independent. We receive funding that is controlled by the Academy’s administration to cover costs in printing and other expenditures. I hear you: all impactful student newspapers seem to manage their own finances to support their editorial independence. Recently, The Cornell Daily Sun rose to fame because of their unwavering commitment to pursuing a series of fraternity rape allegations, which the Cornell administration had downplayed for years. Their risky and incredibly courageous act of publishing the names of the seven accused was only possible through their financial and editorial independence. Sophia Dasser, the Sun’s editor-in-chief, stated in her letter that it is the Sun’s duty to act as a watchdog for the school. Could the Scroll ever rise to such a responsibility if a similar case occurs on campus (I pray it never will)? I have thought long and hard about this question since first reading this story. If we remain as bystanders in face of such tragedy (if it were to ever occur on our campus), then what good is our journalism? We take our work seriously in the Scroll room —we do not simply publish grammatically accurate English essays. Our writers and editors undergo extensive training so that their articles represent well-reported journalism. Therefore, I would not relegate our work to anything beneath journalism. Yet due to complicated circumstances, we are also unable to achieve the same independence like the Sun has. But I believe that the least we could do is to take baby steps toward this ambition. For now, transparency is one such step. I want to be open about our censorship process. We currently function under a system where we share our articles with the Academic Affairs Office a few days prior to publication. This year, the Academic Affairs Office specifically flags any articles that contain factual inaccuracy or deviate from the section guidelines, in contrast to the more ambiguous process from past years. The current review process could result in further editing or complete removal of the article from publication, in rare cases. In addition, the Academic Affairs Office has full access to the Google Drive and Documents which we draft our articles in. As for section guidelines, we used to work closely with the school administration to establish guidelines on instances which specific articles triggered strong administrative backlash. However, we are able to draft our own guidelines with no administrative oversight this year. This is the best we can do for now. We in the Scroll room are incredibly proud of our journalism, and we will do the best we can to uphold its high standards. There are limits that our publication functions under, but we will work to be as transparent as we can under the Scroll CI Board. So please read on and send a letter to yli27@deerfield.edu if you have any thoughts. Yours in truth, Andrew Li

To film the promotional video for Deerfield’s 2026 Be Worthy Campaign, a prop team recreated a mock-’80s common room set-up inside Harold Smith, propping up antique wooden skis and lacrosse sticks as decoration, rolling out colorful rugs and draping knit blankets on the gray common room couch — anything that might call to a nostalgic alum. This campaign tells the story of honored heritage, tightly knit community and a common Deerfield identity — of memories made by the river, alongside MSB bell chimes, at sit-down meals, consisting of places, artifacts and traditions. And indeed, those memories and sentiments persevered and worked their magic. As of today, Deerfield has raised over $300 million out of their $500 million Be Worthy campaign goal, increasing funding towards financial aid, faculty development and faculty welfare — thanks to the parents, alumni and other donors who felt deeply connected to this Big Green narrative. Financed through endowments and commercial revenue, a prep school like Deerfield needs to constantly present itself to parents, alumni, donors, visitors and prospective students. I reason that this creates an incentive for legibility — a recognizable, consistent brand that appeals to an audience. Naturally, Deerfield shifts its policy and administration in creating such coherency. What screams more “Deerfield” than boys and girls going to classes in blouses, khakis and blazers? Well, dear prospective families and alumni, be prepared to see blouses, khakis and blazers in winter term too. The iconic Main School Building, face of Deerfield — let’s spend millions of dollars to make it shinier. Deerfield values a tight-knit community — let us create an airtight 100% boarding Deerfield bubble. That number itself proves that we are indeed tight-knit. We honor a traditional education more than any other boarding school — let us implement absolute restrictions on technology use and AI. Yet I worry that these changes are moving us toward worse. I believe that Deerfield is gradually prioritizing image and superficial branding over practical change. These recent institutional shifts are formalistic, and they diverge from the core teaching principles Deerfield promises. The exteriors of Deerfield are truly glamorous, yet the insides are slowly emptying out. Seeing 100% heads up walking down Albany Road may impress the passerby, yet phone addiction inside the dorm room worsens, as previous Scroll op-eds have covered. Unless those passerbies read the Scroll, they of course wouldn’t know that over 30 teachers left the school last year, double the faculty turnover rate from previous years — a sad reality that Deerfield largely left out in their public statements. The school puts forth a day student policy advertised to bring the community closer, yet only locals and students know how discouraging this is for day students to enroll. It seems that Deerfield is in dire need of affirming donors that their investments did not go to waste. Deerfield then takes on a rather materialistic way of operation, prioritizing visible improvements and passing policies that paint a curated Deerfield image. The things that communicate institutional identity most visibly do not necessarily best determine whether this institution is functioning well. Deerfield is becoming better at displaying what the administrators believe a good school would look like, yet building a school aimed towards genuine betterment of their students would require more scrutiny. Worse still, the school seems uncaring about this genuinity, for student input is not valued in policy changes. It seems intuitive that a school exists for students. Not for its logo, its traditions, its campaign, not even for its reputation — those things should support the school, but cannot be its final purpose. Deerfield is treating identity as an end rather than a means, operating the school only in a way that enforces its identity. I believe that the identity Deerfield chases should be a natural consequence of the education it provides first. This is not a critique on identity and tradition. Far from it; Deerfield’s tradition creates belonging, community and continuity — the Scroll ran on tradition and unified identity for over a hundred years. I acknowledge that an identity that runs through generations, or tradition, has made Deerfield what it is. However, I strongly urge the administration to recognize the distinction between preserving values behind traditions and performing tradition for the sake of appeal. I, among many students, also raise concerns on a prescriptive, top-down institutional identity and its effect on individual identity. Institutions inevitably shape people, yet are students given enough room to guide the institution in return? What does it truly mean to be a Deerfield student? Before the flag ceremony, Ms. Samawi emphasized the importance of a diversely identified student body, stating that there is not only one way a DA student can manifest. Right now, the school is shrinking its definition of a Deerfield student while receiving no student input, and students are given more and more this template by the school of what a Deerfield student looks like and behaves like. Students will become simply recipients of a predefined culture — formalized themselves — and they will lose the ability to make judgments, question and shape communities.

SENIORS Wild West End — Dire Straits Recommended by Thijs Wittink Rein Me In — Olivia Dean & Sam Fender Recommended by Minjoo Serhant JUNIORS Chicken Fried — Zac Brown Band Recommended by Max Fukudome Day & Night — Tonique & Man Recommended by Heidi Liang SOPHOMORES Drugs from Amsterdam — Mau P Recommended by Keshav Katkar Great Divide — Noah Kahan Recommended by Athena Grabowski FRESHMEN Restless Mind — Sam Barber Recommended by Will Ott Different Worlds — Alan Walker Recommended by Athena Luo

On Friday, September 22, members of the Deerfield music faculty performed in the Academy’s first faculty concert. It was the first time many of the music faculty have been able to showcase their artistic talent and collaborate professionally with each other since the COVID-19 pandemic. The concert highlighted nine faculty members: Piano Studio Director Yu-Mei Wei, Music Program Coordinator Sarah Swersey, Vocal Instructor Caitlin Felsman Pfitzer, Director of Music Thomas Bergeron, Woodwinds Instructor Bruce Krasin, Guitar Instructor Peter Trias, Jazz Piano Instructor Stephen Page, Bass Instructor Jamie MacDonald, and Percussions Instructor Gary Rzab. Mr. Bergeron, who helped organize the concert, recognized that his colleagues possess incredible musical talents, but had never had the opportunity to share them with the broader school community. He started the concert for faculty collaboration and learning and for students to see their instructors perform. The concert began with Ms. Swersey and Ms. Wei’s performance of contemporary composer Eric Ewazen’s Sonata No.1 for Flute and Piano. Ms. Swersey described the first movement as a “swirling Allegro, tuneful and exciting,” with an uplifting piano accompaniment, with the second movement “exploring a delicate and beautiful sound of the flute,” and the third movement ending with an “exhilarating yet playful motive.” Despite the piece being a duet, both performers practiced alone all summer, having received the music at the end of the 2022-2023 school year. Since the beginning of the fall term, they have rehearsed rigorously two to three times every week. Regarding the selection process behind their performance, Ms. Swersey shared that she chose the repertoire because of her past mentor, composer Eric Ewazen, who was her ear training instructor at the Juilliard Pre-College Program. Ms. Wei expressed her appreciation for the selected pieces in that she learned three new sets of not widely played repertoire, which are different from most pieces in her traditional songs. Due to the lack of recordings online, Ms. Swersey said they are “planning to make [their] own recording and publish it on YouTube.” The subsequent performance by Ms. Felsman featured a set of eight unpublished Portuguese songs by Antonio Fragoso, three Spanish songs by José María Vitier, and a French song, Pourquoi, by Olivier Messiaen with the Jazz ensemble. Although, traditionally, classical songs are in Italian, French, or German, she unconventionally chose to sing in Spanish and Portuguese. She said she was “interested in song cycles that do not get performed as often but have really interesting melodies and harmonies.” The search landed her on a set of eight unpublished Portuguese songs by Antonio Fragoso that are less well known due to his early passing. The concert’s closing number showcased the jazz ensemble: Mr. Bergeron on trumpet, Mr. Krasin on woodwinds, Mr. Trias on guitar, Mr. MacDonald on the double bass, and Mr. Rzab on percussion. The set consisted of five jazz pieces, two of which Mr. Bergeron arranged. The second song, Strasbourg / St. Denis, featured solos by Mr. Bergeron and Mr. MacDonald. Music students and audience members alike enjoyed the performance, as noted by Andy Chen ‘25, a piano student of Ms. Wei’s, who highlighted his admiration for her skill and ability to prepare numerous pieces within a short time. Chen said, “Ms. Wei is so much busier than any of us here, yet she can play so many pieces. She has definitely inspired me to work harder.” Not only have the instructors impacted students, but they also gained more experience by collaborating professionally with each other. Referring to her fellow faculty members, Ms. Wei said, “I learned a lot from them, including how to prepare for performances and more about their personalities through playing together.” Although many of the faculty members were friends, they had previously not had the opportunity to play together, and the faculty concert offered them a chance to perform together and teach one another their technique and artistry. For example, Ms. Felsman noted that working with Ms. Wei gave her “new ideas about how the piano works with the voice” and developed more in the song where poetry changes in harmony. The historical premiere faculty concert at Deerfield is the first but not the last. Mr. Trias expressed hope for more faculty concerts, saying, “this is only a taste of what it’s like to be put on. When we do it again next year, it’ll be even better.”

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

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

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

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