Finn Broder:
“I believe there are only two genders.” That’s a sentiment you’ll never hear around campus. Yet, it’s unlikely that few students share this view, as 60% of Americans believe that one’s gender is determined by one’s birth sex, according to a May 2022 study by the Pew Research Center. Deerfield rightfully boasts about its ability to pull students from across the United States and around the globe. Why is it, then, that expressing a nationwide majority view is considered socially taboo here?
Besides social pressure, there is also institutional bias. When I took the ninth-grade health class, there was one day where we learned about the difference between the social construct of gender and biological sex, the importance of respecting preferred pronouns, and the notion of gender as a spectrum. Why does the curriculum teach gender according to a left-wing viewpoint instead of acknowledging all sides to this issue?
Gender and sex matters never used to consume the attention of policymakers, but times have changed. The same study by the Pew Research Center found that 37% of Democrats support a mandate for transgender athletes to compete only on athletic teams that align with their birth sex, whereas 85% of Republicans support the same requirement. Many Democrats argue that Republicans violate the rights of marginalized groups, but nearly all Republicans dispute this claim. Such a sharp discrepancy makes this point of contention a legitimate, political one. On similar political issues, Deerfield Academy should retain a neutral institutional stance. Even if this is the current aim of the Academy, I do not believe our school’s culture supports this aspiration.
Deerfield’s website makes clear that the institution would unequivocally promote the free exchange of ideas on campus to arrive at a mutual understanding, even if individuals still disagree. The website states, “Deerfield encourages each student to develop an inquisitive and creative mind.” How are students supposed to pursue this noble goal if our health instructors simply reiterate the opinions of select medical associations and activist groups, creating an uncomfortable environment for students who oppose that ideology? By teaching the one-sided narrative that gender and sex are independent and urging timid ninth-graders to use preferred pronouns that may contradict their beliefs about gender, Deerfield’s health curriculum has markedly chosen a side to this political issue. I am not arguing Deerfield teachers should avoid teaching controversial topics. There is a difference between teaching one viewpoint as correct and opening up the classroom for constructive dialogue. The latter means establishing an environment where no one is terrified of offending those who can’t handle listening to opposing stances.
In non-classroom settings at Deerfield, it is a silent truth that right-leaning students like me will face social ramifications, especially if they are vocally conservative on social issues such as gender and abortion. While I appreciate the high stakes of these issues—which have political and moral ramifications—exaggerated sensitivity is counterproductive and unsustainable. (To be clear, conservatives are surely not immune to oversensitivity either.)
Unfortunately, it seems that Deerfield has already decided to prioritize keeping students in their comfort zones over real-world learning and asking questions. A common response to my stance on free speech is that institutions must suppress socially conservative ideologies to protect the identities of marginalized groups. However, I strongly oppose this attempt at sensitive language because it points to a larger issue of Deerfield abandoning its commitment to preparing students for “a rapidly changing world,” in which there will not always be trigger warnings and guardrails in place to protect feelings. The reality is that right-leaning individuals and values aren’t going to just go away. If Deerfield wants to shield a minority of the student body from engaging in productive dialogue, Deerfield is only doing a disservice to those groups.
In our recent Climate Survey, an intriguing question was posed to community members: Do we believe more strongly in the free exchange of ideas or protecting people from opinions they might find offensive? I can only hope that our school’s feedback will send a resounding message to those in charge: Deerfield must remain politically neutral while teaching students how to learn openly from their peers. It will fail in its mission if students’ views only align with the academic departments’ politicized curriculum. More importantly, Deerfield’s future requires a culture shift in which cancel culture and trigger warnings are abandoned in favor of open-mindedness and personal and collective growth.
Isaiah Ruffin:
The moment I was accepted to Deerfield, I felt overflowing excitement bubbling inside of me. I imagined what life would like at such a preeminent institution. I dreamed of students respecting one another, students unashamedly sharing their thoughts and opinions, students throwing themselves wholeheartedly into their work, and students who prioritized altruism and interpersonal relationships. But many of these qualities I dreamed of proved to be just that: dreams.
During my first term, I interacted with others in a way that relied on these assumptions. I spoke about my beliefs freely, while listening intently to the perspectives of others. As I acclimated to the school community over the first few weeks, it seemed as though my dreams were realized; conversations I had in and out of classes implied that socially liberal beliefs maintained some precedence here, but I still felt at ease when communicating some of my socially conservative opinions.
Yet, after continually sharing these perspectives, I found that my social standing was changing. The once constructive discussions I had outside class surrounding political, social, cultural or economic issues turned into heated and unproductive shouting matches when debating beliefs. My peers would deride me as I shared my sentiments, dubbing me racist, homophobic, or bigoted. People began to ignore me when I said hello, accost me about my beliefs, and even place pride flag stickers on my clothing. I tried to tell others that my social opinions were firmly rooted in my religious faith and that I still wished to be amicable with everyone despite our differing beliefs. However, despite my efforts at reconciliation, such conduct persisted. There were nights when I lay in bed sobbing, asking myself how people could so aggressively reject me and my faith. The harassment only stopped when I got faculty involved, but their refusal to engage in civil discourse has continued.
One of the goals of the Academy, as described by Dr. Austin in his October 2021 Action Plan Progress Report, is to “intentionally support a learning culture that honors the disparate beliefs of a diverse and dynamic student body drawn from across the United States and around the globe.” I see no support for the cultivation of this learning culture, and, contrary to Dr. Austin’s statement in the Progress Report, it seems there are few steps taken to demonstrate the Academy’s “commitment to free and open expression, including ideas and opinions that some may consider disagreeable, unwelcome or unpopular.”