Head of School Dr. John Austin has a long connection with the concept of institutional impartiality, first calling it principled neutrality then disciplined nonpartisanship in A Framework for Schools. Published in May 2024 and authored by Dr. Austin, A Framework for Schools is a much cited pedagogical work outlining ambitious objectives for independent schools to build a culture of student autonomy and self determination. However, disiplined nonpartisanship is seldom implemented effectively in practice.
For example, the school failed to address influential partisan speech and stance taking by school leaders. Dr. Austin has repeatedly stated in the book that schools are not spaces for political activism or advocacy, but are “places of inquiry and exploration.” A Framework for Schools called for two main ways to accomplish this mission: stance-taking by school leaders and stance-taking by faculty. School leaders are expected to maintain silence on heated current issues and uphold the school’s core values while faculty are expected to remain impartial due to their disproportionate power over students. However, the framework missed out stance-taking by invited speakers and other inherently biased sources brought to student attention.
Take the example of the visit and speech of United States Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget A. Brink during spring term last year. The ambassador was invited by the school administrative body, which presumably includes the Student Life Office, the Academics Affairs Office, and very likely Dr. Austin himself, to give a speech spanning an entire school meeting about her work and advocacy for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian war. The speech was deeply political and advocacy-centered, appealing to a young audience which probably already has a pre-understanding of Russian turpitude in the war. She even went into gross simplifications of the war, comparing the conflict to Star Wars and identifying a clear protagonist and an all-evil antagonist. Although there exists a general consensus regarding the conflict in Ukraine within this country, it is nevertheless disagreeable to label moral terms onto the sides of the conflict. As with all wars, there are no simple, justified sides.
Ambassador Brink’s visit defeated the purpose of disciplined nonpartisanship. The ambassador’s speech only reinforced a widely-accepted opinion into the minds of “younger students more susceptible to adult influence,” to quote the framework. For many, this could tilt their opinions of the war to axiomatic truths that they will dogmatically accept. One might say that as the ambassador, Brink’s job was to advocate for Ukraine. In that case, the school has contradicted their framework by inviting her to make a speech to the student body in the first place. Worse still, the school administration failed to address this catastrophe by offering simply silence. To maintain the alleged “disciplined nonpartisanship” the school administration should have made a public apology or invited a pro-Russia speaker to represent both sides fairly. Without either, we have neither discipline nor nonpartisanship.
A lesson should be taken from the “24 for ‘24” event thus far. Whenever a politically inclined guest is asked to broadcast opinions, a counterpart from other side of the partisan divide must be invited to do the same. To allow an unbalanced partisan argument to reach students is no different than a form of active interpretation by the school. An underlying argument which the framework contended is that no interpretations should be disseminated from school leaders and administration. Therefore, events similar to Ambassador Brink’s visit are breeches to the integrity of disciplined nonpartisanship at Deerfield.
On the other hand, systematic stance-taking by faculty is equally undesirable. The framework proclaims that there is an imbalance of power between faculty and students, and that teachers should refrain from extraneous stance taking in classrooms and structured classes ridden with political and partisan tilt. This part of the framework could not be said to be exactly in current practice.
To visualize what would happen in actual practice, a European History class could be called Eurocentric for devoting much attention to a more limited scope of history than an Asian history course. Furthermore, the current Honors European History class could be said to be overly German-centric with it barely discussing Scandinavian or Balkan history. If we take the framework for its words, all curricula have to be rewritten to eliminate bias. Contrary to the ideal assump-
tions of the framework, disciplined nonpartisanship on behalf of the faculty will infringe upon academic freedom, as these two ideas do overlap in practice.
The result of all this is a form of academic McCarthyism. The fear of bias will drive excessive caution and ultimately an unwillingness for teachers to discuss controversies. The potential negative side effects will compromise expressive freedom and intellectual diversity, the other pillars of the framework. Instead of strict constraints, it would be much more productive for the
framework to construct a better versed system encouraging student disagreement with teachers and empowering the students, as the framework puts it, to “[prepare] students for the freedom, rights, and responsibilities they will enjoy as adults.” In the real world, there will always be partisan opinions, even from those who have the most authority or influence, and it is more pragmatic to train students with an aptitude to think and respond critically to these moments.
Disciplined nonpartisanship, as argued by Dr. Austin in A Framework for Schools, has failed in its translation into actual practices at Deerfield. The stronger argument of the two, on stance taking by school leaders, yielded to bad implementations, while the worse argument, on stance taking by faculty, never saw its words fully realized. Aiming around a desirable, truly disciplined nonpartisanship doesn’t create impartiality. Rather, functional impartiality stems from good discretion that moderates between draconian rules and no discipline.