(Originally posted November 20)
On Thursday, November 16th, Fieldston’s annual Modified Awareness Day was intended to center around the Afro-futurist novel Children of Blood and Bone by New York Times bestselling author Tomi Adeyemi. Instead, student recollections of the day are defined by a controversial comment Adeyemi made in her assembly presentation – a comment concerning the Israel-Hamas War.
As she explored the themes of her book, Adeyemi offered the audience context about what inspired it. Specifically, she focused on police brutality towards Black Americans and expressed that writing functions as a tool for commentary on contemporary sociopolitical issues. “Over the last few weeks alone, so many of us have been glued to our screens as we watch families get destroyed, children die, and parents grieve in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Adeyemi said, near the end of her speech. “In 2016, using my voice and taking action meant writing this novel. Today, using my voice and taking action means calling for a ceasefire and dialing up my representatives to ask them to stop this bloodshed. Because these children aren’t dying in the Hunger Games, they’re dying in the brutal reality of this world.” The remark was met with audible cheers and applause from some members of the audience. Others promptly exited the auditorium.
After announcements, Upper School Principal Stacey Bobo made a brief statement, acknowledging that “sometimes when we have speakers come up and share perspectives, that it doesn’t always land on everyone comfortably.” Although student and faculty-led MAD workshops at the upper school proceeded as planned, Adeyemi’s middle school literary lunch, scheduled for 11:45-12:45 in the Tate Library, was canceled. According to multiple community members who attended the Assembly After Dark, Adeyemi delivered an identical presentation on Wednesday night (November 15th), yet it did not ignite the same audience responses.
Since October 7th, Fieldston has shied away from discussing the Israel-Hamas war in classrooms. Inevitably, Adeyemi’s comments exposed underlying tensions which had been relatively contained for weeks. So, here’s what everyone wants to know: how did students react to the assembly, and how should we talk about it?
One contingent of students felt hurt after the speaker’s comment. “I didn’t walk out because she said, ‘ceasefire,’” says one student. “The reason I was so upset and affected by it was hearing the entire student body clap – and the fact that we were silenced. We weren’t allowed to talk about the Israeli-Hamas war for the past 43 days, and the first thing that was addressed to the school regarding it was someone coming in and saying ‘ceasefire.’” Nate Schmelkin (Form V) similarly took more issue with the school’s response than the speaker’s comment itself, and felt that a “one-sided story” had been presented to the student body. “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion,” he says. “But I do believe, given the school’s position on the situation, it was a real lapse in vetting the speaker and complete failure on the school’s part to not make sure that a speaker talking about social justice did not bring up the issue that was being shielded from the students.”
Conversely, some were notably glad that Adeyemi had voiced her opinion. “When I heard people clapping and showing their support, I was like, ‘Okay, I definitely have to,’” says one student who joined in. “The looks on people’s faces next to me and around me, once I started, were absolutely disgusting. Just for clapping.” Another student describes being “on the edge of their seat” as soon as Adeyemi mentioned Israel and Palestine. “Then she said ‘ceasefire,’ and I was like, ‘Oh my god, I love this woman.’”
Others felt relatively neutral about Adeyemi’s statement in regard to its reflection of community beliefs. “I understood that she was using her space, and this platform, to share her stance,” says Rachel Stulman (Form V). “I think what was more startling to me was the student responses of cheering and clapping. I personally wasn’t harmed or offended by her comment, but I quickly learned that others in my community were.”
Judah Goren (Form V) was also surprised by the intensity of his peers’ reactions. He adds, “It’s important to realize that her speech was probably an hour, and five seconds of it were devoted to that. It would do a disservice to her to ignore most of her speech that was not related to this.”
Several of these students assert that student reactions would have been less extreme if the administration had altered its initial response. “If the school was speaking about it before, I definitely wouldn’t have walked out on the speaker,” says Schmelkin. “I would have stayed and heard what she had to say and tried to understand why she believes a view that’s so very different from mine.” Another student suggests that an email sent to parents by Head of School Joe Algrant could have been read aloud at an assembly, future communications might have included sources to provide baseline information about the war and a “day of programming” about the issue could have been scheduled.
The email referred to was one in a series released by the school as the war developed. On Sunday, October 8th, Mr. Algrant emailed families to acknowledge the heartbreak felt throughout the community. Two days later, he sent a “follow up” regarding the terrorist attacks in Israel,” which included a summary detailing how students would be supported in school the following day. Regarding the upper school, it said, “Students will meet by Form tomorrow morning where we will talk more specifically about the ways they can process with adults and each other. Students can expect opportunities for affinity group gatherings and structured and individual processing spaces.” A third email was sent on November 2nd about the school’s plan moving forward, which includes “a review of our curriculum; antisemitism and Islamophobia education for students, faculty, and staff; the formation of an advisory committee to guide us on religious and cultural diversity at ECFS; training on constructive dialogues; and a student leadership council to address the needs of our student affinity groups.”
These emails, Goren contends, are proof that the speaker was not the school’s first communication on the issue and, therefore, indicate that their invitation of the speaker was not an endorsement of her beliefs. “The school sent an email right after October 7th, as they should have,” he says. “They’ve opened up several spaces as vigils. They allowed a letter-writing campaign to IDF soldiers, something that has not been entirely popular among a lot of people that I’ve talked to.” Furthermore, he expresses that talking about the issue wouldn’t have necessarily shifted student perspectives. “If a speaker had gone up there and voiced a different opinion – that they had agreed with more – we would not be having this conversation right now.”
Regardless of how they received Adeyemi’s comment, many students agree that the administration’s response has not been sufficient. The central critique is two-fold: first, a lack of in-school discussion foments further division, and second, damages students’ ability to tackle diverse opinions in general. “The less we talk about it, the more polarized this issue becomes,” says Abby Friedman (Form VI). “Fieldston talks about sitting in discomfort. We have to find a way to speak about this or it’ll just become more uncomfortable. That’s the truth.”
Vera Koontz (Form V) specifically cites a failure to provide safe spaces for all students to deliberate on the issue. “The space that is extended for the Jewish affinity group (I have no issue with that) needs to be extended for other students as well,” Koontz says. Another student says, “If they were to let us speak about it, it should be a balance of welcoming and including safe spaces for both sides of the story to talk about it – and not just one, because that’s kind of what it feels like right now.”
Almost all students strongly concur that the avoidance of the issue is not in alignment with the values that the institution claims to espouse. Genevieve Paul (Form VI), who has attended Fieldston since pre-K, sees Fieldston “as a school that works to discuss difficult issues and works to be on the forefront of them.” She says, “My best moments of learning at Fieldston have been when we’ve talked through those hard issues. That is part of why I love this school and why my family loves the school.”
“A lot of words come to mind when I think of Fieldston and Fieldston’s response to injustice in the world,” says another student. “‘Silent’ has never been one of those words, and it was never a word I expected to associate with Fieldston.” They consider it important to reflect on the history of the school as well. “It was founded by Felix Adler, who was the son of the rabbi, and he founded these values on similar values to those seen in the Talmud and in Jewish texts. So, I think Fieldston values are Jewish values.”
Another student said, “We ask students all the time to have difficult conversations that relate to their own trauma and trauma within their communities. This is not an instance where we’re doing that.”
Individuals may approach the mission of the school distinctly, Koontz points out. “I think people come to the school with different ideas of what the values of the school are – for me, the values of the school are progressive education and the ability to speak your mind,” says Koontz. From her perspective, “There are some who think coming here means everyone will have to think the same way and believe the same things as them.”
Goren makes a similar comment about whether public figures who advocate potentially contentious viewpoints ought to be invited to speak. “Anyone speaking is going to say something that someone disagrees with, so in my opinion, as long as it’s not directly hurtful or hateful, then there’s no other option,” he says. “Unless you’re going to turn Fieldston into a censored community. We’re in a position right now where we have to think about what we really want as a community.”
Having conversations about the Israel-Palestine conflict is easier said than done. Few are certain about exactly what they’d look like, and disagree about whether they should be held within the classroom. Both Stulman and Paul emphasize that participation should not be mandatory, and others question how greater dynamics among the collective might affect our ability to host discussions.
A powerful sentiment of fear permeates public expression of opinion – owing perhaps to an erosion of trust within the community. “I know that at the end of all of this, what I’m going to remember is what I believed in the moment and not what other people thought of me,” says Koontz. “I don’t feel safe at all, but at the same time, I can’t think any other way about this.”
Moving forward, the one, urgent objective that all students can agree upon is increased opportunity to learn the facts of the situation (although even those may be difficult to define). Beyond exchanging opinions, workshops could simply involve guidance on exactly how to hold productive conversations. “A lot of what yesterday showed is just that people are ignorant – and it’s not really their fault, because we’re high schoolers,” said Stulman. “Everyone could be more educated, including myself.” Schmelkin agrees, “The first step is education on the situation. Not necessarily just the history, but even what has happened last month – an unbiased education.”
On Sunday night (November 19th), Dr. Bobo sent an email to all upper school students detailing a list of upcoming events related to the Israel-Hamas war and said, “The DEI team and Upper School leadership have been working on a plan to foster greater understanding of the Middle East and the diverse cultures and religions that shape the lives of so many in our community.” Specifically, the plan includes a special assembly with Dr. Laura Shaw Frank and workshops on Monday, November 20th. The school will also host a cross-cultural conversation session on Tuesday, November 21st, and several speakers in December, who will discuss the rise in incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobia.
