(Originally posted November 20)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On Thursday, November 16th, Fieldston\u2019s annual Modified Awareness Day was intended to center around the Afro-futurist novel Children of Blood and Bone<\/em> 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 \u2013 a comment concerning the Israel-Hamas War.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. \u201cOver 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,\u201d Adeyemi said, near the end of her speech. \u201cIn 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\u2019t dying in the Hunger Games, they\u2019re dying in the brutal reality of this world.\u201d The remark was met with audible cheers and applause from some members of the audience. Others promptly exited the auditorium.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After announcements, Upper School Principal Stacey Bobo made a brief statement, acknowledging that \u201csometimes when we have speakers come up and share perspectives, that it doesn\u2019t always land on everyone comfortably.\u201d Although student and faculty-led MAD workshops at the upper school proceeded as planned, Adeyemi\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since October 7th, Fieldston has shied away from discussing the Israel-Hamas war in classrooms. Inevitably, Adeyemi\u2019s comments exposed underlying tensions which had been relatively contained for weeks. So, here\u2019s what everyone wants to know: how did students react to the assembly, and how should we talk about it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n One contingent of students felt hurt after the speaker\u2019s comment. \u201cI didn\u2019t walk out because she said, \u2018ceasefire,\u2019\u201d says one student. \u201cThe reason I was so upset and affected by it was hearing the entire student body clap \u2013 and the fact that we were silenced. We weren\u2019t 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 \u2018ceasefire.\u2019\u201d Nate Schmelkin (Form V) similarly took more issue with the school\u2019s response than the speaker\u2019s comment itself, and felt that a \u201cone-sided story\u201d had been presented to the student body. \u201cEveryone\u2019s entitled to their opinion,\u201d he says. \u201cBut I do believe, given the school\u2019s position on the situation, it was a real lapse in vetting the speaker and complete failure on the school\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, some were notably glad that Adeyemi had voiced her opinion. \u201cWhen I heard people clapping and showing their support, I was like, \u2018Okay, I definitely have to,\u2019\u201d says one student who joined in. \u201cThe looks on people\u2019s faces next to me and around me, once I started, were absolutely disgusting. Just for clapping.\u201d Another student describes being \u201con the edge of their seat\u201d as soon as Adeyemi mentioned Israel and Palestine. \u201cThen she said \u2018ceasefire,\u2019 and I was like, \u2018Oh my god, I love this woman.\u2019\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Others felt relatively neutral about Adeyemi\u2019s statement in regard to its reflection of community beliefs. \u201cI understood that she was using her space, and this platform, to share her stance,\u201d says Rachel Stulman (Form V). \u201cI think what was more startling to me was the student responses of cheering and clapping. I personally wasn\u2019t harmed or offended by her comment, but I quickly learned that others in my community were.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judah Goren (Form V) was also surprised by the intensity of his peers\u2019 reactions. He adds, \u201cIt\u2019s 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.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Several of these students assert that student reactions would have been less extreme if the administration had altered its initial response. \u201cIf the school was speaking about it before, I definitely wouldn\u2019t have walked out on the speaker,\u201d says Schmelkin. \u201cI would have stayed and heard what she had to say and tried to understand why she believes a view that\u2019s so very different from mine.\u201d 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 \u201cday of programming\u201d about the issue could have been scheduled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> to acknowledge the heartbreak felt throughout the community. Two days later, he sent a \u201cfollow up\u201d<\/a> regarding the terrorist attacks in Israel,\u201d which included a summary detailing how students would be supported in school the following day. Regarding the upper school, it said, \u201cStudents 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.\u201d A third email<\/a> was sent on November 2nd about the school\u2019s plan moving forward, which includes \u201ca 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n These emails, Goren contends, are proof that the speaker was not the school\u2019s first communication on the issue and, therefore, indicate that their invitation of the speaker was not an endorsement of her beliefs. \u201cThe school sent an email right after October 7th, as they should have,\u201d he says. \u201cThey\u2019ve 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\u2019ve talked to.\u201d Furthermore, he expresses that talking about the issue wouldn\u2019t have necessarily shifted student perspectives. \u201cIf a speaker had gone up there and voiced a different opinion \u2013 that they had agreed with more \u2013 we would not be having this conversation right now.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regardless of how they received Adeyemi\u2019s comment, many students agree that the administration\u2019s 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\u2019 ability to tackle diverse opinions in general. \u201cThe less we talk about it, the more polarized this issue becomes,\u201d says Abby Friedman (Form VI). \u201cFieldston talks about sitting in discomfort. We have to find a way to speak about this or it\u2019ll just become more uncomfortable. That\u2019s the truth.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Vera Koontz (Form V) specifically cites a failure to provide safe spaces for all students to deliberate on the issue. \u201cThe space that is extended for the Jewish affinity group (I have no issue with that) needs to be extended for other students as well,\u201d Koontz says. Another student says, \u201cIf 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 \u2013 and not just one, because that\u2019s kind of what it feels like right now.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cas a school that works to discuss difficult issues and works to be on the forefront of them.\u201d She says, \u201cMy best moments of learning at Fieldston have been when we\u2019ve talked through those hard issues. That is part of why I love this school and why my family loves the school.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA lot of words come to mind when I think of Fieldston and Fieldston\u2019s response to injustice in the world,\u201d says another student. \u201c\u2018Silent\u2019 has never been one of those words, and it was never a word I expected to associate with Fieldston.\u201d They consider it important to reflect on the history of the school as well. \u201cIt 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.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another student said, \u201cWe 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\u2019re doing that.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Individuals may approach the mission of the school distinctly, Koontz points out. \u201cI think people come to the school with different ideas of what the values of the school are \u2013 for me, the values of the school are progressive education and the ability to speak your mind,\u201d says Koontz. From her perspective, \u201cThere are some who think coming here means everyone will have to think the same way and believe the same things as them.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Goren makes a similar comment about whether public figures who advocate potentially contentious viewpoints ought to be invited to speak. \u201cAnyone speaking is going to say something that someone disagrees with, so in my opinion, as long as it\u2019s not directly hurtful or hateful, then there\u2019s no other option,\u201d he says. \u201cUnless you\u2019re going to turn Fieldston into a censored community. We\u2019re in a position right now where we have to think about what we really want as a community.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Having conversations about the Israel-Palestine conflict is easier said than done. Few are certain about exactly what they\u2019d 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A powerful sentiment of fear permeates public expression of opinion \u2013 owing perhaps to an erosion of trust within the community. \u201cI know that at the end of all of this, what I\u2019m going to remember is what I believed in the moment and not what other people thought of me,\u201d says Koontz. \u201cI don\u2019t feel safe at all, but at the same time, I can\u2019t think any other way about this.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. \u201cA lot of what yesterday showed is just that people are ignorant \u2013 and it\u2019s not really their fault, because we\u2019re high schoolers,\u201d said Stulman. \u201cEveryone could be more educated, including myself.\u201d Schmelkin agrees, \u201cThe first step is education on the situation. Not necessarily just the history, but even what has happened last month \u2013 an unbiased education.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n