For seven years I have experienced the highs and lows of this place. This article will focus more on the lows (as I am wont to do), but I did want to make clear that of course my time here was not all bad. I had extraordinary teachers, met some great people, and learned a lot. I’m sure my view of Parker will sweeten as I move forward and my time here falls further into the rearview mirror. But as I graduate, I can’t help but have a bitter taste in my mouth, and I feel compelled to share what I see as Parker’s central failing: it’s vapidity.
I have found a central disconnect to be at the heart of much of what I dislike about Parker, its ideals (or what it says are its ideals) versus appeasing its ‘stakeholders.’ Take “The Weekly.” Parker and its marketing team touts the paper as a representation of what the students can do and loves how old the paper is. But they won’t let it be free.
Right now there is no prior review nor restraint, but that’s because The Weekly is so weak and ineffectual it doesn’t need it. Years of censorship made it such that no one wants to write, and fear of another bout of censorship has neutered the reporting we do. Teachers often don’t want to go on record on sensitive topics, and there can be obstructionism from administration that exacerbates the issue. I’m not a quitter, yet twice this year I’ve been so despondent about my chances of being able to actually tell an honest story that I’ve just quit.
One of the most central examples of Parker’s vapidity is one I’ve written about and struggled against: its purported commitment to diversity. Parker is failing on a few fronts when it comes to the challenges of diversity. While it professes to be an inclusive place which listens and supports each individual within its walls. Yet I have not seen that through my tenure at Parker. It’s mostly sought to silence, to suppress, and to pacify people who voice dissent based on the way Parker has dealt with their identities. But I’ve written about this before. I’d recommend you read those articles if you want a deeper view on the problems at this school because I don’t have time to detail those problems here.
Despite being at least deaf to the pleas of many students, Parker (like much of the liberal establishment) has become identitarian. There has been a push to make every group as comfortable as possible without actually listening, doing asinine top-down diversity trainings instead of actually listening to students. And when something egregious does happen, there are lawyerly statements. Ultimately, the combination of this deafness and identitarianism leads to a culture where it’s difficult to speak out or even just have an honest conversation in class. Parker is so scared of being sued or upsetting its ‘stakeholders’ that it shuts down speech and fails to listen.
In short there’s a disconnect between what Parker purports to be and what it is. This is normal. No place can like up to the ideals it expounds. But in Parker’s case it feels more severe than elsewhere. It turns out you can have a free press and academic freedom without infringing on reputation. When we were at the NSPA conference in Boston we attended a session about press freedom in private schools, and the faculty of UHigh’s paper was sitting behind us. When we told him about some of the censorship (even if it’s not officially censorship) we’d faced, he was appalled. They have a free press and freedom of ideas and are still considered a top private school in the city. I’d usually end with some sort of call to action but I don’t have the energy. So instead I’ll simply say goodbye, wish the next leaders of this paper good luck, hope the faculty and students who are fighting keep fighting, and be happy that I won’t have to deal with this form of vapidity again.
