“We know that our ability to think for ourselves expands when we engage in healthy, nuanced discussion and persevere with integrity when complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity challenge us.” At first glance, you may think this quote comes from a well-known philosopher, a TEDTalk, or an activist. In reality, it’s from a place much closer to home—it comes straight from the “Openness and Growth” section of Parker’s mission statement. However, I’m not here to praise this statement. I’m here to discuss why I think Parker has failed to live up to its own expectations.

When the October 7 attack happened, it was undoubtedly a terrifying time for Jewish individuals around the world. Antisemitic sentiments suddenly became more rampant, and the attacks on Israel by Hamas inflicted fear and uncertainty on those in the country and those abroad who have ties to Israel. Directly after the attacks, Parker took five actions: the history department sent out four links to educate people on the conflict, Ms. Zeller acknowledged the situation in an email to the Upper School, Senate discussed how the administration handles outside conflicts, there was a ten-minute discussion at 7:50 a.m., and Dr. Frank addressed the school community by recognizing this tough time. In Dr. Frank’s email, he wrote, “As always, it is our collective responsibility to make sure that dialogue in pursuit of understanding takes place with respect and civility toward one another.” He couldn’t have been more correct; that is exactly what we should’ve done—keyword: should’ve. 

However, I don’t remember a single conversation that was had in my history class, advisory, or graderoom after the attacks. What I do remember is the Senate meeting that occurred about how administration handles outside conflicts. It was a meeting where everyone was beating around the bush, trying not to overtly bring up why we were having the discussion at all: the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

I actually thought that not talking about the conflict was okay at the time, as many people were still shaken, scared, or even grieving what happened on October 7. Though, when the conflict started to blatantly partition some students and cause outright arguments, I was shocked that not a single conversation was fostered by the school. We were, quite literally, not following our own mission statement by not engaging in “healthy nuanced discussion.” And to this day, we still have not had any sort of education or dialogue on this issue. By Parker lacking discussions around the whole conflict for almost a year and a half, they have sent a message to their students: comfort should be prioritized over growth, even if it causes arguments and division within the community.

There is a possible argument that could be made: too many students have too strong of opinions for this to be an openly discussed topic. But I strongly disagree. When the Elections 2024 class held a Morning Ex the day after the election, they spoke eloquently and politely about both the Republican and Democratic parties despite many people having extremely strong views on the election and still being emotional about the results. Yet, no one objected. I agree that a Morning Ex would not be the appropriate place to be educated on this matter, but why couldn’t we have done the same thing on a smaller, voluntary scale?

Actually, let me back up. I do remember one time when the conflict was brought up. It was on October 7, 2024, one year after the tragedy that struck Israel. That day at Student Government, Ms. Prahl, and Ms. Zeller came up on stage and led a moment of silence for the Israeli citizens who were terrorized a year ago by Hamas. It was absolutely necessary to recognize the loss and devastation that happened one year ago, but if we are going to honor victims of the conflict to the day one year later, why hasn’t there been a single day where we’ve honored the Palestinian victims of the conflict as well? But wait, now I’m confused. If the school wants to foster “healthy, nuanced discussions,” why is such a nuanced topic being so simplified and suppressed? How is only recognizing one side’s losses nuanced? When it comes to such polarizing issues like this one, equal representation is needed if the school wants to appear neutral. And let me be clear: I am absolutely not trying to downplay the losses and tragedies the Israeli people have faced, and I would say the exact same thing if they got up on the stage and only recognized the Palestinian victims. Generally, not discussing or educating about both or any sides of an issue only further divides the student body. 

Some of you may be thinking that I am out of line for writing this article as this conflict does not have a personal effect on me. True, this conflict does not have a personal effect on me. I am not Palestinian or Muslim, nor am I Israeli or Jewish. I have no ties to either religion or country. However, when has that ever been a deciding factor in what people choose to talk about? Should all of a sudden I not care about reproductive rights because I do not have a uterus? Or should I not care about Trump’s new immigrant policy because I’ve been an American citizen since birth? I didn’t think so. 

If you have read my article thoroughly, it should be apparent that this is not a pro-Israel nor a pro-Palestine essay. Frankly, I’ve shared so many of my thoughts in this essay that I might as well tell you that I am neutral on this topic. I can recognize the rights and wrongs of both sides. However, that’s not what this piece is about. Instead, it’s merely me recognizing—or not being able to recognize—what the school has openly said about the topic and the lack of conversations surrounding this heavy and polarizing conflict: a conflict that has seemingly woven its way into everyday conversations between students at Parker, separating them into distinct, unbridgeable groups.