JOHN:
As I lay on my bed, mindlessly scrolling through social media, a notification appeared at the top of my screen. I glanced up to read the alert, and my eyes widened. In my three years at Parker, I had never seen a school-wide email use words like “horrifying” in response to something as simple as a club announcement. Within seconds, I joined a group FaceTime with my friends, all of us trying to figure out what had just happened. Earlier that evening, a student had sent out an email promoting a club meeting centered around discussing artificial intelligence, entrepreneurship, and the growing role of AI in business. It seemed like a fairly standard Parker email, another invitation to hear students share ideas they were passionate about. But the response it received quickly transformed a routine announcement into a school-wide controversy.
Parker has long been a school where students are encouraged to express their opinions openly. Students speak at MX and Student Government meetings, make announcements during Graderoom, and regularly send emails promoting clubs, events, and causes they care about. That freedom of expression helps create an environment where students feel comfortable sharing their perspectives. However, problems arise when that freedom is used not to encourage discussion, but to publicly embarrass or attack others.
Shortly after the original club email was sent, another student responded to the entire Upper School with a sharply critical message dismissing both the club and the broader conversation around AI. The email mocked the idea of the meeting and questioned why anyone would even want to attend. Reading it, I was honestly stunned, not because someone disagreed with the topic, but because of how publicly and aggressively the disagreement was expressed. Parker teaches students to engage thoughtfully with differing opinions, and sending a school wide email targeting younger students for simply organizing a club meeting felt completely counter to that.
Not long after, I responded with a one-word email: “Attending!” That single message seemed to open the floodgates. More responses flooded inboxes across the school. Some students defended the club and its organizers, others criticized the original response, and some argued that the criticism itself was justified. What started as a disagreement about AI quickly spiraled into something much larger: a public conflict that consumed the attention of the entire Upper School.
I am not arguing that students should lose the right to speak freely. In fact, Parker’s openness to discussion is one of the reasons I chose to attend this school. But freedom of speech is powerful, and with that comes responsibility. Disagreement is healthy. Public humiliation is not. There is a difference between challenging an idea and attacking the people behind it.
There were many ways this situation could have been handled differently. The student who disagreed with the club could have spoken privately with its leaders, attended the meeting to share their perspective directly, or even started a broader discussion about the role of AI in education and society. Any of those choices could have created meaningful conversation. Instead, the decision to publicly ridicule the club in front of the entire Upper School only escalated tensions and guaranteed backlash.
As the replies continued piling up, the club meeting was eventually postponed. Many students were frustrated, not just because of the delay, but because the situation reflected a larger issue about how we communicate with one another. Parker encourages students to voice their opinions respectfully and thoughtfully, even when disagreements are strong. The email chain ultimately sent the opposite message: that public ridicule and performative conflict are acceptable substitutes for real discussion.
Freedom of speech should absolutely remain protected at Parker. But that freedom works best when it is used to contribute to conversation rather than shut it down. Students should feel comfortable sharing ideas, even controversial ones, without fearing that they will become targets of public mockery. If Parker truly values open dialogue, then students also have a responsibility to approach disagreement with maturity, respect, and a willingness to engage rather than attack.
AYAN:
Recently, a 40,000 acre data center was approved in Utah. The legislation that allowed this data center to be built was fast-tracked through the Utah government and approved by Governor Spencer Cox, while bypassing public opposition and protesting from hundreds of locals. This kind of development is not an uncommon event in the U.S. Many data centers have been getting approval from state and federal officials as a means to “advance the country” and “create more jobs,” while enriching their owners, who are almost exclusively white men, as a byproduct of their philanthropy for a greater good.
Larry Ellison: the uber-wealthy owner of Oracle, Alexander Karp: the CEO of Palantir, Steve McMillan: the CEO of Teradata, etc. The list of white men that control the biggest companies in the world goes on forever. Historically, men have held power in all fields, but recently there has been a change in their behavior and methodology of acquiring and divesting said power, or, at least they have become less shy about it. Even our current President, alongside his government cronies, has enriched himself, his family, and his business partners millions of dollars since he took office, treating the position as something of a “bro circle” by often demeaning female reporters, staff, and even his own wife––a common trend nowadays. This behavior has instilled deeply problematic misogyny in a large part of today’s youth, and it shows in their everyday behavior, speech, and treatment of women. By seeing it become so common in the mainstream media and the habits of successful others, this chauvinist mindset is more prevalent than ever in today’s youth, especially in young boys. This behavior is nothing new, though. Historically, women have been silenced, overpowered, and oppressed by their male counterparts – which is exactly what happened in our school a few weeks ago.
On April 29, Entrepreneurship and Business Club sent an all school email about their use of AI to make websites in the club to make money, and a female student stated her opinion about it in the replies. Soon after, a large group of boys attacked her in the replies to the whole school, with no teacher stepping in, or telling them to stop until much later. When a student voices their opinion, it is no one’s place to rudely shoot it down in front of the entire school. Especially given the fact that it was a woman, it is wildly inappropriate for a group of boys to attack her and call her hostile, simply because she had the courage to go against another student who they happen to be friends with. Many of the involved boys claimed that they were just “supporting their friends’ club,” and “weren’t trying to embarrass her,” something that is a lie. While it is hard to argue past their plausible deniability, they knew exactly what they were doing, especially since many of them admitted to it. Many opinions shared after the fact were about how this wasn’t a gendered thing and rather just two sides of a discussion, but it is extremely difficult to ignore the differing factor between both arguments. One was a single girl voicing her opinion, and the other was a group of boys who felt it was their place to use a school wide platform to belittle her. Data centers and the use of AI, especially for simple tasks such as creating a website, are harmful. It hurts our planet, our bodies, and our future, yet just because a woman shares her opinion on it, it’s ok for her to be disrespected by others.
I write as someone who has made many websites. Whether it be for YRJS or a large business, I know how to do it, and I also know that it is extremely easy and quick. Using no-code builders such as Wix, Google Sites, or even more complex platforms like WebFlow or Java, anyone can make and monetize their own website. Using AI to do a task this simple is both lazy and harmful. Not harmful to the school or anyone’s bank account, but rather harmful to our environment (that the school obviously doesn’t care enough about, given their treatment of the recycling system), and our society. By using AI for simple tasks that can quickly be done by humans, in my opinion, discredits any product or monetary value that might come as a result of AI work––which many people agree with. After the publication of this article, I don’t expect for anyone to come up to me and criticize my opinion, especially on a school-wide platform for one reason: I am a boy. I also know that as a man, pushback against anything I do is less likely to happen, and if it does happen, it’ll be respectful and rare. Parker is no place for anyone to silence others that they may disagree with––in fact it is the opposite––and I encourage anyone that disagrees with a peer to engage in fruitful, respectful debate.
