Two weeks ago, Parker students and faculty in third through twelfth grades had their first common exposure to a presentation about race in a year.  The Morning Exercise in which junior Natalie Braye spoke about her involvement in a #Blacklivesmatter protest was prefaced by a short speech from Interim Head of Upper School and Assistant Principal Ruth Jurgensen.  In her introduction, Jurgensen stressed the fact that Braye’s presentation was not meant to persuade anyone to support the #Blacklivesmatter movement or undermine any other movements.

        Several times in the past, Parker has had difficulty hearing controversial opinions or thoughts that aren’t held by the majority of those in the community.  An MX in which students and teachers spoke about whiteness and another in which a speaker siding with Palestine on the Palestine-Israel conflict are two examples that come to mind when considering how some Parker community members have handled unfavorable opinions.

Jurgensen’s speech was a successful attempt to ease tension and conflict over a possibly controversial topic.  After this MX, we can now see that it is possible for Parker to handle nearly school-wide exposure to a speech focused on race.  

The next question to pose is: Why was such an introduction necessary in the first place?

Much of the need lies in the fact that people recoil from discomfort.  Unfortunately, though naturally, this includes intellectual discomfort.   

While some self-protection is valid, an overall refusal to hear about a subject or viewpoint has the possibility to be detrimental to students.  Especially in an institution of learning, diverse intellectual exposure should be encouraged and provided.  

Our school shouldn’t shy away entirely from controversial topics in MX. Rather, we should foster a culture in which minority or unfavorable viewpoints are not met with mental walls.  Something can be learned from even the most despicable opinion.

To be sure trouble can arise from exposing controversial or negative speech to younger students, who are more susceptible to instantly accepting and internalizing what they hear in MX.  Yet their needs do not have to block the intellectual diversity that Upper School students are exposed to.  Occasional exclusively upper school MXs that cover more controversial topics would serve as a successful solution.

Still, exposure to a wide variety of opinions should start early, so that once students join the upper school they will know how to deal with and learn from opinions with which they may disagree.  

In this way, Parker will be able to create a more robust, intellectually vigorous, and welcoming community.