Francis W. Parker School advertises itself as a home for free-thinking, non-conforming learners who are learning to express themselves. And, despite our liberal-leaning student body and faculty, Parker declares itself as a nonpartisan learning institution. We assert that we can serve as a home for people who think differently from the masses, if they want us to.

But, following the inaugural publication of SCOUT, a pop-culture literary magazine, our proclaimed identity was called into question.

The cover of the magazine showed an image which I had already seen three separate times on Instagram. The image features five female students currently in their junior year at Parker, holding up signs with various slogans while attending the 2018 Women’s March in Chicago. It’s a well-composed image, with the teenagers arranged dynamically and the city street flowing behind them. It looks good as the cover of the magazine, enhanced by the minimal edits made so it could fit the vertical form.

It could be argued that some of these signs do not project a certain political viewpoint.   “Sisters against sexism,” and, “Respeta mi existencia, o espera resistencia,” which translates to the popular slogan, “Respect my existence, or expect resistance,” can both debatably be read as nonpartisan.  

But there is at least one poster which is decidedly anti-Trump. It features two images side-by-side. On the left, the iconic, circular Obama campaign logo. The circle contains a white circle, or abstract sun, rising into a blue sky over a field of red and white stripes. Under it is the word, “Hope.” On the right is a vertically flipped, yellow-colored version of the logo. It is meant to be an abstract Donald Trump, with his blonde hair and parodied orange skin. Under this, the word, “Hate.”

Thus, the main objection to the SCOUT cover emerges: Parker funded a partisan publication. Further, it did so without labeling the magazine as political, and without providing any opposing perspectives.  

So then, it seems, many students would argue that all school-funded student publications ought to be nonpartisan, apolitical, or at the very least, labeled clearly when they contain political biases. This regulation, these students assert, will defend Parker’s identity as a nonpartisan learning institution, open to all perspectives.

But student publications should feel no compulsion to avoid political controversy. If anything, preventing political viewpoints from being included in publications would go directly against Parker’s free-thinking ideology. Parker should give every student all possible resources needed to express their own opinion, which, in some cases, might mean funding a student publication. Otherwise, we actually risk silencing students.

Besides, no administrator or teacher should be allowed the opportunity to freely censor content which they deem political. The line between political opinions and other opinions is already blurry, and will only grow more so as identity politics becomes more prevalent. It would be imprudent for the student body to give more censorship power to the adults in our school.

If there are students at Parker who feel that their perspective is not being heard, they should, of course, be free to access these same resources. No one needs to to silence others in order to make their voice heard. Parker has enough resources for both.