By Grace Lee’23
St. Mark’s is a closed community, where we sometimes feel like we are in our own corner of the world. Though, no matter how tight knit of a community we are, we will always be part of larger communities - such as women, men, Christians, Atheists, Americans, immigrants. No matter which groups a St. Marker identifies with, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is sure to impact each community differently. Multiple St. Mark’s communities each had their own approach to processing and discussing the issue, so I interviewed multiple members of our school to learn about their thoughts on how the St. Mark’s communities are addressing the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.
Disclaimer: St. Mark’s is one student and faculty body, so I did not want to separate this article by pro-choice and pro-life sections. However, it became apparent that students on opposing sides of the spectrum had very different beliefs about the questions asked, and it became clear that each group had different needs and experiences - therefore, it is illogical to describe their thoughts together. Please understand that there is no intention to create division amongst students.
Question: How effectively do you feel that the St. Mark’s community - both faculty or student groups - have addressed the overturn of Roe vs. Wade? What has been done effectively or ineffectively?
Starting with students who lean towards pro-choice beliefs: some felt as though St Mark’s - school and faculty - had not done enough to address the issue. Some felt that school-led discussions were held and emails were sent just to check the box of “addressing” an issue, and that this is not the first time that the school has not performed up to par with handling social justice work, as student affinity groups and clubs were the ones who had taken on the most duties. An anonymous 6th former feels as though the school has failed to educate men and allies about periods and pregnancy, which are crucial details to know about when discussing abortion rights. Additionally, many students were bothered by others who did not take the discussions of Roe vs. Wade seriously during debates and in the school day. As Charlie Poulin, 5th former, stated, “No matter what side you are on, this is an issue that involves people’s rights - so it’s wrong to make jokes about this issue.” On the topic of division in the student community, Diane Kwon, a 4th former, felt as though discussions were a much better idea than debates, as the division was especially furthered in some debates that required students to identify a clear side to argue for, which isn’t conducive to progress as there is no clear winner of these debates.
Another issue that was very bothersome to students was the faculty decision to remove some posters in the dining hall, as St. Mark’s represents a diverse community of students in which their opinions should not be silenced. Diane thinks that this is silencing student voices, and that the overturn is an issue that is especially painful in a small community, as it causes students to become more divided than they already are - which is why it is important to respect others’ expressions of their opinions, even when emotions are running high.
Students on the pro-life side of the spectrum had mixed beliefs on the work of the faculty during this situation. Michael Ferlisi, a 6th former, thought that many in-class debates run by left-leaning teachers caused the debate to be one-sided. He says that productivity is lost when the authority figure of the class favors one belief, but understands that New England has a tendency towards left-leaning politics so it makes sense that teachers and students have pro-choice views. Contrarily, Ezio Salimbeni, a 4th former, thinks that the faculty have done a good job with handling negative reactions towards pro-life beliefs. He also got support from the chaplins, as it is difficult to argue from a religious standpoint.
It is very clear that our school has a majority that leans towards pro-choice, so I talked to pro-life students about how they have been treated after the overturn has been released. Some students believe that there is much work to be done in terms of tolerance in the student body. Michael knows that it is tough to be a student outside of the “liberal norm”, as he lost friends on the day of the pro-choice protest as he refused to join. Many conservative students need to evaluate - which do you value more, your beliefs or your friendships? Ezio, on the other hand, feels very involved in politics, so he does not find it difficult to stand out in the student body, and looks forward to starting a conservative club. Overall, students felt that the school makes it clear that students will not be punished for their ideas, and that the entire community should see this issue as a learning experience.
I talked to the heads of Southborough Society - Suha Choi and Kelly Yang. They received mixed opinions from the student body and faculty about their open meeting, however, it is to note that Suha - a 6th former - ran and organized the meeting all by herself. She notes that it was mentally challenging to navigate the influx of information about Roe vs. Wade, but she wants people to know that this is an issue within the Supreme Court. It is infuriating yet refreshing to know that we, average people, do not have control over their decision. Suha says that we should take breaks accordingly, and while debates are important, it is much more therapeutic to support your stance with practical actions, such as emailing governors and donating to organizations.
Kelly reminds us that other countries have different laws on abortion and different feminist movements, which is why we must not compare different ideas and people’s cultural beliefs that influence their idea on abortion.
Suha and Kelly both believe that it is important to re-evaluate our curriculum. Kelly believes that classes should have focus on women’s history, which place more emphasis on the actual women rather than the political scene as this would create more healthy conversation. Suha thinks that it is not only upon pathways groups to hold conversations, but there is equal responsibility on students to know how to discuss civilly when their opinions are different - which is why there should be a change in curriculum with more debates involved, so teachers can give proper guidance. To conclude, both heads agreed that this issue showcased a large area of growth for the school community.
Then, I interviewed faculty. Ms. Martin found the timing of debates to be very difficult, as it’s hard to plan a sufficient chunk of time to share ideas. We need a more reactive space as well as the opportunities to discuss with our forms or in a closed space, as many students did not get to process their emotions correctly. Additionally, hearing a range of voices outside of the school community is important as well. Dr. Worrell suggested to Ms. Martin that we read quotes from people outside of our community from a range of opinions, and then to sit and reflect, as empathy is more important than proving yourself right. I interviewed Ms. Starry, who believes that students have largely bore the burden to hold difficult discussions - which should be faculty’s work. A few anonymous teachers also believed that it would be great to hear a statement from higher administration, specifically acknowledging that our school is part of a larger community that will be affected by this issue, and that the school acknowledges that tensions are running high.
Ms. Starry states that teachers also need to be aware of biases in their classrooms as students need a safe space. An anonymous teacher felt very strongly about pro-choice, and did not attend any debates as it would have a clear impact on her view of the student.
The teachers that had a say in the removal of certain posters in the dining hall - a decision that received backlash from the students - decided so as some children are not familiar with certain slang words with negative connotations. A teacher that stated her discomfort states that she is very happy to see posters on both sides of the belief spectrum, but believes we should stick with more appropriate slogans like “hands off my body” or use biological terms, like uterus or vagina instead of slang.
Finally, talking with the Pathways prefects was crucial, as they have many ideas on how the school and faculty can improve themselves. They too agree with the heads of Southborough society in thinking that courses need foundations to hold conversations. They state that the school is scared to approach students’ opinions on the issue and that the school must be more comfortable with sharing perspectives, as growth occurs when students share opinions openly. They also believe that the faculty acted disappointingly, as they should have taken more steps to be involved in addressing the issue - which is due to the fact that faculty are not receiving enough training to properly involve themselves. Faculty need to do a better job at arranging opportunities to attend protest events or to call representatives of the states, as students have been asking for these things to happen but there has been no initiative. The faculty simply react rather than fixing the issues in our community. Faculty ask, what can they do to support the student body - but they should not have to ask that question.
They also have ideas on improving the preparedness of the student body to have these conversations. The world is always changing, and if the school wants hard and difficult conversations to take place, then they need to better prepare the student body. The school currently has low expectations for those who attend the meeting versus high expectations for pathways leaders. Louise shared that, when she moderated the philosophy club debates on abortion, it was too much pressure on her as she facilitated these debates alone. There is still time left in the year for faculty to do their best.
However, they must hope that teachers are at least doing the bare minimum, as this is some of the most faculty involvement they have seen. Many faculty want to get involved, but do not have the proper training to do so. This is why the next level up is in the administration: teachers do not get extra compensation for taking time to help events, which creates a growing gap of approaching issues.
Question 2: How should debates around this topic be moderated? How should closed/open meetings work?
Even with all the different beliefs, one idea was unanimous amongst every single group that I interviewed. This idea is that closed meetings must be held PRIOR TO open meetings in order to properly process feelings in a safe, productive manner, so that open meetings can have reduced hostility. There must also be space for unmoderated discussion as well as teacher-moderated meetings. Some students revealed that they felt most comfortable after debates ended, as a small group have stayed back and had a cooled conversation where they were free to discuss on their own. However, for a large scale debate, heavy moderation by teachers is absolutely necessary.
Not a single person I interviewed disagreed with this.
Author’s note: After I interviewed at least ten people to write this article and attended meetings that I otherwise would not even consider, I feel extremely knowledgeable and informed. I once thought that there was a half-and-half split down our community on the issue of Roe vs, Wade, but it is clear to me now that there is common ground on wanted change. Thank you to all the interviewees for sharing your ideas.
A piece of advice I can give to others is to talk to people you disagree with. Set up a conversation with people that you think are stupid. Discuss with new people you’ve never spoken to before. That is how you become well-informed.
In the end, our student body is one small, tight knit community. However, every single one of us is just as affected by the issues of our larger country. We have no choice but to adapt our community and revise the way that we handle ourselves.