36.12

The Milton Paper From The Archives!

FEBRUARY 15 , 2019

VOL. 36 NO. 12

MILTON’S INDEPENDENT WEEKLY STUDENT NEWSPAPER

Let It Be Said

The Slick People

By MARC KIRSCHNER May 17, 1991 Volume 9, Number 5

By LEEORE SCHNAIRSOHN MAY 17, 1991 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 5

I feel that the time has come to address the extreme oversensitivity of the Milton community; students, administration, and faculty included. In this opinion, I’m not planning on being “nice” and understanding; softening my tone to appease special interest groups is exactly what I want to avoid, and what I feel Milton as a community must avoid. I’m not saying that we should not be understanding, it’s just that we shouldn’t feel pressured to hide our true opinions because of the possibility of offending people.

It seems that every thing you say can be taken the wrong way, One of my favorite targets for criticism along these lines has always been SSE. I have no qualms about their goals, equality among the sexes should be. I just happen to find them overly aggressive and ordering on militant. In a discussion with a friend of mine, who is a high-standing member of said organization, I made a joke about the SSE bake sale.

She went through the roof. Since bake sales are stereotypically run by members of the female sex, I thought it funny that a group targeting stereotypes should host such an event. I was lectured on how people should not have to worry about such images of baking women, and that bake sales are a good way to make money. The latter is true. The former is an impossibility. Kirschner's thesis #46: Don’t try to live the perfect fairy tale, just make the best of what you have. If SSE wants to be successful, they must progress a little at a time, because forcing ideas of equality down the throat of a true sexist will only make him more adamant about his feelings, and will result in an equal and opposite response.

If the SSE wants to get their ideas across they must push for education rather than punishment. The tone portrayed by the group has always been one of aggression, as if they’re attacking sexism with gun in hand: shooting first, asking questions later. The smallest little joke can be turned into an outrage en masse, no matter where the true intention may lie. I hope the organization realizes why many of its members CONTINUED ON PAGE 4

You’ve seen them. You’ve felt their presence. You’ve been near them. You might even be one of them. Just to be close to them is to feel a warm breeze on your neck, to smell an aroma of Plax and Jordan Musk, to have dead animals’ skin on your shoulders, to become enraptured in the world of knowing exactly what to do, what to say, what to wear. To have a strange woman in a Ferrari pull up to your Jeep, ask “Are those Bugle Boy jeans you’re wearing?” and then pull away again. To pose for snapshots. To be perfect and, more importantly, to look perfect. These are the Slick People.

They’re everywhere. They’re everything. They’re all-encompassing.

And, above all, they’re slick.

Early this year, I was warned about the Slick People. I was starting out my Speech Team career in the dubiously prestigious category of Original Oratory, where one has to write a speech and recite it entertainingly and endearingly to an uncaring audience. These people, I was told, had all gone to a place called Institute, a word which brings images of concrete and iron bards to mind, to learn how to orate originally and correctly. This was where, I learned, they were taught how to be Slick. And when I saw these people at tournaments, I could tell them right away. They looked slick.

They all wore shiny sport jackets or bright green dresses. The girls had poofs in their hair. The boys had their hair Slicked back. When they weren’t competing, they talked like Jimmy Wo in “Good Morning, Vietnam.” They pretended to be sincere. They spoke

CONTINUED ON PAGE 5

Politics in Chapel: A Letter to The Editors VOLUME 4, NUMBER 5 OCTOBER 17, 1986 Dear Editors, Politics in Chapel? Surely it couldn’t happen at Milton! Here we are at a school that prides itself on its impartial tradition, and, of course, on the fact that boarders must attend a form of religious worship on Sunday evenings. So the introduction of, dare I say the word, politics into Chapel could never be allowed to happen… could it?

Unfortunately, it has. Last Sunday, we were “treated” to a violent, political attack on the Reagan Administration’s policy towards supplying arms to the Contra forces in Nicaragua, along with a vehement attack on nuclear arms, just as a side-line. After Chapel, I was able to talk to the speaker about his sermon, and he assured me that he had “no intention” of misleading people when he did not talk about the repressive Sandinista forces, in spite of the fact that they will not allow “non-vio-

lent protest,” the alternative the speaker put forward to the use of violent means to achieve change.

Essentially, this “non-partisan” priest, as he put it, thought that bringing one side of a very complex argument into a religious service and presenting it in a very simplistic way, with the use of such emotive examples as a few Vietnam vets who are fasting until aid is no longer supplied to the Contra forces, was a perfectly acceptable thing to do, as was offering us political pamphlets, so that we could become “one-man or one-woman, committees” against the Administration’s policy.

Well, I do not. People accept the words of priests with a much lesser degree of skepticism than they do the words of politicians. Let us, by all means, invite guest speakers, but when we want to be told about the evils of nuclear weapons, and of the Reagan Administration's policies, let us ask Helen Caldicott or the like, not a man of religion.

I am, etc., Nigel Cannings•

Inside This Issue Aims Becomes Onyx pg. 5|| Room Searches pg. 6|| Counterfeiting Scandal

pg. 8

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

The Milton Paper The 36th Editorial Board Editors-in-Chief Opinion Manager Managing Editor News Managers Senior Editors Website Editor Layout Editor

Rishi Dhir & Pierce D. Wilson Natasha Roy Lyndsey Mugford Abby Foster & Charlotte Kane Kat Stephan & Serena Fernandopulle Dillon Pang Jenab Diallo & DJ Murrell

A&E Editor Calvin Cheong

Opinion Editor Faculty Sponsor Malia Chung Eric Idsvoog Humor Editors Associate Editors Sports Editor Janelle Davis Katherine McDonough Sarah Alkhafaji Nate Jean-Baptiste Nathan Smith Evita Thadhani Financial Manager Brian Bowman

News

Brendan Hegarty Susan Urstadt Sarah Palmer Max Litvak Jenn Chen Adiza Alasa Louise Goldenberg Oscar Burnes Annie Wernerfelt Elina Mraz Kendelle Grubbs Ava Scheibler Daniel Siegel Eleanor Raine Neha Modak Shiloh Liu Livia Wood

Opinion

A&E

Willa DuBois William Kim Christian Westphal Ella O'Hanlon Emma Bradley Jana Amin Kathryn Fernandopulle Kayla Mathieu Madeline Fitzgibbon Maya Bokhari Nikhil Pande Elena Viciera Eliza Barrett-Carter Tony Wang Erinma Onyewuchi Karol Querido Leydn McEvoy Miriam Zuo Tapti Sen

Humor

Sophia Li Antoine Wiley Eliot Mialhe Luke Monnich Lily Wright Zacary Omar Gianna Gallagher Sam Barrett Tori Choo Alison Blake George Rose Jehan Boer Riya Singh

Jennifer Lim Grace Li Grace Vainisi Anne Kwok Beck Kendig Gracie Denneen Jasper Burnes Lynn Yuan Dylan Areivan Kenza Chraibi Nara Mohyeddin

Drew Bartkus Annie Corcoran Andrew Willwerth

Sports

Columnist

Olayeni Oladipo

Milton’s Independent Weekly Student Newspaper “A Forum for Discussion and Thought” Founded 1979 • Publishing Weekly Since 1983 Founders David Roth • Mark Denneen The Milton Paper is an independent, student-produced publication. It does not necessarily represent the views of the students, faculty, administration, or Milton Academy itself. Please do not copy or reproduce without permission.

LettersPolicy:TheMiltonPapergladlyacceptslettersfromanyonewhosendsthem.Wedonotpromise topublishanyorallletters,andweretaintherightstoeditlettersforcontent,length,andclarity.Wewill notpublishanonymousletters.Ifinclined,pleasetaketheopportunitytowritetous.Sendlettersbymail (Letters to the Editor, The Milton Paper, Milton Academy, 170 Centre Street, Milton, MA 02186), by email (TheMiltonPaper34@gmail.com), or by personal delivery to our office Warren 304.

The Transition Program

Editorial A Rise in Self-Censorship The TMP Board had a blast this week as we rifled through our archives, which date back to 1979, to compile our annual “Archives Issue.”

These previously published articles offer a fascinating insight into the ways in which Milton has changed or remained largely the same. Wary of becoming too self-congratulatory, we’ll say too that they exemplify how an uncensored student publication can change a school’s culture over time.

Articles describing opinions that were perceived as radical in the 1990s feel commonplace now, and it’s easier to see, in hindsight, how every time a student put a risky statement out there, that opinion propelled our school forward.

We also noticed that TMP has, in the past, more consistently published these so called ‘radical’ viewpoints than it has recently. Perhaps we as a student body have shifted towards harboring a more homogeneous set of opinions to the point where most student viewpoints do not make us uncomfortable. The bar for “radical” moves steadily upwards when you’re in an echochamber.

One obvious culprit for this decline in edgy writing is an increase in administrative censorship. While it’s hard for us to offer a meaningful trend given that each of us only spends four years, at most, in the upper school, we do worry about a push from the administration to produce content that is palatable to parents and alumni. Nonetheless, The Paper remains relatively uncensored and we should not assume that the administration is responsible for a decline in edgy writing. Instead, we notice a widespread tendency among students to censor themselves, due in part to an increased prioritization of political correctness.

In May 2010, The 28th Editorial Board published this note in response to administrative concerns about its back pages: [Faculty] asserted [that] The Milton Paper reaches a much broader audience than our immediate Milton community. Parents, Alumni, and professional publications have access to everything we print. Therefore, our words can be misconstrued by those who lack our perspective, particularly when referring to illicit activities, such as sex and drugs. They believed that the implications of the back page were substantial enough to warrant censorship. However, we disagree...TMP 28 believes that these beliefs, while founded, do not constitute a legitimate argument for censorship. We believe that while we should not be deliberately malicious, we should not live under constant fear of offending a minority” (The Milton Paper, Vol. 28, Issue 10).

TMP 36 does not entirely align with TMP 28; the climate has shifted greatly over the last eight nine years and where the propensity of “offending a minority” was once written off, we now commit wholeheartedly to producing content that makes every student on this campus feel safe. The concept of political correctness revolves around a desire to eliminate offensive rhetoric, and in an ideal society we would do just that. PC culture at Milton—symptomatic of PC culture in the Northeast and country at large—is necessary in many ways.

Nonetheless, such a climate breeds students who are uncomfortable, perhaps even unwilling, to take risks and stand by their opinions.

Students at Milton can often subscribe to the ‘one-strike’ mentality that’s so prevalent across progressive communities today: if a student says or writes something risky, he or she must worry that said statement will follow them around for the rest of their high school career. Accountability is crucial, but so too is the willingness for a student to publish his or her radical opinion knowing he or she may face consequences. Our culture has in many ways made us unable to stand by our opinions.

TMP 36 does not endorse certain fringe opinions that our paper has published in the past. We do, however, stand firmly by those opinions’ right to be heard in this community. Students cannot develop a genuine sense of ownership over their views if they don’t dare to publish the ones that may feel more risky.

We hope that, in reading some of these articles of yore, you’ll grow more inclined to write something that matters to you, even if you anticipate backlash. TMP hopes that this year and in future years, we can provide a space for you to publish your riskiest opinions. •

By LEX MOULTER AND JAMILAH RYAN VOLUME 17, NUMBER 10 SEPT 24, 1999 Like most New England prep schools, Milton has always had a predominately white faculty and study body. The overt racism present in America earlier in the century was also present at Milton Academy. But as times changed and the country embarked on a racial and social revolution, so did Milton. The first minority student came to Milton in 1963 and the school finally started to accept a significant number of minority students in the mid-70s. Over the years, admission rates for minority students continued to rise substantially. But, at the start of the 80s, the retention rates of students of color sharply declined relative to those of white students. In the early 80s, 50% of admitted Hispanic students and 24% of admitted black students failed to receive a Milton Academy diploma. In response to these troubling statistics, the Cultural Diversity Committee, headed by Neville Lake, created the first Transition Program for Students of Color in the 1982-1983 school year. Originally, the program ran for 14 days and emphasized the importance of adapting to Milton Academy academically.

Currently, the program is open to all minority and international students. The program invites these students to stay in the dorms for either four or ten days, depending on the grades the students are entering.

During this time, students attend classes, have forum discussions in which they listen to current students talk about their experiences at Milton and participate in small activities that give them a picture of what the extracurricular activities at Milton are like. Today, the retention rate of minority students is virtually equal to that of white students.

In past years the topic of having a program designed exclusively for students of color and international students has encountered controversy. The majority of the students feel that it is a beneficial and wonderful experience. A few students feel that the program should be more open, including all new students, white and

minority. However, a vast majority of students are unaware of the program and what purpose it actually serves.

Here is a look at what many students around campus had to say.

Cortney Tunis (I): “I think that bringing back the students of color at the same time encourages cliques. I think they should have a similar program for all new students that would encourage students with few obvious similarities to get to know each other.”

John Kim (IV): “The transition program is a great program because students of color and international students are already alienated from the white students. If they can become comfortable at the school before they start, they will have more opportunities to excel. The majority of the critics of the program have never been through it, so they can’t really criticize it.

Albert Chung (II): “It will be different if we opened it up to the other students. It will lose its original focus.”

Dominique Morris (IV): “The transition program gives people of color the opportunity to make new friends and experience boarding life before school actually starts. Usually students of color may not have had the experience of a white-dominated school, so they are obviously at a disadvantage. By giving them the advantage of getting to know the school, they can get ahead. When the white students come, they’re probably going to make friends twice as fast.”

Miji Choi (I): “I didn’t participate in the program because I thought it would lead to the bonding, but segregation of minorities before school started. After two years at Milton, I still have mixed feelings about it. I wish the details of the program would be more available for the whole community.”

Mike Kim (I): “I feel the transition program is especially helpful because it give students of color on opportunity to not distance away from the school, which is very easy to do, but to get a good feeling for the school early on.” •

EDITORIAL FEBRUARY 10, 2012 On a philosophical level, Milton Academy values racial diversity. Students learn of this commitment during their first interactions with the school, when an application question asks them to state reasons why diversity is important.

However, whether this ideological commitment translates into tangible action is another matter.

Transitions, a program out of the Multiculturalism Office with the purpose of acclimating students of color to the Milton experience before the start of classes, is criticized and questioned by students. Every year, feature articles in publications (including past issues of The Milton Paper) question the program, forcing the Multiculturalism office to defend it.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that not once in our time at Milton has an adult who isn’t a part of the Multiculturalism office openly defended the program or affirmed its importance in our school. Our entire administration seems unwilling to fully throw its support behind the program, choosing instead to walk the line down the middle in an attempt to placate both sides: those who support Transitions and those who do not. Because of this lack of support, the Multiculturalism office is left to fend for itself, appearing to always come from a position of defence in response to attacks on Transitions’ legitimacy.

The administration’s hesitancy to take a firm side on this issue is understandable, as these leaders must constantly balance the desires of student, parents, trustees, faculty members, and alumni. The administration undoubtedly has ongoing conversations behind-the-scenes with the Multiculturalism Office about the Transitions Program, but these private conversations do not change the impression that administration holds the Office at arm’s length.

However, the understandable hesitancy does not make the situation acceptable. In its passivity, the administration forces students who have attended Transitions to defend a program that is beneficial.

The adults in our community, particularly the administration, need to visibly stand behind these programs instead of leaving students to defend it themselves. The administration’s inaction ultimately creates an environment that precludes real discussion about the value of the Transitions program in our community; we’re stuck at square one, unable to move past debate over the program’s legitimacy to a discussion about diversity that is progressive and mature.

The administration needs to support programs that are beneficial to the school community. A speech at a Monday assembly or a letter to the parents—any form of communication from the administration—can better Transitions’ needed support and push the conversation about the program in a positive direction. If Milton wants to support diversity, it needs to do so actively and without hesitation; otherwise our commitment is ultimately hollow.•

PAGE 4

PAGE 5

Conformity…

By TOM LOWENSTEIN OCTOBER 10, 1986 VOLUME 4, NUMBER 4

I am now going to share with you a very personal event in my life. It happened after my sophomore year, I guess, and I needed a job, so I went down to the local Friendly’s, figuring that I could fry burgers for a few months and save some money for the fall. So, I walked into the restaurant with my moped helmet under one arm and headed to the back for my interview. The manager, a forty-fiveish lady with gray hair, looked at my moped helmet and my two-day stubble. “You know,” she said, “if you want this job, you’ll have to shave everyday.” “Oops,” I thought to myself. “Bad start.” “Yes,” I replied, “I normally do.” A good answer, I thought.

“What, did you want to look good riding your cycle?” she asked. Not sarcastically—understandingly, as in: “I can laugh it off as a joke this time.” But I almost laughed outward. “Yes,” I wanted to say “I always feel sexier riding my moped with stubble.” For the rest of the interview, all I could do was think about how much my face burned whenever I shaved. I didn’t get the job.

I was thinking about this story because lately I have been considering how many things are expected of us in terms of personality. One place you apply for a job and they say, “Oh my, really. Bag the tie, dude. We’re totally casual ‘round here.!” Everyday, most of us rotate personalities like the Wheel of Fortune. The difference is, of course, that we choose which personality to put on, while on Wheel of Fortune you can always get stuck with a “Bankrupt” space.

I’m not saying this rotation business is necessarily bad.

I can hear people whispering the bastard word of Milton Academy—”conformity.” I say “bastard” because it is something Milton spawns a lot of the time without taking credit for it. Certainly, conformity is one form of rotating personalities. Those of us who run around, pulling on or throwing off personalities and clothes according to which personalities and clothes the popular kids seem to be wearing, are conforming. But sooner or later, most kids learn to think for themselves, and conformity slurs into trendiness, which is annoying, but harmless.

We all rotate personalities because we know that certain people expect certain things from us. Mom knows you pretty well, but you still wouldn’t call her “dude” all the time and tell her what your friends really smoke or what you do when you’re alone with your girlfriend or boyfriend, as the case may be. And your grandparents still expect you to be cute, so you smile a lot around them. There are some people who rotate personalities randomly just like the Wheel of Fortune.

They are known as schizophrenics. As long as they’re not paranoid schitzo’s, these people tend to be way off in another universe, but harmless.

Around here, people like laying waste to others’ personalities in the sense that all the time you hear people calling each other trendy. Lots of kids around her are trendy, but trendy doesn’t always mean mindless. We all rotate personalities because we have to. You could argue that it is always better to be totally “yourself,” but that isn’t true. While conforming is a drag, do you think it’s better to wear the wrong thing if it’s going to give your grandfather a heart attack just to be yourself, or to take the thing off so as not to upset him?

I would think that Existentialism would get a lot more airplay around here. Are you what other people perceive you to be, or are you what you think your are? Ask Vanna White. Everyone thinks she’s a bimbo, but she thinks she’s smart. •

Let It Be Said

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

are described as the SSE stormtroopers, or the sexism police.

The community’s (and more specifically, the aforementioned group’s) reaction to sexism is not the only exaggerated response that exists on campus. The issue of racism has always been a hot topic for discussion at Milton, although, the truth is, as far as the immediate community is concerned, I don’t consider it to be a problem.

[I don’t see any hateful graffiti on the wall]. People aren’t being abused because of the color of their skin. We’re all intelligent enough to realize that skin color doesn’t make a difference in who we are.

So what’s the problem? Last week, Mark Hilgendorf wrote an opinion questioning the comparisons made between the Hispanic and AIMS assemblies. I believe it would be safe to say that a solid majority of the students at this school know who Martin Luther King is, and what he stood for and what he did. He is a man whose life should be celebrated. But a celebration of his life will not end racism.

The reason why the Hispanic assembly worked so well was that it gave non-Hispanic students an idea of who the participants were by celebrating their heritage and culture.

What was there to gain from the King assembly but the knowledge of who the man was. Did anybody truly gain an understanding of [Black culture]? [redacted sentence].

George Washington is a hero of most Americans, yet who he was says little about those who praise him. But at Milton, one can not say that the King assembly was redundant.

One can not openly say that the portrayal of the messages was excessive and borderline condescending to those watching. No, that would be just plain wrong, and it might just upset some upsetting people. Not my fault. A lot of

hard work was put in to the assembly, which I do appreciate, but that doesn’t mean I learned anything from it, or that there was truly anything to be learned.

I don’t consider myself to be an evil person. I’ve never felt guilty for not doing more to combat racism or sexism, or saving the whole damn planet for that matter.

But all of these special interest groups keep telling me that I should, even though I’ve done nothing to augment the problems at hand. What’s worse is that people react so badly to the smallest contradiction to their “proper” beliefs. The lecture I received after the bake sale joke alsted for more than fifteen minutes, yet was so harried and so over-emotional that the only thing I was able to agree with was that bake sales are good fundraisers. The rationality of the discussion was lost, as were what may have been some important ideas.

What I’m trying to say is that people at Milton are just too sensitive when it comes to issues of race or sex.

No matter how strongly you believe in a side, the only way you’re ever going to get a point across is to be reasonable and realize that there is never only one correct path to the truth.

Even more important is that no matter how repulsive one’s opinions may sound, that they have a right to their beliefs, as does anybody. If a person hates someone because of their race, try to understand where they’re coming from, and then, in a soft, calm voice, try to persuade them to your side. The key words there are soft and calm, not crucify. The Hispanic assembly worked, not because of the music and the dancing, but because it presented the opportunity to understand, and didn't chastise the audience for events that happened over twenty years ago. That is the bittersweet truth. •

AIMS Becomes ONYX: Black Association Redefines Goals

By NATASHA GRAHAM VOLUME 11, NUMBER 7 MAY 28, 1993 On Tuesday, May 25, the organization formerly named AIMS (association for the Independent Multicultural Students) held a press conference to announce its decision to change the group’s name to ONYX. Along with this name change comes a change in the group’s intentions – the society is now officially “a student run organization through which Black students can find social, cultural, and political support among their peers.” The old ONYX board hopes that the new name will help the club’s members to focus on fulfilling the group’s new agenda of goals for the upcoming years.

This is not the first time that the organization has changed its name.

In fact, when Neville Lake (Admissions, ONYX Faculty Sponsor) arrived at Milton in 1980 and founded the group—preceded only by a short-lived Black and Hispanic student club named Truth and Soul, established in the mid ‘70’s—the organization was titled the Association of Independent Minority Students. According to

Betty Brown (Assistant Dean for Students of Color, ONYX Faculty Sponsor), two years ago, many of group’s members voiced dissatisfaction with the word ‘minority’. “They felt that the word [minority] implied that they were less than others,” she explains. “Also, [the term] was not inclusive [of everyone].” Hence, the students changed the name to encourage all members of the Milton community, regardless of race, to participate in the group.

At the press conference, the old ONYX student co-heads, Paula Bonney-Haughton (I), Steven Clarke (I), Theresa Conduah (II), and Keisha Powell (I), clarified the reasoning behind the name alteration.

The new name is ONYX because “we [the organization] believe that this title best represents what we want… strength, solidarity, and unity.” The board hopes that this distinct name will provide “new energy” and “a focus for next year’s board and members”.

According to the co-heads, the group now hopes to concentrate on issues involving “the Black” experience simply because the presence of the group Common Ground allows multi-cultural

issues to be addressed; “the two groups don’t need to do the same thing.” Another board member added that “there are two groups such as the Asian Society, the Latino Alliance, and JSU [Jewish Student Union] – no real group for Blacks [exists].”

Powell also explained that the group has been contemplating the change for a while, but felt “[somewhat] guilty to come out as a black group… to seem exclusive.”

Clarke added that ‘we had a responsibility on campus and we didn’t want to shut this responsibility out.”

Student reactions to the new ONYX are generally positive. Ann Cross (III) believes that the group “had the energy and the people to do whatever it wanted – it just need to organize itself.” Other students agree with Raj Gade (III) who says “it is about time that [they] stated what the purpose of the group really is; now [the club] can begin to do its job.”

By clarifying its goals, ONYX hopes to become more active, and as Conduah stresses, “make [its] voice heard throughout the Community.” As Keenan Forbes (I) said, “Hopefully, ONYX will be a welcome addition to the Milton Academy ‘melting pot.’” •

The Slick People

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

condescendingly. They moved across the room smoothly. And these people beat me in Original oratory. Every time.

Don’t think that just because you’re not on Speech Team, you don’t have to worry about the Slick People. They’re here too. Just look around you. Leather bomber jackets. Pink shirts tucked shabbily into Bugle boy work pants. Little round sunglasses.

Slick people play the guitar and sing. They play the guitar better than I do, and they sing better than me as well.

Slick people don’t play sports, but they don’t take P.E. either. No one knows how they get out of the requirement. Maybe they’re just too slick for it. Slick people always have their arm around someone.

Slick people don’t eat. They just have a glass of water. In my four years here, I’ve never seen a slick person eat anything except for the out-of-season matzoh at Daka.

I suppose they live on their slickness. Slick people have a little bit of acne, but it’s stylishly arranged. Slick people listen to Jimi Hendrix. They come up to you at dinner and say, “A bunch of us are going outside to lie down and look at the stars and listen

to Jimi Hendrix.” Male slick people don’t laugh. They snicker. A very smooth snicker which can always make you feel like some of their Valvoline has rubbed off on you. Female slick people laugh as if they are having convulsions, but soundlessly, with their mouths and eyes wide open. If you take them out of context, they look as if they are choking on a Data hot dog.

I think that if you force a Slick person into a conversation while no other Slick person is near, he or she will rot away. This is because they are all telepathically linked in a huge computer network under the Student Center. This is why they always agree with each other and never venture near electronic equipment.

It might mess up their circuits.

I was praying to Otis Spunkymeyer in the Student Center during the war when I overheard a group of Slickies discussing the situation in the Middle East. One of them said rather timidly, “I’m against the war.” Almost immediately, another said, “Oh my God! Like, what are you thinking? We have to kick Saddam’s butt and preserve the American way of life!” S.P. number one turned around and

said, “I know. Did I say I was against the war?” Then the others in the group joined in with chimes of “Iraq sucks,” “Kill Saddam,” and “The war is major cool.”

Pseudo-slick people hang around in the Student Center and spend all their time engaging in delightful conversation with other slick people. These are currently known as S.C.P.’s, or Student Center People. If you see one, don’t be alarmed.

They’re technically harmless unless cornered.

The real slick people control the network from outside. These are the ones who wear pink shirts and carry expensive musical instruments. They take third-year jazz and follow Mr. Sinicrope around. I have never gotten close enough to a genuine slick person to strike up a conversation, but I’m sure that, if I heard them speak, I would want to become one as well.

Even though Milton Academy is known for its multicultural spirit, the slicks are an ethnic group we all could live without.

I’d like to see all their heads explode. •

PAGE 6

PAGE 7

Room Searches

By ZANDER DRYER MARCH 11, 1998 VOLUME 16, NUMBER 27

Over two hundred years ago, the authors of the Constitution added to the Constitution a Bill of Rights, which guaranteed, along with other basic rights, that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

Fast-forward two centuries to last Wednesday night. On that evening, students in a Milton Academy dorm were warned that their rooms would be searched later that night. Dorm staff had become alarmed after widespread reports of drug and alcohol abuse in the dorms.

A short time later, faculty carefully combed each student’s room.

In this particular case, the searches were certainly not unreasonable: not only were the faculty acting on “probable cause,” but students were also given the chance to remove any incriminating substances from their rooms before the search began. Reaction around campus seemed to be generally positive; most students felt the organizers of the search had accomplished their goal of removing illegal substances in a fair and unintrusive way. However, last Wednesday’s incident again raised the dogging question of what rights students have to privacy and protection in their rooms, when those rooms are the territory of a private institution that is not bound to respect the Constitution’s protections of individual rights.

Dean of Students David Torcoletti stressed that the school had no choice but to carry out room searches. “In any school situation…because we are actually paid for and legally obligated to be ‘in loco parentis’ for the folks who live here, if we think there is something in a room that is a threat to someone’s health and wellbeing—an illegal drug, alcohol, a weapon—we’re not only allowed to but obligated to look. I have been to a lot of seminars about boarding schools and the law—it’s not one of these cases where you choose to [search a room]. If you have a strong, credible suspicion that there is something in someone’s room that is harmful to them or others, you are required to go get it.”

Although students did not challenge the Dean’s assertions that the Academy has an obligation to protect the general welfare of the student body, they are nonetheless alarmed by the idea that there is no protection of a minimum right to privacy. As one senior in Forbes House put it, “To stand by and watch your drawers be searched when you yourself are completely innocent feels like a terrible violation.” Forbes House was searched last year after the theft of a day student’s wallet.

Torcoletti acknowledged that “it always feels very ugly and invasive when you spend the evening looking through someone’s [belongings]—because you are looking through that perCONTINUED ON PAGE 8

8:00 A.M assembly: An unnecessary evil 4TH EDITORIAL BOARD FEBRUARY 6, 1987 Class advisors are often surprised by the number of assembly cuts amassed by their student charges.

What advisors should be surprised about, however, is that students bother to go to assemblies at all. The fact is that an 8:00 AM assembly is an immense and unnecessary hassle.

Supporters of early morning assembly when defending it, point to the several functions that the assembly provides. The assembly functions as a forum for important announcements, they say. Further, many view morning assembly as an essential ingredient in keeping the school unified. Finally, from an administrative viewpoint, the assembly serves as a check to make sure students are at school at not off harming themselves or others.

Granted, the assembly does accomplish all of these things with

varying degrees of success. However, there is no reason that assembly has to take place at 8:00 in the morning to accomplish these goals. If first period were to begin at 8:00 and second at 8:55, assembly could take place at 9:50 and end in time for a ten minute recess before third period began at 10:20.

The benefit of such a plan would be straightforward and of greatest important. At a school that demands as much from its students as Milton does, sleep is a treasured commodity. Under the outlined plan, students who are free first period can get almost an extra hour of sleep. Even better, those students with the first two periods free on a particular day could get an extra two hours of sleep. And not only would students benefit from this plan. Extra sleep for students also means fewer midwinter zombies that teachers despise so.

See? It’s all perfectly simple. •

Faculty Abatement

By MARCO BARBER GROSSI AND KUNAL JASTY VOLUME 28, NUMBER 4 For years, a major concern for Milton Academy has been the sustainability of “faculty abatement,” the aid given to teachers to pay their children's’ tuition. With the recent economic downturn, abatement is once again being reexamined for its economic feasibility.

Throughout its history, Milton Academy has maintained the tradition of compensating teachers in the form of financial aid. According to Mr. Bland, Milton compares to other independent schools with the amount of compensation it grants to teachers. Mr. Bland said that “abatement should be a real benefit, a good thing.” However, he admitted that schools that have Lower and Upper Schools have the challenge of meeting the financial needs of children

who attend the school for a longer time; consequently, abatement must continue for longer at an overall higher cost.

Despite rumors circulating around campus, Mr. Bland promised that abatement will not disappear; compensating faculty members’ children will continue. However, the system is currently being evaluated to ensure that it is financially sustainable.

The Compensation Committee, which started assessing the abatement program this past fall, has been charged with the task of this evaluation. Ms. Sugrue heads the committee, which acts as an advising voice to Mr. Bland and the Board of Trustees.

The committee also works with four members of the Board of Trustees: Mr. F. Warren Farlan, Mr. Frederick G. Sykes, Mr. David Abrams, and Ms. Victoria Hall Graham. •

Administrators Attempt to Shut Down New Feminist Magazine

BY WILL POWERS NOVEMBER 25, 2014 VOLUME 32, NUMBER 10 Over the past few months, some of the students from SAGE (Students Advocating Gender Equality) have been fighting to publish a magazine focused on gender issues. Currently called The F-Word, the publication was conceived at a gender equality conference at Hotchkiss School over the summer.

Since then, Class II students Lyla Bonaccorso-Nulisch, Aeshna Chandra, Michaela Olson, and Juliet Pesner have been recruiting writers and artists to produce material for the magazine.

But they quickly ran into an issue—funding. Originally, one of the founders of The Milton Paper, Mark Denneen ‘84, offered to fund the F-Word, but according to Bonaccorso-Nulisch, “The school was like ‘no, that’s too complicated.’

They didn’t want to go through the Communications Office to set up an alumni fund and everything.” So, the editors then tried to set the publication as a “culture club,” in order to get the necessary funding from the school.

However, faculty members, particularly Heather Flewelling and José Ruiz, would not allow The F-Word’s editors to publish their magazine without making major changes.

As to the overall goal of the publication, Mr. Ruiz says he supports it, but he is worried that the photos will be misinterpreted and received in a negative way. “If this is an opportunity for us to engage in a dialogue that we don’t necessarily see as an issue or are thinking carefully about as a student body,” he said, “and if this is a vehicle to engage in those conversations then I absolutely support this.”

The name of the magazine, according to Olson, was one of the big things they wanted to change: “[They] didn’t want us to use the word feminism.” In addition, the school had a problem with an art piece that was to be the focus of the first issue. The piece involved photographing students after they had written on their bare backs why they “need feminism.” After verifying the concept for the piece with some faculty members, the editors began taking pictures of students’ backs,

gathering thirty-two pictures in all.

“Once we had submitted them and done all the layout and everything, they were like “this is child pornography—you can’t do it,” said Olson. According to Mr. Ruiz, Milton’s administration consulted their legal counsel and determined that the publication’s photos were not in violation of child pornography laws. Massachusetts law states that the photos would only be criminal if taken and distributed with “lascivious intent” meaning “sexual gratification or arousal is an objective.”

Mr. Ruiz also said that “the spirit of the law is where the gray area is,” and thus the administration would likely require parental consent forms for the subjects of the cover photo, regardless of the pure legality of the photos.

Bonaccorso-Nulisch met with with Ms. Flewelling and Mr. Ruiz and defended the piece by arguing that we see the bare backs of students all the time around campus.

This year, Bonaccorso-Nulisch was the only female member of Milton’s Hack Soccer team, she told them, and she had to run around with shirtless boys on the quad almost every day.

In an interview, Linnea Engstrom, the faculty sponsor of SAGE, also commented on the issue of the “I need feminism” art piece: “We have publications that have mostly naked students in them, mostly the art publications… In this case you can’t really see anything.

It’s just the back.” She noted that the school is having to decide whether the pictures are child pornography or not. “If you look up the definition, you can decide for yourself whether this is actually child pornography or not,” she said.

Mr. Ruiz addressed the fact that, child pornography or not, parents should be involved when students are photographed in this way.

“Regardless, we should have consent forms, if this is how the [magazine] wants to proceed… It was a parent who initiated this conversation.”

“There was a big parental push-back,” said Bonaccorso-Nulisch. “There was a chance that [these parents] would take it further, if it wasn’t addressed in the way they wanted.” With the possibility of legal action on the horizon, it remains unclear whether The F-Word will ever be published. •

Plagiarism Revision

By ENO SARRIS APRIL 28, 1995 The recent rash of plagiarism cases incited much debate among the SGA as well as in the faculty about the use of a minimum suspension for all plagiarism offenses, as well as whether or not it was too harsh in some cases. Ian Bagley (II) submitted a proposal to the SGA which encompassed the sentiment against the minimums, suggesting the abolishment of the minimums for substance abuse and plagiarism cases. The SGA debated the proposal, and recently passed a motion to add the word “normally” to the sentence about the five-day suspension rule in next year’s handbook.

This year there have been five plagiarism cases: two in the Math department and three in the History department. Bill Moore (Academic Dean) agreed that the difference between unintentional and intentional plagiarism was “exemplified by the difference” in the suspensions. Two of the cases ended with the five-day minimum. These, according to Mr. Moore, were the cases that seemed “the most unintentional.” The other three ended with two suspensions of nine days each and one of twelve days. According to Moore, last year there were “about two” cases of plagiarism, both of which occured in the History department. He stated that the increase was a “mystery” to him and that he did not understand why so many students were going for the “easy way out” this years.

Bagley, in his proposal, stated that he felt that the five-day minimum was a good idea “in theory,” but that it was too harsh for unintentional cases. Moore conceded that he felt that these punishments were created “in response to the creation of the five-day suspension for substance abuse,” and that these rules did not leave much room for individual cases. Some members of the community, including John Warren (History), who is next year’s Academic Dean, feel that a middle ground such as the reduction of the minimum required length of suspension in cases of unintentional plagiarism would be preferable alternative.

Mr. Warren, who felt that keeping the minimums was better for the Academy, would be willing to change the number of days to “around three days” in the case that the committee found the plagiarism to be “without intention to deceive.”

Bagley was “pleased” about the outcome of the SGA vote and “hopeful” and the faculty’s response.

He believes that the “normally” clause will, in the end, let the DC committee consider each case individually, as the word will allow for increased leniency in the plagiarism penalties. Mr. Moore agreed, saying that the addition of the word “normally” to the handbook was “just as good as” getting rid of the minimum required sentences. He believed that the modification allowed the DC to conclude on suspensions of “two or three days in unintentional cases,” and added that he was pleased that the SGA passed it. He was also “optimistic” in his belief that the faculty will put the proposal through. In any case, he stated that he would “support it” in the faculty meeting.

The new clause will go before the faculty to be voted on in their next meeting. The addition of the word will be “much more significant than it seems” according to Moore, as he projects it will “hopefully reduce” the controversy surrounding the issue. •

PAGE 8

PAGE 9

Milton Graduate Linked to Counterfeiting Scandal

BY CATHERINE ISAAC

DECEMBER 6, 1996 VOLUME 14, NUMBER 20

Cliff Evans (Class of ’91), a former Columbia student and member of the Milton community, and three of his acquaintances were arrested on Tuesday, December 3. The four were charged with copying roughly $85,000 in counterfeit twenty dollar bills on the color copier at the Columbia University printing shop.

All are currently free on 10,000 to 25,000 bail.

Exact information on what prompted the crime is not available, though a report in Wednesday’s The New York Times stated that the four lived modestly but had large debts, primarily from student loans.

Edward Olulenu and Derick Warren, two of the other suspects, had also attended Columbia. Keith Blackwell, the fourth man, was an acquaintance of the other three.

New York police conducted a six month investigation, beginning with the Department of Treasury's discovery of counterfeit bills circulating the New York area. The authorities then monitored the area for more phony bills; the superior quality of Columbia’s printing facilities pointed towards these four men.

Sources at the Columbia Spectator say that the suspect was arrested before they were able to use more than $5,000 of the money.

As stated in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times, the scheme apparently began last June when Evans visited Olulenu, who was then working part-time at the printing center, Evans

saw the color copier, and asked if he could use it. Olulenu let Evans run off a few counterfeit twenty dollar bills.

The complaint filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan says this procedure continued approximately twice a week for the next six weeks. The Times went on to state that Olulenu then began counterfeiting the bills himself. Over the next four months, he made $60,000 to $70,000 in counterfeit bills, which, according to the complaint, he then gave to Evans.

The complaints also states that Evans then introduced Olulenu to Blackwell, and proposed that they “deal with each other directly,” according to the Times.

Warren, Evans’ roommate, later assisted in cutting and passing the bills.

Evans, after spending four years at Columbia without graduating, is currently free on a $25,000 bail. Sources at Columbia say that he owes $40,000 in school loans. How he plans to plead is unclear.

Those at Milton who remember Evans say that he was a vital member of the community. Evans apparently played a major role in the November 1990 incident during which, according to the November 16, 1990 issue of The Milton Paper, “a senior at West Roxbury High School was shot in the boys’ gym during fighting which erupted after nearly 200 uninvited people crashed the AIMS (Association of Independent Multicultural Students) dance.” Said John Banderob (Math), who wrote Evans a college recommendation, “He was somebody that I really came to respect, and a student who wasn’t afraid to take a position on an issue, state it, and defend it clearly. In the wake of the shooting incident, there was a lot of racial tension on campus, and Cliff was a

major force in keeping dialogue open and positive.”

Neville Lake (Admissions) re-members Evan fondly, and was deeply saddened by his arrest; said Lake, “I’m not condoning it for a second; however, he did come from a rough part of Chicago, and I wonder whether going back to an area where something like this is so unusual didn’t help to reduce the temptation. The fact that he attended Milton does not make him impervious to the influences that are out there, particularly in our inner cities.”

Lake continued, “After a rocky start at Milton, he took his second chance and made the best of it. For all intents and purposes, he had fulfilled the prep school dream, which, in a way, makes this outcome all the more tragic.”

Evans was also known as a phenomenal athlete during his time at Milton; he was known as Cliff “The Knife” Evans because, as classmates recall, he could “cut through the line like a knife through butter” Tom Flaherty (Assistant Dean of Students, Evans’ Football Coach), remembers Evans as a “very dependable guy. He was very responsible, always at practice. I never remembered there being any reason to second-guess him at all.”

Evans wrote a letter to The Paper concerning the 1990 shooting. In this letter, he gave the following statement: “Throughout my years at Milton I have constantly heard faculty refer to life after Milton as the ‘real world.’ Believe it or not, my fellow students, though you are at Miton you are still part of the real world.”•

Room Searches

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 6

son’s life. I can understand how any student could feel [violated]—while you are [searching] you feel that way. Still, I think occasionally you have to think about the ‘greater good’ thing. [Theft and drugs] are destructive to the fabric of a dorm community.”

Torcoletti also wished to highlight the fact that students do have some protections in the search process. He noted that only the Headmaster can order searches. For a room (or entire dorm) to be searched, the dorm heads must present solid evidence to the Dean of Students, who then asks the Headmaster to consider approving a search, If the Headmaster feels there is solid evidence, he approves

the search. Otherwise, he rejects it. Students also have dorm leaders or other student advocates present during a search to ensure that searches are carried out cleanly and fairly, in a manner that does not violate students’ dignity.

The school’s policy on room searches thus seems unlikely to change.

As long as the Academy feels that it has a legal obligation to search rooms, it cannot stop carrying out such searches, and the Dean made clear the administration’s feeling that the current system for ordering searches sufficiently protects students’ rights.

Torcoletti did offer one final warning to students though. He said that,

although each case is different, allowing students to remove incriminating evidence from their rooms was “unlikely to happen again.” So be sure to throw out the empties. ways better to be totally “yourself,” but that isn’t true. While conforming is a drag, do you think it’s better to wear the wrong thing if it’s going to give your grandfather a heart attack just to be yourself, or to take the thing off so as not to upset him?

I would think that Existentialism would get a lot more airplay around here.

Are you what other people perceive you to be, or are you what you think your are?

Ask Vanna White. Everyone thinks she’s a bimbo, but she thinks she’s smart. •

Milton Golf Perseveres

By JOHN SULLIVAN MAY 20TH, 2011 VOL. 29 NUMBER 2 Ping...Ping...Ping…

That is the sound of Mike McGee (III) hitting his daily bucket of balls on the driving range, slowly mastering his craft one day at a time. Whether he has a putter or a 6-iron in his hands, Mike can make miracles happen, similar to a wizard with his wand. Mike McGee, a seasoned golf veteran, now plays for Milton Academy’s prestigious Coed Varsity Golf Squad.

However, this year the team has four wins and five losses. After seeing this year’s record, most people might disregard Mike and the rest of Milton’s Golf Squad, thinking they will be an easy opponent; but that is just what Mike wants.

Thriving under pressure, Mike reminds all of his “haterz” that the team is just heating up. Their opponents could be bigger and better than Milton’s squad, but there is one valuable thing that Mike McGee knows the other teams do not possess: Mike McGee. Sam Procter (IV), Louis McWilliams (II), Duncan Bowden (III), and Regan Simeone (II) are just a few of the legends that occupy the spots on Milton’s squad.

On May 4th, the Squad had a rematch against Belmont Hill, a team that had previously beat Milton’s by one match. Not being one to repeat mistakes, Mike was ready to pounce on the competition and lock in the “W” for Milton alongside the rest of his team. Hitting shot after shot, Mike walked off the course with a victorious tie, knowing that it was one for the books. Other grudge-matches were against Nobles on May 9th, St. Marks on May 11th, Thayer on May 17th, and BB&N on May 18th.

As a personal friend of Mike McGee, I know better than anybody that he is very passionate about golf and has the drive to bring home a few more wins for our Milton Academy team.

With focus and hard work, the team could come out of the season with a solid record of ten wins and five losses. I highly recommend that you go out to at least one of these matches to watch and support your fellow classmates who are doing your school proud.

All in all, Milton Academy’s Coed Golf Squad is a determined bunch and I look forward to seeing how they will perform in the remainder of this long heated season. Milton Academy Coed Varsity Golf Squad, I wish you all luck on the long journey ahead. Lock n’ load, baby! Or as Chevy Chase said in the legendary movie, Caddyshack, “There’s a force in the universe that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball.” •

Students Groups Fight Policy: Focus on Unmarried Couples in Dorms

BY BERCOVITCH AND DRACHMAN-JONES NOVEMBER 21, 1999 VOLUME 15, NUMBER 16 On Tuesday, November 18, Edwin P. Fredie (Headmaster) met with the student organizations Gay and Straight People (GASP) to discuss Milton’s stance on unmarried faculty members who live in the dorms with their partners. Milton Academy currently has an unwritten policy which does not allow an unmarried faculty member to live with his or her partner in the dorm. Student-run groups GASP and Common Ground have recognized the fact that Massachusetts homosexuals cannot be legally married, suggesting that the school’s current policy is discriminatory in nature. GASP and Common Ground plan to propose to the trustees a revised policy which would allow for homosexual faculty members to live in the dorms with a partner to whom they are committed.

The Massachusetts law states that two people of the same sex cannot be legally married. Cathy Everett (Director of Communications) says, in an online statement, that “within the confines of Massachusetts law, as it intersects with Milton Academy policy, a homosexual couple would not be able to serve as house parents in the dormitory.” Fredie said that “couples who live in dorms must be married, because we’re a school that abides by the laws,” and thus we must incorporate them into our regulations. Fredie feels that because “the school cannot tolerate sexual behavior between students,” the same behavior between unmarried faculty members, some of whom are close in age to the students, would set a bad example.

Four years ago, Fredie proposed a change in the present policy to the Board of Trustees. He reported that, given the basic validity of the policy with regards to heterosexual couples, along with “a lack of education on the depth of the issue,” the Trustees rejected his proposal. Will Graham, (GASP co-head,I) disagreed, saying that the reason Fredie’s proposal was rejected was that “the conservative nature of the Board of Trustees does not necessarily reflect the views of the school.”

Members of GASP and

Common Ground, along with many others in the Milton community, feel that the school, by enforcing the policy, is delivering a contradictory message to the community. Nick Harlow (GASP co-head,I) explains that “Milton tries so hard to be liberal and diverse, while it simultaneously upholds a policy that deliberately denies the validity of the commitment that homosexuals make to each other in a serious relationship.” Todd Fry (English) expressed on the online GASP conference that although he can “date in a mature way [it is] ironic that I would have to move out [of the dorm] in order to make a mature life commitment.” Michael Muska (College Office and GASP faculty advisor) explains that we “create support groups, [and] encourage students to exam their own values and identities [within the school]...and meanwhile decide that a gay/lesbian...relationship has no venues for a traditional committed relationship.”

Many in the community feel that the present dorm parent policy is harmful to the residential atmosphere. Karen Keough, a former faculty member, points out that “a dorm faculty member is a caretaker, friend, role model, and teach. When a student loses that person, it’s a tough thing to go through.” Muska explains that “the student should be exposed to all types of role models, whether they be black, white, married, unmarried, gay, or straight.”

The combined effort of GASP and Common Ground has drawn much attention to the issue. Their goal is to persuade the school to recognize “the commitment that gay people make to each other in these ceremonies as a sacred vow, just as it does the legally binding commitment heterosexuals make to each other in a marriage,” says Harlow. Within the next two weeks, the two groups plan to introduce a petition which would convey to the Board of Trustees the level of student support for their cause/ The petition is “aimed to show that there is support within the student body,” explains Mike Delfs, (Common Ground,I). He emphasizes that the goal of the petition is not to “change our social standards regarding commitment, but rather to honor the commitment of gay faculty members.”

The two groups hope to

CONTINUED ON PAGE 11

PAGE 10

PAGE 11

Point Counterpoint: The Government Shutdown

BY MAX KILMAN Volume 31 Number 7 Oct. 11, 2013 Overview: On October 1, the Federal Government of the United States shut down. Republicans and Democrats in Congress could not agree on a budget measure that would have maintained current sequester-level funding.

This disagreement stemmed from conflict of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.

Republicans insisted on repealing or modifying the ACE. Democrats refused to negotiate, asserting compromise would set a precedent for “taking the government hostage.”

In the 10 days since, the important work of 800,00 government employees has gone undone. Both sides have retained ideological hard-lines, reducing the situation to a zero-sum game. Our country faces a potential self-imposed disaster in the debt ceiling next week, though the prospect of defaulting on our debt seems to be causing both sides to consider cooperation. —Ed. Board Despite ObamaCare’s triumphs, Republicans in congress refuse to accept it as reality. Over 40 times since the law was passed, House Republicans have voted to repeal it.

Their proposal has been rejected by Senate every time. Our government is set up so that a law can always be repealed. If one party wins both the presidential election and enough seats in the House and the Senate, then that party has the power to vote on and change the laws. Republicans have been unable to gain a majority in the Senate. They lost to President Obama in the 2012 election, yet still believe they have a duty to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans have decided the only way to stop the Affordable Care Act from going into effect is to shut down the government. Every year, Congress must agree on a budget for the upcoming year to keep the government running. Most years in our history, Congress has been able to reach an agreement.

However, this year, the Republicans’ proposal demanded the repeal of ObamaCare. This requirement is ludicrous. Obamacare was passed and approved on all levels; the law’s

Fractured Education

PE Proposal

going into effect is not debatable.

The Republicans are a minority in Congress and a minority has no right to demand things from a majority and expect them to be carried out.

News networks have asked who will cave first, Obama or the Republicans.They have debated who is at fault for the negotiation failures, but these questions are irrelevant.

ObamaCare is a law. It would be insane for President Obama to negotiate with a minority about something already approved. To give in to any of the Republicans’ demands would throw off the balance of power in Congress, showing that the minority can beat the majority through sheer force of will. ObamaCare has been inarguably approved, and to change it is illogical.

This government shutdown is an immature display from the House Republicans. Instead of accepting ObamaCare for the law it is and trying to repeal it later by winning elections and gaining seats in Congress, Republicans have decided they must allow the government to shut down, costing the US economy 300 million dollars per day and hurting those who need the services provided by the government— all in hopes of repealing an already approved law.

Jon Stewart best described the House Republicans’ stupidity and immaturity using a football analogy: “On Sunday [the Giants] lost 31-7. Do you know what the Giants didn’t say after that game? ‘If you don’t give us 25 more points by midnight on Monday, we will shut down the f**king NFL.’”

by Rick Dionne There is much more to the shutdown than just the events of the past week. This crisis is the culmination of months and years of rhetoric and debate across partisan lines. The years of the Obama administration have been marked by stagnation and lack of compromise.

The President promised us change, all the way back in 2008, and appeared to represent a radical new wave of politicians: young, diverse, and dedicated to progress and groundbreaking development. In these aspects, he has failed to deliver. Political stagnation has been an

By OWEN LAMONT SEPTEMBER 16, 1983 VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 The faculty voted down almost all key elements of the controversial Education Policy Committee (EPC) proposal in a June 13 meeting, in a vote that made clear that the majority of the faculty felt that regulations were the wrong way to alleviate student time problems.

The faculty, in the June 13 meeting at Milton Academy, also rejected, by a close vote, a part of the proposal designed to clarify and organize the Physical Education (PE) requirements. The rejection means, according to Arts Program Chair Dale Deletis, that “it’s back to the old drawing board as far as PE requirements are concerned.”

The faculty rejected virtually all provisions regulating student extracurricular activities, including provisions limiting when and for how long activities could meet. These limitations were the most controversial part of the EPC proposal—some students felt that the “passage of the proposal would cripple the diversity and creativity of the students.”

According to Principal for Boys John Mackenzie, “the faculty vote indicates that this is not the way to go... that the faculty say we don’t really want uniform rules and regulations in this area.”

However, the “key vote,” according to Mackenzie, was the rejection of the PE requirement proposal. This provision would have formally required that all students be involved in a sport or in PE every term, and that students taking PE classes must take four PE classes every week.

The proposal was presented in the context of controversy over PE requirements that has over the year divided the faculty. “It’s important to understand that different people voted against the proposal for different reasons,” cautioned Mackenzie. “The faculty is still fairly split over the PE issue.”

Deletis agreed, saying “the vote was confusing… I don’t really know what it means in terms of opinion.” DeLetis said “I opposed the provision because although I am in favor of four PE periods a week as a general practice… I am opposed to it as an absolute dictum.”

The question remains as to what the vote means in terms of actual requirements. Mackenzie joked, “there are several schools of thought on this...a special session of the Supreme Court will be called to deal with the issue.”

Apparently what has happened is that after a year of proposals and counter proposals, discussion and analysis, controversy and voting, the PE requirements this year “will be exactly the same as they were last September” according to Athletic Department head Neil Keller.

The prospect of change this year exists however. According to Keller, “this fall, the Girl’s

CONTINUED ON PAGE 13

CONTINUED ON PAGE 13

By ZACH DODES

VOLUME 11, NUMBER 7 MAY 28, 1993

We do the impossible here. It’s amazing, when you think about it. We slide in and out of many entirely different worlds in fifty minute chunks! Within moments, we can go from discussing the politics of homophobia to designing a bowling ball experiment. Think about that. Taken to logical extension, this lifestyle would have your parents commuting madly between eight jobs a day – doctor, executive, journalist, professor, architect, topiarist, musician, film critic. Each one would require a report or some such evidence of travail on the boss’s desk every fews.

“Good God,” you would say at night. “Are you okay, Dad?”

DAD: (lying face-down inside the front door with arms at sides) Whimper.

Of course this couldn’t happen – no adult has ever been expected to have such diverse talents! Nobody since Da Vinci (literally, “The Vinnie”) could move so smoothly from field to field without suffering from major personality disorders. And yet, the students of every high school in the nation are expected to do just that. Is this abuse, I ask you?

Are we being forced to exert our mental capacities in ways God never intended?

Is it possible to know by the time we are fifteen that a certain field of study is not for us? Is it possible that human beings

are specialized creatures from a young age? I have a friend who insists he was meant to be a Spaniard of the eighteenth century! Who are we to force him to take Computer Literacy? I have another friend who has been writing poetry since she was five. She absolutely plans to be a writer. What is she doing in math class?

I have another problem to talk about which will eventually relate to the first (I swear). The students at Milton Academy function in a very unique way: we are the only true inter-departmental force on campus. We are the ambassadors from the English teachers to the Music teachers, from the History Department to the Science Department. What does that mean? If it weren’t for us, these people would have practically no contact with one another. They function in different buildings; they think in entirely different planes. Thus, we are constantly put in the hapless position of trying to explain to our teachers that all the other teachers expect their courses to be given top priority as well. What to do?

First of all, let’s not blame the teachers (no snickering). That teachers should feel this way is entirely understandable – presumably, each teacher has chosen his/her particular subject to teach because it is the most interesting and relevant to that teacher. If a teacher has already made the monumental decision of choosing to devote his/her life to a particular area of study, it stands to reason that she/he would want to move students with the same excitement she/he feels for

the topic. This is where the Theory of Mutual Patronization BEtween Different Departments comes in. Teachers in every department love what they teach – sometimes, unfortunately, to the exclusion of all else.

If we, the students, were encouraged by the teachers to pursue other courses, we would not feel a need to classify ourselves from a young age (math-science, English-history, etc.). If we were given support in taking a little bit that captures our interest from each course to call our own, we would not feel intimidated into pledging our solid allegiance to one or two subjects, the students would not feel pressured to embrace a particular scope of thinking.

You know, thinking about English from a Historical perspective. Writing creatively about the beauty of high math. And anyways, this is the way in which we are really called upon to function outside of school? Isn’t interdisciplinary thinking the vague goal of such a broad-based education as ours? Don’t we learn what we do to give us a complete breadth of ways to view the world? Let’s remember that each subject, each world into which the students must dip every fifty minutes, is a manifestation of the same human phenomenon: curiosity. It would be a shame for students to feel they had to limit their curiosity to win the favor of their teachers.•

Unmarried Couples in Dorms CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9

educate not only the students, but also the faculty, administration, and alumni about gay rights within the school. Fredie explains that “educat[ing] the trustees and the parents [would give] them a sense o the depth of the issue/ The goal is to get the community to the point where we can talk about the issue without talking about sexual behavior.” Graham states that “our major problem is making it so the students are not indifferent to the subject.”

At the meeting between Fredie and GASP, the Headmaster emphasized using education as the means of gaining support for the proposal. He suggested that the school could hold workshops

and invite graduates and experienced speakers to expose faculty members and trustees to the importance of the issue.

He feels that while the issue is often discussed with an emphasis on sexuality, “it’s really and issue of discrimination.”

Because this issue has only recently resurfaced, many remain unclear on both the outcome and reaction to GASP and Common Ground’s proposed plans.

Gordon Sewall (Director of Development) explains that, “although I haven’t heard any concerns about GASP, GASP-sponsored dances, or the Coming Out Day at Milton”, he acknowledges that strong feeling may exist, and expressed that he does “not know how the community will

react.” Chris Rinderer (Head of Parents’ Association) agreed, saying that “there is no way to judge what the parents’ reactions would be.”

Many other ISL schools, such as Exeter, St. Paul’s, and Andover, still abide by a policy that prevents unmarried faculty from living in the dorms with partners.

Keough expressed that although “there was a lot of personal support for [me and my partner] at Milton and other schools, there wasn’t anybody who wanted to be the first to change their policy. Hopefully, with this issue, Milton will live up to its motto: Dare to Be True.” •

PAGE 12

PAGE 13

Government Shutdown

Dave’s First Opinion

By DAVID J VOLUME 6, NUMBER 22 APRIL 28, 1989

My friends said to me, “David... excuse me, David J...for your first opinion article why not write about something funny?” Okay, here goes...They took the Dr. Ruth show off the air about a year ago and replaced it with a jazz show...

The only explanation they gave was that they thought we’d like it better. Well, I fight back. I still call in with my sexual questions. I ask people like Dizzy Gillespie whether or not it’s okay to fake jazz improv. He said, “yeah, as long as you use a metronome.” But seriously… (just kidding). I hope people won’t be disappointed when I write about something serious...Comedy. When most people think of comedy, they just laugh it off, but I think it is something that is important and obviously overlooked in life in general and even more so at Milton.

For the past three weeks, you may have seen me around Milton carrying something besides my drumsticks— my little black book, not used for keeping records of females, holds in it many jokes.

Saturday night at the Goodwin open house, I’ll be doing a stand up routine.

(While this is not a plug, if you are interested in attending, I’ll be going on around nine or so. Bring a date and make an evening of it.) Well, anyway, I have spent much time over the course of these past few weeks trying to figure out what is appropriate material for Milton Comedy. Mrs. Ford said, “David, I trust that you’ll make the right decision,” leaving me feeling guilty, while Mr. Gilpin said, “Dave, say anything you feel comfortable saying to me,” which left me totally open to anything… Somewhere in between, I found my act. Well, at this point, you may be saying, “David...excuse me David J, where is there an opinion in this article?”

Well, I’ve got one more little story to tell ya and then I’ll be well on my way to finishing a gross generalization I like to call my opinion.

About a week ago, no, it was defi-

nitely last Wednesday (I’ve remembered everything since I gave up bread and practically everything else leavened for Passover), I was in Goodwin room.

(Goodwin is coincidentally the same name as the same place where I’ll be performing Saturday night...bring a date and make an evening of it...And did I mention that I will be doing my imitation of Tracy Chapman...Finally, I’ve found a singer whose vocal range is the same as mine.) A friend of mine at recess, who wasn’t Jewish, yet nevertheless was envious of “stale doughnuts,” didn’t have enough money to buy a bagel. Knowing that I am one who loves a joke, she turned to me and said, “David J, you’re Jewish, lend me a dollar.”

I knew she was kidding and I even found it funny at first, yet I was offended. She immediately apologized, realizing that she had stepped over the line between funny and offensive. I was upset for the rest of the day— not because of what she had said, and not because it was Passover and I couldn’t have the bagel, but because there does exist a line between appropriate and offensive.

While some find all ethnic jokes distasteful, there are others, including myself, who feel they are ok as long as the jokes are about the background to which you belong. Why, if it is ok for me to go on Saturday night and make Jewish jokes, is it wrong for my friend to do the same thing? I asked many people the same question, seeking the advice of my advisor, teacher, clergyman, lawyer and father (coincidentally, my lawyer and father are the same person, so it only cost me one hourly rate.) While again some said that all ethnic jokes are wrong, the reasoning behind the responses that agreed with my opinion was that making jokes about your own heritage and upbringing are ok because they cannot be interpreted as hostile remarks. Jokes about “us” are fine while jokes about “them” could only support further stereotyping.

Eddie Murphy, someone who is usually labeled as being offensive, performs many sketches that confront many stereotypes.

Are those ok because he’s black? Yeah, I think they are. My dad gets mad when I

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10

put on the Eddie Murphy sketch about his talking Nissan car. You know the one where he has a car in a white neighborhood and then he changes the car to fit in his neighborhood..the one that ends (edited of course) “... I said your lights are on...What the—, you blind and deaf.”

I don’t find it offensive at all. In fact, before hearing it, I never fully understood the extent to which our society is geared towards whites. The Nissan company (which I had previously believed built cars for the human race) took for granted that all drivers of their cars were white and Eddie Murphy is merely pointing this out. While I agree that these are not his exact intentions, the joke wouldn’t be funny if it were not true. But it’s ok, he’s black and he can make a joke about his heritage. The only problem comes if my only exposure to blacks is Eddie Murphy because I might picture every black man as someone's who had his “battry” stolen.

So Saturday, when I make my jokes about my family and the way I was brought up, I hope to break the stereotypes that are attributed to me and my background.

My routine does include a joke about the anti-semitic writings found right before spring break. But, when I offer to put these remarks behind me, willing to clean them up “for a dollar..ok..fifty cents, but that’s my final offer,” I’m not seeking to continue the Jewish stereotype that accompanies money. Rather, I hope to show how irrational the people who wrote the remarks and the stereotypes really are.

If you are easily offended by remarks like that...if you do not understand what I am getting at, please don’t come see me Saturday night. But let your date go anyway. leadership has been pressing the talking points. Now they’ve made them impossible to ignore, and Obama must recognize them—the sooner, the better.

I’m not arguing that the President and his cohorts need concede to every demand of their Republican constituents, but I do believe that compromises must be made—the president needs to get off his high horse and negotiate, not stand idly by while the country suffers. .•

epidemic lately—congress met less, and passed fewer bills in the 2011-2012 term than any term since 1947. In fact, Congress cannot manage to agree on even the most basic fundamental piece of legislature: the federal budget. This stagnation has been the result of lack of compromise and communication, and these issues have finally come to a head in the form this shutdown.

The government shutdown absolutely needs to end. It’s costing our economy, our international relations, and even the progress of our scientific research with every day it continues. In this case, the onus lies on the majority—the democrats who control both the senate and the presidency—to compromise. Though some of the demands of house Republicans are unreasonable, they have legitimate reason for protest. Their objections to Obamacare have been repeatedly ignored, and already the system seems faulty. As the Affordable Care Act has kicked into gear this past week, complaints have already been leveled against its byzantine organization and awkward implementation. In the face of the budget crisis, Republicans simply want to limit our spending. The United States needs to monitor its credit; the more borrowed, the worse our situation becomes in the global economy.

For months, Republican leadership has been pressing the talking points. Now they’ve made them impossible to ignore, and Obama must recognize them—the sooner, the better.

I’m not arguing that the President and his cohorts need concede to every demand of their Republican constituents, but I do believe

PE Proposal

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10

and Boy’s PE department will be working together on a proposal. We will have to work quickly. We have a mandate to move.” Keller said, “I would hope that we would be able to move quickly enough to have a proposal ready for the Headmaster, the EPC, and the faculty before winter. It will be in their hands then.”

If the process moves quickly, a new proposal could come into effect sometime this year.

According to Mackenzie, “we’re not really pleased with the present situation”—which is all the more reason to move quickly.

In other areas in the proposal, the faculty did nominally pass a section limiting the amount of time students could spend on athletics to two hours a day. The vote was so close that it was inconclusive, however, and thus did not become the formal recommendation to the faculty.

This vote, although not effective, did represent an inconsistency within the faculty, because athletics were regulated while other activities were not. Said Mackenzie, “this inconsistency could mean that some people think sports have been more abusive with student time than other activities.” DeLetis agreed, saying that “the implication is that it is possible athletics in general take up too much time. I think the feeling of a lot of the faculty is the focus of the school is becoming diffused by athletics.”.•

Faculty Abatement

BY PADRAIG NASH MAY 31, 1991 VOLUME 9 NUMBER 7 Sports Editor for The Milton Paper, three-contract sports, co-captain of the wrestling team, and the King of the Jocks: Dorm Monitor of Wolcott House. What would the casual observer from the outside call this fellow? Hmmmm...a jock maybe? Now if any of the readers have actually met me, yes, the person described above is none other than me. He may wonder that that can’t be right (Chris Jones will disagree), Padraig isn’t anything like a jock.

For one thing I don’t crush beer cans on my forehead, well only once...it hurt tons. I am really pacifistic: the last time I got in a fight was in fifth grade and I lost. I don’t wear a cap, I know virtually nothing about pro sports (I never knew what the Green Monster was until eighth grade), and I never, ever, scratch myself or burp in public.

I am protesting numerous stereotypes concerning athletes. This week-end, I was chatting with an Alumnus and he asked what dorm

I live in. I told him and his reaction was something to the effect of, “oh, the JOCK dorm...and you are head too? Wow, do you slug beers with Mr. Flaherty?” I wanted to go cry. I will admit, I enjoy athletics. High school and maybe a little collegiate athletics.

But I am smart, civilized, nice, and I don’t wear a jock to school. I don’t want to milk this any longer but the Cap Crew is another example. I live with Ax, Odie, and the boys and they are OK. They don’t mush beer cans on their heads either. Sure they are enthusiastic about pro sports and wear their respective teams hats, but some do either one or even no sports.

One last complaint, Wolcott House does not stock itself with athletes. Placement in Wolcott is completely random, unless the new student specifically asks to live there.

This year only two of the new students in Wolcott requested to live there.

So the next time you see your friendly athlete, think twice about calling him a jock. If anyone calls me a jock, I’ll pull his arms out of his sockets. •

Draft is Right

BY PERRY PAPP OCTOBER 28, 1983 VOLUME 1, NUMBER 7 Dear Editor, The question behind registration for the draft is not “do we feel killing other people is right or wrong?”

- that is merely a personal feeling.

Many people who live in America take for granted the freedom provided by our nation. If everyone were unwilling to defend this freedom and one day defense of it was necessary, this freedom would be lost. Perhaps then some Americans would wish they had not taken our secure way of life for granted as they did.

All able Americans have an obligation to rise to the call of arms when our national security is threatened. Refusing to register for the draft, or refusing to go if called upon, is selfish as well as criminal.

Practically every country in Western

Europe has a peacetime draft. We should look at the state of our military, which is essentially a mercenary army, composed of people who have volunteered mainly as the result of economic hardship. Defending our country is every American’s business. War and violence are unfortunately facts of life, and they cannot be ignored simply because they are unpleasant.

Soon I will have to register for the draft. I personally would rather not go to war, and I most certainly do not want to die. But I will register and go fight if called upon.

What right have I not to?

Cordially,

Perry Papp (I) •

PAGE 14

PAGE 15

Images

By KIKA PYCLIK

MAY 25, 2001 Volume 19, Number 4 A man jumps across the moon…

Click… A refrigerator rests on a cloud…

Click… An angel puts cream cheese on a bagel… Click… Britney Spears dances in nothing more than a bra and pants…

Click… Pepsi, Philadelphia cream cheese, all of these companies have images that are associated with their name, theme song, or product.

Americans are bombarded with an overload of images from their televisions, computers, magazines, newspapers, and even billboards on the highway. As technology advances and information is able to move faster and reach a broader base of consumers, advertising has taken on a new super-speed, which forces companies to pump out more and more images just to keep up. We absorb these images at an increased rate and accept, file, and categorize each image into our bank of knowledge, which will be available on instant recall when we are later confronted with a situation involving one or more of these things.

What do these images mean for

OJ Quote Board

a Milton Academy student? When we walk around our campus, we look around us and see a “tree” or a “building,” but we don’t see a maple tree that lost a limb in a storm or the old brick building that can’t be found in architecture today. We risk taking for granted all that surrounds us each day because it has become commonplace in our lives. We have begun to turn off our senses. The images with which we are confronted in our real lives begin to blur with the idealized images from our memory bank. We no longer see the differences between two trees, two buildings, or, more importantly, two people. Everything has become a universal image. We try to fit everything we see into predetermined categories, even if what we are seeing is something completely different. Organizing these images gives us comfort because we know where things fit. Our brains take over for our eyes and we look at things by recalling their memory bank counterparts. Lasting consequences accumulate as we miss out on the differences that make each individual life unique. The cycle of prepackaged ideas continues on until someone can stop it.

A few weeks ago, my sister called me to describe an experience that

she had at the daycare where she works.

She brought out a piece of corn and asked the children ranging from ages 4-9 to draw what they saw. All of the children bent their heads and eagerly began to draw “corn.” More than half of the children didn’t even look at the real corn on the table. These children drew their preconceived ideas of corn. When watching cartoons or reading comics or bedtime stories, these children had seen idealized versions of corn that they now were attempting to draw. A generation of children is being raised off of these idealized images, and they no longer look at the real objects but instead try to create perfect images that they’ve previously seen.

Technology has gotten to the point where it is being used to correct the flaws in reality, replacing them with the “norm,” a universally-accepted distortion of the truth. In feeding us these distortions, technology is replacing true reflections with caricatures that instead illustrate a false standard.•

Remembering the 17 victims who died a year ago at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School in Parkland, Florida Alyssa Alhadeff, 14 Scott Beigel, 35 Martin Duque Anguiano, 14 Nicholas Dworet, 17 Aaron Feis, 37 Jaime Guttenberg, 14 Chris Hixon, 49 Luke Hoyer, 15

Cara Loughran, 14 Gina Montalto, 14 Joaquin Oliver, 17 Alaina Petty, 14 Meadow Pollack, 18 Helena Ramsay, 17 Alex Schachter, 14 Carmen Schentrup, 16 Peter Wang, 15

By ENO SARRIS OCTOBER 6, 1995 Volume 13, Number 13

Edwin Fredie(Headmaster): Maybe as a result of this case we’ll be able to look at the major problems in the American legal system.

Mark Hilgendorf(History Department): Given the history of the American people’s fear of a large and dominant government, O.J. becomes another individual who is protected from the power of the state.

Kim Samson(Dean of Students): I’ve stayed out of it, since it’s been too much of a circus. At least the circus is over.

Monique Callahan(Onyx Head, I): The trial has become an issue of race as well as judicial system. Milton students are not only racially divided in thinking if O.J. is guilty or not, they are divided within the races.

Brina Milikowsky (Head Monitor, I): It was intriguing to see three hundred Milton students being excited for seeing the same thing.

Charu Singh(Head of Common Ground, I): The verdict sucked, and it showed how America needs a new judicial system.

Chris Palmer(I): I’m glad he was found innocent so we don’t have to hear appeals for years to come. He was guilty as sin, but at least it is over.

Katie Tanner(I): I was really disturbed by the predominantly male support for OJ and the verdict.

PAGE 16