Recently, people have told me the Scroll is too negative. I asked them, “Which part?” They mention October’s stories about academic dishonesty, stress, social scene, and a day student’s frustrating experience. Every time they emphasize the Scroll’s negativity, I disagree. I want to explain.
The Scroll is critical, and there is a difference between negativity and constructive criticism. The intentions are different. Negativity rants, but constructive criticism hopes; the source of our hope is our commitment to seeking the truth of our time and culture.
So we ask questions that bother us. I believe this newspaper can make us think about who we are and the culture that influences us. And one thing the editors and I have noticed is this: Deerfield is hesitant to embrace controversy. This paper will not seek controversy for the sake of controversy or sensationalism. We will, however, never cut ourselves short and serve the Administration or paint a perfect picture of Deerfield. There are issues we skirt around, thinking things left unsaid are better that way, because we admit they aren’t serious problems. Often, committees, cases, value statements, and worthy statements become solutions for intangibly complicated problems, often those that deal with defining who we are and the kind of culture that influences us.
The questions are hard, but our school thinks deeply. The Scroll, then, hopes to provide a forum for discussion in which students can contribute their views. So keep talking, arguing, wondering, criticizing, understanding, and questioning. One of the biggest lessons Deerfield is teaching me is how to question my environment.
So one last question (email email@example.com with responses).
Deerfield, what are the elephants in the room?