In the 1960s, the students and faculty of Milton Academy staged a walkout in protest of the Vietnam War. In the past six weeks, major political events have unfolded beyond our campus: Conservative media personality Charlie Kirk was assassinated on September 10, one day before the anniversary of 9/11. ABC took Liberal-leaning Comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air for six days under pressure from the president of the Federal Communications Commission. Days before the second anniversary of October 7, President Trump proposed a 21-point plan for ceasefire in Gaza and the freeing of all hostages. Hamas then ceded their hostages in exchange for Israel’s detainees. The government shut down. The National Guard was deployed to Chicago. Yet, here at Milton Academy, I studied for a chemistry test, wrote a history paper, and took another Latin quiz, all in the peace of Centre Street. Besides a few articles in The Paper and The Measure, our response has been quiet. Why is that? Are we apathetic? Do we not have the skill to engage? Or are we simply afraid?

Discourse and exchange of ideas are supposed to be the core of Milton Academy. As Upper School Principal Rachel Stone shared in an interview, “this is what is essential to our community—this is why we are here. Free speech and the exchange of ideas are fundamental to our community. Milton works hard to foster an atmosphere of both intellectual freedom and responsibility. As a school, advancing student knowledge of social, cultural, and political issues and an appreciation for the open discussion of ideas and opinions is critical.” The “Standards of Communication” section of the Student Handbook echoes this importance, stating: “respect for others and freedom of expression together form the foundation for our open exchange of ideas.” While Milton does not explicitly endorse any political candidates (nor should it), the school has also chosen to adopt a policy of “institutional neutrality.” This is an intentional choice to promote, not to stifle, freedom of thought. As Head of School Alixe Callen stated, “we do not have institutional neutrality because we do not have values that we believe in as a school. We are a school that continues to value DEI, as demonstrated by our programming in that area. I don’t believe we are neutral. We are a place that is accepting of students of all backgrounds. Milton students are encouraged to develop their own opinions and dare to be true.” Milton’s policy aspires to open, engaged dialogue rooted in core values rather than passive neutrality.

While Stone and Callen describe a vision and expectation for open dialogue, my experience at Milton suggests a gap between that ideal and reality. Although our weekly periodicals cover current events and the Public Issues Board puts on Seminar Day every other year, classroom discussions along these themes are rare. The faculty repeatedly hesitated even to speak with me on the topic. Most faculty that I approached referred me to colleagues instead, suggesting discomfort or uncertainty about the subject. Many teachers felt that “current events conversation” did not necessarily align with their curricula. However, proving a break from the norm, Social Science Teacher Perin Gokce dedicated class time to speak about the Charlie Kirk assassination. Among the five teachers I approached, only she shared a specific instance of discourse in the classroom. Gokce strongly believes that all students need to “have a basic understanding of the issues and facts so we can engage in political discourse.” She continued that “students should be taking courses on government, reading the news if there is an interesting or controversial topic, and reading both sides. The most important thing students can do is understand how the government works and engage in different perspectives, whether it’s abortion, gun rights, or other issues that are being discussed. I think we’ve lost the basic facts because we are so polarized, the media is so polarized, and we live in echo chambers.” She encourages Milton students to “exercise their healthy debate muscles.” However, when I asked her if she thought students were being silenced, she chose not to answer.

What if our handbook, the very document that establishes these values of open dialogue, is silencing the community? The same “Standards of Communication” section upholding these ideals also states that “students must not impinge on the dignity of other individuals.” But what does “dignity” mean? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines dignity as “the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.” Who decides when someone has impinged another’s dignity: the recipient, the speaker, or some other authority? Clearly, mocking, humiliating, or degrading someone undermines that person’s dignity and signifies unacceptable behavior. But is challenging or critiquing personal beliefs, even if it causes discomfort, also impingement? The Handbook glances over this question in ambiguous and unsettling language. Such vagueness not only creates confusion but also leads to self-censorship among students and faculty. Without clear guidelines or open discussion about these rules, many may simply stay silent rather than risk the consequences.

Founded in 2021, the University of Austin bases itself on free speech and open inquiry. It has adopted the Chatham House Rule: “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.” This singular rule encourages dialogue, the exchange of ideas, and risk-taking by protecting participants’ anonymity. As Niall Ferguson, founder of the University, reflects, “what happens in a classroom, stays in the classroom.” With this safety net, students and faculty are more likely to challenge each other, test out new ideas, and engage. While mocking and degrading another person remain unacceptable, nuanced conversations, including those that critique one’s individual beliefs, can take place more freely. Many other educational institutions, along with businesses, implement this rule—Harvard University adopted the Chatham House Rule this year. This simple rule would empower us students to take the necessary risks in the classroom without fearing retribution from the broader community.

While Harvard’s motto—“Veritas,” or “Truth”—encourages the pursuit of knowledge through learning, research, and dialogue, Milton Academy’s motto, “Dare to be True,” encourages us to engage with an urgent and personal tone. This imperative “Dare” places the responsibility on each of us, leaving no room for fear or apathy. It acknowledges that seeking truth is challenging and often involves disagreement. Our motto asks us to not just value truth, but also to pursue it even when difficult; we must not let our dignity get in the way of dialogue.