Search Results

Join us as we explore Middlesex's own version of Defense Against the Dark Arts, where the departure of the Student Director of Activities mirrored the cursed post at Hogwarts Many may still remember Brenna Morrissey's abrupt exit from Middlesex last year which left Middlesex bewildered. Her advisees, for example, were staggered by the wholly unexpected email from the former Director of Student Activities mid-summer announcing her sudden resignation after months of family leave. Similar events concerning the resignation of the Director of Student Activities, in fact, had plagued Middlesex for four years, emerging as a humorous parallel to the turnovers of Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers in the wizarding world of Harry Potter. Enter Mr. Harris, the latest contender for the role of Middlesex's own Defense Against the Dark Arts instructors. Despite having no prior experience in this particular realm, Mr. Harris's background in helping students transition to private schools and his passion for working with young minds seemed to be promising qualities that will aid him in breaking the curse. Besides, his accolades as a top marathon runner, including an impressive finish in the Boston Marathon 2023, suggest a stamina that might just be necessary for navigating the assiduous terrain of student activities. After seven months at Middlesex, Mr. Harris appears to have settled in seamlessly with boarding school life, embracing dorm life at Peabody and, after months of stagnation, finally resuming his marathon training. His adaptation and gradual move to self-discipline, indeed, is not unsimilar to our own struggles as inexperienced new students transitioning to Middlesex, especially to in-class paragraphs and the dreaded five-paragraph essays. Acknowledging the swirling rumors about the curse of the Defense Against the Dark Arts—sorry, the Student Director of Activities—Mr. Harris greets the joke with a knowing laugh. It seems he's well aware of the legacy he's stepping into as well as the subject of the interview, thanks to a conversation with none other than Luke Power, our news section editor. But beyond the banter, Mr. Harris exudes determination to defy the odds and break the curse. He is ambitious, envisioning greater class cohesion and revitalizing the club system. With a keen eye on fostering inclusivity and community, he aims to diversify class activity offerings, encouraging students to voice their ideas directly to class representatives, thus strengthening connections within grades and amplifying student voices in the community. Additionally, well aware of the waning enthusiasm that often plagues club organizations after the initial club fairs, Mr. Harris is determined to sustain interest throughout the year. Through encouraging consistent meetings, especially for recreational clubs like the Harry Potter or Movie club, he seeks to reignite passion and participation, addressing a longstanding concern among students who often find their club options dwindling as the year progresses. As students, we hold out hope that Mr. Harris's enthusiasm and commitment will translate into tangible improvements for our school. His marathon spirit of persistence and determination fuels our optimism for a brighter future at Middlesex. With Mr. Harris, perhaps we'll finally see an end to the curse of the Defense Against the Dark Arts—or, at the very least, a more vibrant and engaging student life experience.  Gina Zhao

When President Biden took office, one of the first promises he made was that the United States, after four years of backsliding, would finally “meet the urgent demands of the climate crisis.” But two years later, John Kerry, the climate envoy of Biden, laid bare the truth of American climate policies. “No, under no circumstances,” he said in response to a question asking whether the US would pay climate reparations for developing nations, shutting down life-saving dollars for millions of people in vulnerable countries who never caused the problem. Developing countries have long been pressing industrialized states for compensation for escalating natural disasters catalyzed by climate change. Wealthy countries’ economies are rooted in the natural resources of our planet. Even disregarding colonization in other continents, industrialized states are responsible for half of the world’s emissions, with the US accounting for 20% of the global total, according to a report by Carbon Brief. Yet despite their minimal share in CO2 generation, developing countries that lack the resources to fend off damage are on the front lines of the climate crisis. The November 2022 COP27 climate summit proved a landmark victory when world leaders discussed climate reparations as a key part of their agenda. Natural disasters, such as the record floods in Pakistan that displaced 8 million people, appalled leaders of Western countries who subsequently flooded money into the 'Loss and Damage' fund. These countries, of course, did not include the United States of America; the world's richest nation and largest producer of greenhouse gasses continued to refuse to pay for its historical debts. It was nothing short of humiliating when French President Emmanuel Macron pointedly stated, “pressure must be put on rich non-European countries…You have to pay your fair share,” in a half-veiled allusion to the U.S. Macron is concerned that consenting to the idea of loss and damage would open up unlimited lawsuits of liability and that the US continued to hold out for a week until finally accepting the existence of the fund by the end of COP27. Yet as Kerry’s statement on reparations shows, the US is clearly not going to deposit any money into the fund; even Paul Bledsoe, a climate advisor under Clinton, commented that “America is culturally incapable of meaningful reparations.” Never making these compensations to Native Americans or African Americans, America has made the prospect of reparations for climate impacts on foreign countries an unrealistic ideal. The refusal to contribute to Loss and Damage fund is only the tip of the iceberg in America’s long history of shirking its share of responsibility for climate change. The promises of the U.S. and E.U. countries to mobilize $100 billion per year in climate finance to help poor countries combat climate change fall short by tens of billions of dollars annually. Even more motifying is the fact that, despite its emissions, population size, and wealth, the U.S. only contributed 3.6% percent of the $83.3 billion of the Loss and Damage fund in 2020. In fact, the underdelivery of the U.S. is so commonplace, that other countries know better than to expect anything concrete from the U.S. Richard Sherman, a delegate from South Africa said, “to be frank, we are not expecting anything from President Biden. They tend to promise a lot, pledge a lot, but deliver very little. ” Even more worryingly, the fact that none of the Republican candidates provided a direct response when questioned about the authenticity of climate change in the first GOP debate tells us that, under a Republican controlled house, hope for more action on mitigating climate change is systematically diminished. We are running out of time. The window of opportunity to limit the worst impacts of climate change is closing. As a nation, it’s a time to show our determination, to show that we are moving in the right direction, to show that the world leaders know full well the scale of emergency we are facing. By avoiding its share of the duty, the U.S. isn’t just undermining the world founded on building trust and shouldering responsibility, it’s digging the grave for the whole of humanity. Gina Zhao

As President Biden wrapped up his first trip to Hanoi, Vietnam on September 11, he and John Kerry, another veteran, visited a memorial to their old friend, Senator John McCain, who was captured by North Vietnamese from 1967 to 1973. For Mr. McCain, Mr. Kerry, and other veterans, the war of Vietnam changed their lives, leaving both physical disabilities and mental trauma that recast their ideologies and careers for decades. Mr. Biden, though he never put on the uniform of war, is a contemporary of his two friends. The 58,000 lives lost during the Vietnam War left an indelible scar that continues to remind Biden of the terrible consequences wrought by needless war. As Mr. Kerry said, Biden “made comments to [him] about feeling the responsibility to make sure that as president you don’t get yourself into an unwanted war.” For President Biden, then, amending relationships with Vietnam during his trip was more about seeking solidarity and maintaining US interests without further invoking and escalating the tension with China. Despite China’s not-at-all-veiled accusation of the United States having a “Cold War” mentality, Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China stressed that the United States was trying to “create regional tension and incite antagonism and confrontation by pushing ahead with the Indo-Pacific Strategy” even as Biden repeatedly attempted to appease China. “I don’t want to contain China,” he said, “I just want to make sure that we have a relationship with China that is on the up and up.” By strengthening ties with Vietnam, the United States can diversify its supply chain and secure more friends in the region. COVID-19 remained a cautionary tale to American technology companies about the dire risks of a monotonous supply chain. Out of necessity for supply-chain diversification, major companies eye Vietnam as an alternative to China for manufacturing hubs. The signing of a “comprehensive strategic partnership” with the Vietnamese, therefore, communicates signs of reassurance for those companies. Vietnam now puts the United States in the top level of its three-tier hierarchy for bilateral relations, along with four other countries: China, Russia, India and South Korea. In addition, the Biden administration has urgently sought allies in Southeast Asia, furthering cooperation with India, the Philippines , Japan, and South Korea . For these reasons, Vietnam represents “a critical swing state.” Though paying lip service to Chinese programs such as the Belt and Road Initiative, Vietnam has never made any actual commitments. Indeed, Vietnam is looking to give itself a little more choice and establish a little more distance from China. Despite continual accusations of being cowardly and timid, Biden is continuing to push foreign policy that is a calm expansion of the US’s own power, but is also careful not to further provoke China. From avoiding direct military support to Ukraine, to pulling American forces out of Afghanistan, and now the visitation to Vietnam, Biden manifests his unwavering intention to reduce unnecessary loss of human life and resources. Far from cowardice, Biden’s decisions are guided by true wisdom: no costs can be equivalent to death and affliction aroused by warfare between two world powers. Gina Zhao

Get a sneak peek into the upcoming school president election and learn why one candidate stands out! When seated in the rink on family weekend, were you impressed by Therese and Ty, effortlessly addressing hundreds of people under the bright spotlight? Or were you moved by their leadership, secretly resolving to one day embody such confidence and charisma? As presidents, they bear the responsibility of organizing assemblies, setting the senate agenda, participating in the Disciplinary Committee, delivering speeches, and, crucially, facilitating student input in administration through regular leadership meetings with the Deans and Mr. Harris. In essence, school presidents serve as the voice of our student body, bridging the gap between students and faculty, and embodying Middlesex's culture and values. As the school year progresses, questions inevitably arise about who will step into Therese and Ty’s vital leadership roles. Amidst uncertainty, especially with Lila, one of the junior class presidents, being out for the semester, my vote is already committed to Kwame Addison. As the 23-24 junior class president, Kwame exemplifies the qualities desired by both students and faculty in a school president. From Therese's perspective, the success of school presidents hinges greatly on their ability to listen. Charged with representing students’ voices, school presidents must heed their peers’ opinions and work to translate them into action. As Therese wisely states, presidents are essentially “a reflection of the people [they] represent.” Ty and Therese, for instance, successfully implemented Sky Zone, an activity long yearned for, during their tenure as junior class presidents. For the broader student body, it's imperative that school presidents remain approachable leaders willing to broaden their social circles. To truly represent the student body, school presidents should not confine themselves to any particular social group but rather strive to foster connections with everyone in the school. According to one junior, the ideal president is someone with whom every student feels comfortable discussing their concerns. In the eyes of faculty members, the most valued quality in school presidents is their ability to communicate effectively with adults. As Mr. Mac, the junior class faculty advisor, suggests, “School presidents should not only be open to communicating with faculty but should also find it natural to do so.” Indeed, the responsibilities of school presidents entail daily interactions with faculty, making communication skills essential for conveying students’ suggestions. Kwame has demonstrated proficiency in all three aspects of an ideal president. He consistently translates students’ ideas into reality, incorporating feasible suggestions into well-received junior class activities. Known for his amiability and willingness to expand social circles, Kwame is approachable to all. A junior comments that Kwame’s “good sense of humor combined with friendliness” makes everyone inclined to talk to him. Additionally, by organizing major events such as St. George's Day T-shirts, MLK Day Student Panels, and Valentine's Day flowers, Kwame exhibits adeptness in communicating with adults, leveraging their resources and insights to engineer engaging and well-executed events. In addition to Kwame’s individual qualities, Middlesex has a tradition of electing former junior class presidents and class presidents. Given that junior class presidents naturally surpass their peers in the number of school-wide activities organized, the student body tends to favor candidates with experience. For these reasons, I am confident that Kwame will be one of the school presidents for 2024-2025. Regardless of who you consider the ideal candidate, I urge you to engage in the election process by familiarizing yourself with the candidates, asking questions, and, above all, voting. Let's work together to elect school presidents who will enhance the entire school community. Gina Zhao

Israel's military actions in Syria have raised serious concerns about the country's sovereignty and the broader stability of the Middle East. On December 10, taking advantage of the vulnerability created by the downfall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government, Israel lost no time in conducting air strikes against targets across Syria, carrying out ground operations, and seizing control of a demilitarized buffer zone in the Golan Heights. Such behavior is undoubtedly an exploitation of Syria’s moment of weakness. Israel's military announced that it had carried out 350 air strikes targeting many of Syria's advanced weapons, including in Damascus, in a span of 48 hours. Israeli forces “are not advancing toward Damascus,” Mr. Shoshani told reporters on Tuesday. Ironically, while it denied moving troops beyond the demilitarized zone, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights confirmed Israeli armored units positioning as close as 25 kilometers from Damascus.  According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Israel has “no intention to meddle in Syria’s internal affairs, but certainly intends to do whatever is needed to guarantee [its] security.” However, is Israel’s intention completely humanitarian and altruistic, aiming to ensure the wellbeing of Syrian citizens without a deeper, self-interested agenda at play?  The answer is clear:  no . Israel is seizing this opportunity to strengthen its already-overwhelming military advantage over Syria. As the Syrian rebels that just surged to power are labeled as a terrorist group and are not diplomatically recognized by the international community, Israel can carry out its operations easily. Indeed, on Saturday, even before Mr. al-Assad fled the country, Israeli forces entered Syrian territory for the first time in 50 years. They have since taken control of a 155-square-mile demilitarized buffer zone in the Golan Heights that has been patrolled by U.N. troops since the 1973 Middle East war. Israel’s claims are nothing short of aggressive and opportunistic political maneuvering sugar-coated with a genuine concern for the Syrian citizens. This strategy echoes a form of "gangster logic," where might is used to justify expansionism at the expense of a sovereign nation.  It is thus unsurprising that the incursion quickly drew sharp criticism from regional powers—including Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia—and prompted calls from the international community that Syria's sovereignty be respected. Even the United Nations openly denounced the actions of Israel. U.N. special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen frankly stated, “this needs to stop.” As Syrian factions attempt an orderly transition to a new government, it is very important that international players don’t take any actions that will threaten the possibility for this transformation in Syria to take place. Israel’s actions in Syria must be addressed immediately, and the international community must work together to de-escalate the conflict to preserve stability in the region. For Syria and its people, the conflict with Israel is set to unleash devastating consequences, resulting in immense suffering and hardship. Indeed, Israel’s attack coupled with the complicated backgrounds of Syrian rebel coalition forces, with many factions having ties to terrorism and extremism, produce a very real concern that Syria will become yet another Libya—-a venue for foreign powers to pursue their own agendas, or even worse, a sanctuary for violent extremists to regroup and strengthen. At this critical time, to prevent another Middle East country from falling into endless violence and chaos and for a peaceful future for the Syrian people, the international community must shift focus from political maneuvering to a concerted effort to find a peaceful solution for Syria’s future. It’s no time to calculate who wins and who loses. The priority should be to preserve Syria’s sovereignty and allow its people to determine their own destiny. Only without deterrence from outside forces and opportunistic actions by fellow countries, can Syria’s citizens obtain peace as soon as possible. Every major player in this conflict must prioritize the fundamental interests of the Syrian people, bearing in mind a genuine humanitarian concern. Gina Zhao

The president is tough on China—in name only. Donald Trump jettisoned a core tenet of American influence abroad when he shut down the United States Agency for International Development in late January. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration would review all of the agency’s expenses to ensure that they are in line with America’s goals—nothing wrong with that. Instead, however, they unilaterally paused all on-the-ground agency work, tactlessly endangering the dependent millions around the globe. Samantha Power P’27, the director of USAID under Joe Biden, spoke here one year ago. Trump’s agency deletion raises constitutional issues: only Congress has the ability to form or dissolve agencies. What Trump decides to do if the court rules his actions unconstitutional, however, is another story. (Andrew Jackson, for example, went ahead with the removal of the Cherokee Nation in Georgia despite the fact that the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional; contemporary newspaper publisher Horace Greeley distilled Jackson’s views with the famous quote, “let him enforce it.” The illegal government removal of this sovereign nation resulted in the tragic Trail of Tears.) Backlash against USAID accumulated over right-wing social media. Recently, for example, Russian propaganda accounts spread misinformation in a viral video on X, claiming that the US agency had paid actors millions of dollars to visit Ukraine to advocate for Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Musk, who owns X, reposted the video; he and others have claimed, without evidence, that USAID is a hotbed of leftist radicalism. Musk happened to run the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that seeks to cut wasteful federal spending, and thus shutting down USAID became imperative to Trump’s wrecking-ball-esque return to the White House. The general concept of DOGE, and Rubio’s insistence that federal work align with the administration’s values, should be well-intentioned. The federal government concluded 2024 with the third-largest deficit as a percentage of G.D.P. ever recorded, according to the Tax Foundation. Regarding wasteful federal spending, the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, recorded over $100 billion in improper medicare and medicaid programs in 2023. Another factor in support of reducing government inefficiency is that a plurality of American voters supposedly expect the Trump Administration to follow through on the campaign promise of “draining the swamp” (sic), however disruptive.  But the metaphor of the Trump Administration as a wrecking ball seems particularly apt in their unprincipled shuttering of USAID, an agency that delivers life-saving medication and nutrition to the world’s poor, but also works as front-line suasion against the dangerous foreign meddling of China and Russia. USAID distributes, among other items and services, H.I.V. medication, nutrition and food packages, contraception, and treatments for diseases like malaria and ebola.  USAID helps war-torn regions recover: when Ms. Power came to Middlesex last year, she spoke about advancing agriculture in Ukraine. Grain exports fuel the Ukrainian economy. The agency granted loans and distributed fertilizer and seeds to help farmers continue producing crops, feeding the valiantly embattled Ukrainian people. Another advantage to saving lives abroad for the common good is that these suffering regions view the United States as an obvious ally. That’s why chairman of the senate intelligence committee Tom Cotton and secretary of state Marco Rubio, both Republicans, have stated that USAID is central to our national interest.  USAID embodies America’s “soft power” and underpins America’s cultural standing abroad, especially in populations vulnerable to exploitation. The alternative to US foreign support is China’s burgeoning global influence buttressed by the Belt and Road Initiative, a usurious foreign investment program started in 2013 which acts as a loan shark to the Global South.  Indeed, Pakistan had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, due to costs associated with the Chinese-based initiative. Ghana and Zambia both defaulted due to the debts wrought by Bridge and Road. To counter China’s ambitions abroad, USAID amassed a $60 billion investment portfolio which led America’s push to use goodwill to persuade nations—especially nations in need—to join the side of the free world. Days after Trump laid off many USAID workers, he put Rubio in charge of the agency temporarily. While Rubio reinstated some critical health and humanitarian support, the damage had been done: the network of employees, packages, and aid recipients had been irrevocably disrupted .  Rubio in early February appointed Pete Marocco, an established foreign-aid skeptic, to assume long-term control over the now-skeletal agency.  At the time of writing, thousands of agency employees have been laid off, and both the people in need of humanitarian assistance and America’s soft power stand to suffer. As Ms. Power warned in her February 6th guest essay in the New York Times , American adversaries like China—the perpetrator of Belt and Road—and Russia—the propagator of anti-USAID misinformation on social media—“celebrate their luck” at this administration’s callous willingness to harm America’s national interest.  George Thornton

Exploring the vital role of The Anvil in Middlesex history as we celebrate its 120th anniversary. Photo by Max Linton When asked about the essential values a newspaper should uphold, Bret Stephens’ 91, Pulitzer Prize recipient and associate editor at The New York Times , replied: “Newspapers should be dogged in their pursuit of truth but humble about the fact that nobody knows the full truth. They should avoid political advocacy in their news coverage while encouraging a diversity of viewpoints in their opinion pages.They should be written with clarity, concision, and style. And they should seek to inform and elevate their readers while never talking down to them.”  Indeed, this mission—to inform without dictating, to encourage discussion without overshadowing perspectives––has defined The Anvil for 120 years. In a world of rapid changes, The Anvil  has remained the voice of Middlesex, facilitating dialogue, bridging differences, and shaping the campus culture.  Founded in 1904, The Anvil aims to offer the student and faculty body coverage of both school and world events. Throughout the years, The Anvil  evolved from the original biannual pamphlet publications, to printed newspapers, to now embracing an online presence and podcasts in the advent of the digital age. In its 120 year history, The Anvil  has grown from a small publication to a robust organization with over 40 staff members, accessible to the entire student body. Yet despite the many changes in format, the core mission of The Anvil  remains the same: to search for truth while presenting diverse perspectives.  When I rummaged through the early Anvil publications, I was filled with immense joy as I immersed myself in the lives of alumni a century ago. Flipping through a pamphlet published in January, 1946, I found a vivid description of an annual Groton Debate. The article brought the debate to life by painting a vibrant image of Middlesex alumni, eloquently defending their position. In that moment, I saw myself standing alongside them, our figures overlapping across the division of time—sharing the carefree spirit of youth, and filled with a curiosity to learn and a confidence to pursue excellence. In addition to the school rivalry with Groton that continues today, there are countless parallels between the Middlesex of the past and present. The Anvil  is not only a bridge within the school, but also a connection across time, linking the generations of students together with the shared Middlesex experience.  Throughout history, The Anvil  has always been a platform for students to express their opinions. In October, 2001, for example, Casey Littlefield communicated her deep disappointment over the school’s decision to renovate the Chapel, highlighting the potential harm the renovation might bring to Estabrook Woods. The Anvil  offers an opportunity for students to freely express their opinions and exert their influence on campus events.  The Anvil  also weaves together a rich tapestry of Middlesex’s history. References to events like Square Dance, Orientation Schedule, and the arrival of Mr. Kulas in publications from years ago remind us today of the remarkable continuity of life at Middlesex life. Indeed, Mr. Stephens confesses that he “wouldn't have become a journalist had it not been for the skills [he] learned at Middlesex.” The Anvil  is more than a newspaper, it is 120 years of hardwork and dedication–a living history of our community. Gina Zhao

As we observe our significant anniversary, our legacy of good journalism is worth reflecting on. Illustration by David Yang In January of 1904, The Anvil  published its inaugural issue. The newspaper, much like the school itself, was in its infancy. Pioneered by editor-in-chief Landon Thomas ’05 along with his team of six boys, the journalistic legacy began: “ Today The Anvil  appears for the first time before the world. The editor and his assistant are inexperienced, and perhaps it is but natural for them to be anxious concerning the success of this project, and to wonder whether their fellow students haven’t made a mistake in choosing them to carry it out. ” –Opening lines from the first editors of The Anvil , January 1904 The tentative optimism of these words still drive this paper.  The small team produced monthly issues creating something lasting. The Anvil  was a reflection of the school it served–a small, ambitious, and fervently patriotic boys’ school in rural Massachusetts. As the World Wars and technological innovations shaped the world, The Anvil  persisted, chronicling happenings on campus in the midst of global events. During World War I, our paper was published in book form, rather than broadsheet, to reduce costs. For the first decades of the paper’s existence, The Anvil published creative fiction from the likes of Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. ‘20, arguably one of Middlesex’s most illustrious alumnus. The paper also published athletic scores and team records, and an informal sense of humor permeated historic issues with relatively high student-body involvement and an active “Letters to the Editor” section. However,  The Anvil  decades later dwindled to publishing only three articles a year. It is doubtless that campus sentiment towards the paper suffered as a result. In the late 1990s, the paper consisted of a lone editor and a rag-tag assembly of itinerant contributors.  In 1997, Andrew Beaton ‘98 took it upon himself to bring consistency to the publication. Reaching out to classmates whom he thought would contribute regularly and aid in furthering the paper’s standards of excellence, Andrew, along with his father Jim Beaton who became faculty advisor to The Anvil in the same year, established the chief writers group that still exists today. Mr. Beaton also established the tradition of formally sending out invitation letters at the end of the school year to welcome and introduce the fresh batch of students on the Anvil staff. He still fondly recalls the chaos and camaraderie of when editors were “always a frenzy when getting down to the publication time.” They would show up at his house close to midnight, scrambling to get the issue in on time. In 2000, the election of the first female editor-in-chief, Rebecca Lemaitre ‘01, brought fresh energy and a more diverse group of writers.  As technology evolved, so did The Anvil . In the early 2000s, the publication transformed visually with the introduction of more sophisticated and aesthetic layouts. The paper shifted to color printing after relentlessly pleading to the school for a more generous budget. The Anvil ’s development was also spurred on by fears of being outshined. In the 1990s, a group of students, including Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and columnist for The New York Times  Bret Stephens ‘91, established a rival publication called The Circle . But  The Circle  never gained long-term traction, and  The Anvil  and its monopoly over Middlesex journalism survive. The late 2010s saw another revival: a digital version of the newspaper was launched before the Covid pandemic. Our strong writing and English program also helped produce talent for The Anvil. The editors of The Anvil  maintained the paper’s core values of writing with care and journalistic integrity. Ms. Lemaitre even went so far as to describe each issue as her baby, as if an overprotective and possessive mother with “strong maternal instincts.”  This legacy of excellent journalism ensures that The Anvil  remains as a forum in which writers are free to express ideas without fear of being held back or unfairly criticized.  According to Mr. Kester, an Anvil  alumnus, has always had a “soft spot” for The Anvil . He did not anticipate the freedom The Anvil  provided him in experimenting with his writerly voice. Not every article succeeded; some fell flat while others were met with criticism, but that was part of the beauty. The Anvil  allowed for a place where writers were allowed to fail, to grow, and to hone their craft in a safe and supportive low-stakes setting. Mr. Kester’s writing, which would go on to appear in The Harvard Crimson , The New York Times , and his own two books, began with this paper. “It all starts back with The Anvil , truly,” he admits: “it was everything.” The Anvil  stands apart from all other student organizations on campus. Few other groups at Middlesex can claim a 120-year legacy. The reputation The Anvil  has earned is a testament to these pages’ dedication to producing accurate and entertaining journalism. Jessica Wu

From silly to sentimental, this dorm’s room decor is anything but cliché. Photo by Celine Ding In LB, room decor means a lot. From a “white box” on move-in day to a museum of keepsakes and memorabilia days later, LB’ers are quick to make their rooms feel like home. Dinero Jelley ‘26 keeps with her a best friend since birth with a sweet backstory. When Dinero was two years old, a destructive fire burned her babysitter’s apartment and Krabby, her stuffed crab, was stuck in the home as it went up in flames. Thinking they were forever separated, baby Dinero solemnly returned back from the hospital dejected until she spotted Krabby waiting for her on her bed. A firefighter had bravely entered the burning apartment and brought Krabby to safety. Now, Dinero keeps Krabby on her bed, the now old, worn stuffed animal forever holding a special place in her heart. Elizabeth Welles’ ‘27 stuffed animal holds a special place in her heart too. Crocheted by her 102 year old great-grandmother when Elizabeth was young, Elizabeth feels a sense of comfort and a closer proximity to her home back in North Carolina. The stuffed animal also serves as an unwavering symbol of her great-grandmother’s deep care and love for Elizabeth, even after her passing years ago. Mollyana Nuki ‘25 displays her pride for her Jewish identity through the banner of the Stars of David hanging on her dorm wall right when you open the door. Her mom had gifted the banner to her after the terror attack by Hamas on Israel that killed nearly 1,200 people on October 7th of 2023. Mollyana’s mom ensures that Mollyana is unafraid to practice Judaism, and Mollyana states that the banner is a daily reminder to “be proud to be Jewish.” Kat Stephens ‘27 hangs a reminiscent photo wall directly in front of her desk, made by her close friend before leaving for boarding school. When Kat looks at the photo wall, she gets snippets of cherished memories from the summer.  One photo is a picture of Kat and her friend riding horses led on a trail by a guide that they called Cowboy Bob. Now, Kat still chuckles when thinking about a Cowboy Bob inside joke that they shared. Kat is also reminded of the carefree, memorable summer camp in which she embraced and danced in the rain, reminiscing on her carefree summer with her best friend. Going away from one’s house to a barren dorm room can be a difficult transition. LB’ers, however, make their home-away-from-home a place of comfort where they can truly be by themselves. Michelle Cai

Exploring The Destructive Impact On Society, Economy, And The Lives of Population Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/south-korea-yoon-suk-yeol-lawmakers-call-impeachment-martial-law-rcna182769   My parents used to tell me that “history repeats itself.” While this message once seemed overly simplistic to me, recent events in South Korea have brought it vividly to life. The voice of citizens, the cornerstone of democracy, has played an integral part in South Korea since the birth of the Republic of Korea in 1948. The word “democracy,” derived from Greek words that mean the rule (kratos) of the people (demos), represents commitment to protecting the people of South Korea. While the history lesson here may appear out of place, the gravity of the current situation in South Korea warns us once again of the looming dangers of dictatorship.  Around 11 pm (KST) on December third, President Yoon shocked the nation in his unannounced live-televised address, declaring martial law for the first time in the country since 1980. Citing “anti-state” and “communist forces” as a threat to the freedom of South Korea, Yoon sent waves of disbelief through the world. While martial law is typically declared under a national emergency, such as the Korean War in 1950 and the military coup in 1980 following the assassination of the Korean president in 1979, Yoon’s declaration was strictly driven by his corrupt desire to maintain power amidst sharply declining support in his cabinet.  Under the proclamation, the measures implemented included the following: prohibition of any form of political activity, control of all media and publication, banning of gatherings and strikes, medical personnel who were on strikes to return to their duties within 48 hours. Most importantly, the military took the place of civilian government, stripping away the authority of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. President Yoon could infringe the right to the “freedom of speech, publication, assembly and association” and was capable of arresting individuals or associations without any special warrants. Such measures took immediate effect.  In an attempt to nullify President Yoon’s declaration, members of Congress gathered around the National Assembly to vote against martial law. Setting another step towards military dictatorship and authoritarianism, the Ministry of Defense led by President Yoon sent more than 250 fully armed special forces to shut down the congregation. Fortunately, however, a rapid vote, with 190 agreeing out of 190 attendants–even including President Yoon’s own political party People Power Party’s (PPP) chief representative Han. This reaction, driven by a keen desire for democracy, lifted martial law and ended one of the most unprecedented events in South Korean history.  Clearly, President Yoon’s declaration is unjustifiable by any means. Following the general election in early April, Yoon’s political party (PPP) faced an outstanding defeat against the opposition party (Democratic Party of Korea). The People Power Party only took 36% of the seats in the Assembly. This loss was primarily due to the increasing controversy over Yoon’s corruption in his career and his First Lady’s forgery alongside the economic burden on citizens. Clearly, President Yoon’s decisions threatened Korean democracy that’s been maintained over the last 40 years.  Another devastating consequence of President Yoon’s action was the severe impact on the economic sector of South Korea. Due to the withdrawal of dollars and the decline in foreign investors, the exchange rate of Dollars to Won recorded the highest in the past decade, reaching 1,440 won per dollar. Similarly, the stock prices of Korean companies plummeted, reflecting increased financial instability. In the midst of an economic downturn from past-Covid recovery, President Yoon’s poor decision, without any doubt, caused extreme chaos.  By threatening the lives and freedom of its people through authoritarian control, the basic rights of South Koreans may have been permanently gone by one night. Although it is unlikely, President Yoon’s possible “second” declaration of martial law in the future may destroy democratic South Korea and turn it into an authoritarian regime. Instead of taking a passive stance, this incident in South Korea must act as a reminder to recognize the importance of freedom of speech and fundamental rights granted to members of any nation.

Battling cultural stereotypes and the pressure to conform and exploring the need to embrace identity beyond labels I sat on the bench in the chapel, looking up at Ian Lam as he spoke from the podium. As he shared his words, I felt emotions stir within me, and an invisible yet deep connection began to form between us. Before that moment, Ian had always seemed like an unapproachable role model, the perfect balance of intelligence, hard work, and leadership. In fact, hearing Jecca introduce Ian’s many remarkable achievements, I wasn’t at all surprised; I was simply in awe. Yet Ian’s chapel moved me in ways I never expected. He spoke candidly about the ongoing struggle to balance Chinese and American cultures and the fear of being labeled as “just another stereotypical Asian student.” Indeed, this is the exact inner conflict I’ve faced every day since I first came to the U.S. I grew up in a small town in Shanxi, China, and came here to study as an international student in sixth grade. When I arrived, I didn’t speak a word of English. I couldn’t read the textbooks, follow the lectures, or even hold basic conversations. As a boarding student in middle school, with my family across the world, I felt immense pressure to change—to adapt as quickly as possible to the American way of life. I remember my mom telling me, “You can’t just make friends with international students. You have to step out of your comfort zone. You have to change .” That pressure to “Americanize” has stayed with me to this day. Yes, I learned English and became fluent in both speaking and writing. But the pressure to adapt never diminished—to watch American shows and movies, celebrate U.S. holidays, and embrace every aspect of the "American way of life." I feel torn between two cultures: desperately trying to hold on to my Chinese heritage that slips further away with each passing day while endeavouring to fully integrate into an American culture which at times feels just within reach. At the heart of these pressures to change lies the fear of being labeled as a stereotypical Asian. While I may never be as intelligent or hardworking as Ian, I share the same fear of being reduced to “just another Asian student.” I worry that people might judge me for having too many Asian-American friends, for being too introverted, or for not being athletic enough. In an effort to shed the labels of being “too Asian,” I became hyper-sensitive to my accent and the moments when I struggle to find the right words, and I push myself even harder to be more extroverted and athletic. It feels as though I have to alter my very identity—the essence of who I am—to distance myself from the stereotypes associated with being Asian. It seems that to be admired, charismatic, and popular in the U.S., I must abandon my Chinese culture. Although these stereotypes may seem innocent, they always undermine my self-esteem. Reducing people to a stereotype dismisses the hard work and effort behind their achievements. Just because I’m Asian, I’m expected to be a good student. This mindset fails to acknowledge the time, energy, and dedication I invest in my work. It feels as if whatever I do well is simply expected, and in fact, my successes become shortcomings because they reinforce the "nerdy Asian" stereotype. These stereotypical ideas and the pressure to adapt have become so ingrained in daily interactions that they’ve become a twisted social norm. It’s wrong that marginalized individuals are expected to just accept these subtle jabs and move on with their everyday lives. We deserve to be who we truly are, shaped by our unique familial, educational, and social backgrounds. We should not feel compelled to change our personalities or abandon our cultural heritage just to fully integrate into society. I need to work on accepting my identity. I am who I am–a mixture of Chinese and American culture, and I don’t need to change anything about myself to gain acceptance. We should all take pride in who we are, because every person—whether introverted, nerdy, or anything else—has the potential to shine in their own unique way. It’s easy to fall into stereotyping, but I encourage everyone not to judge a person based largely on their race. Every individual is unique, and it’s absurd to group millions of people into one category. Each person possesses valuable qualities that can only be truly appreciated when you take the time to get to know them, rather than assigning superficial stereotypes based on first impression. Gina Zhao

Harris and the Democrats suffer a humiliating defeat to a twice-impeached convicted felon. On the Wednesday morning of November 6th, the Associated Press called the presidential election for former president Donald Trump, who beat current vice president Kamala Harris. At the time of writing, with 95% of the votes counted and the Electoral College result decided, Trump achieved 50.5% of the popular vote, the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote since George W. Bush in 2004. He took all seven swing states, 312 electoral votes, and nearly 75 million votes to Harris’s nearly 71 million, in a decisive victory. In a further blow to Democrats, Trump led the G.O.P. to a trifecta clinch, achieving a majority in the Senate and likely in the House of Representatives. This sweep marks a stunning political comeback for the 45th president. How did a Democratic ticket led by Harris, a former senator and the sitting vice president, fall to a twice-impeached convicted felon who left the White House in 2021 disgraced? The answer has more to do with Democrats’ failure of party messaging toward swing voters rather than any success of Trump’s. Firstly, Democrats’ insistence that “democracy is on the ballot” failed to galvanize swing voters. It’s important to note that claiming that the basis of American government is at stake is a massive assertion. Trump’s appalling and un-American behavior that incited the storming of the Capital on January 6th, 2021 in an attempt to discount the fair election of Joe Biden indeed suggests Trump’s willingness to subvert the democratic process. Likewise, officials who worked in Trump’s administration attest to his disturbing admiration for authoritarians such as Vladimir Putin. Despite evidence for Trump’s anti-democratic leanings, Americans observed Mr. Biden’s inauguration and the 2022 midterm elections conducted successfully. Swing voters simply did not believe Democrats’ assertion that Trump was a fatal threat to democracy. Furthermore, Democrats’ party alignment with the issue of “democracy” (over 50% of Harris voters said “democracy” was the most important issue) was inconsistent with the last-minute substitution of Harris to the top of the ticket. The Democrats, after years of claiming that Mr. Biden was cognitively as sharp as a tack, effectively surrendered this conviction when the president faced overwhelming opposition to his re-election candidacy following his disastrous debate against Trump in June. If Democrats are the watchdogs of democracy, how did Harris become, in a matter of weeks, the Democratic nominee without garnering any primary votes?  Mr. Biden should have stepped down from re-election early this year (like Lyndon B. Johnson did in March of 1968, in time for a rigorous primary to occur) to allow for the People to declare a nominee. Thirdly, Harris’s campaign message to “turn the page” fell flat on swing voters. The question thoughtful voters ought to have asked is, “what page?” and “turning from what or whom?” That this central campaign message can quickly be construed into humor is a testament to its innate vacuousness. If Harris means the Trump presidency, Harris was in a prime position to do so in her three-and-a-half years as vice president. If she means the Biden presidency, which would be an intriguing argument, on what issues does Harris substantively deviate from Mr. Biden? Yet Harris failed to explain how her presidency would be different from Mr. Biden’s, proposing policies that would continue more of the same, such as extending the expanded child tax credit that Mr. Biden implemented. Furthermore, Harris found herself in hot water when asked about the border, which 20% of Trump voters said was the most important issue. Mr. Biden appointed Harris as the “border czar” in March of 2021 to address the increase in border crossings at the southern border. Regardless of Harris’ successes as “border czar,” achievements which her campaign did not publicize, border crossings peaked at 300,000 a month in December of 2023. To swing voters, this statistic seems like an abject failure of Harris’s leadership.  Harris also failed to produce a compelling argument on the economy. Even though the strength of the economy is often due to global factors out of a single president’s purview, Republican and swing voters blamed Mr. Biden and his administration for inflation. Inflation peaked at 9% in 2022 and has since declined to a healthy number around 3%, thanks to the incredible resilience of the American private economy and a prudent Federal Reserve. In response to consumer suffering, Harris used the upbeat, life-is-good phrase “opportunity economy” as an umbrella for her proposals which I detailed in my September column. Ultimately, the plans that constituted her “opportunity economy” were either an extension of Mr. Biden’s policies (which voters could interpret as being responsible for the inflation) or examples of naked pandering. Her proposed giveaway of 1 million fully-forgivable loans of up to $20,000 to Black men would not stand up to the rudimentary scrutiny of a swing voter. The election was largely a referendum on the state of the economy —it was the most important issue for a majority of Trump voters— and Harris failed to convince voters that she would bring greater prosperity than Trump. Lastly, this election exposed the left’s inability to understand Trump’s enduring appeal  to tens of millions of voters. Many Americans perceived Democrats’ criminal charges against Trump as nakedly partisan lawfare. The fact that the Department of Justice launched a case against Trump and not against Mr. Biden, despite finding classified documents at the houses of both men, seemed duplicitous to swing voters. Furthermore, the Democrats’ defeat in this election suggests that their positions on social issues were unimportant to many Americans and were exploited effectively by Trump’s campaign. Democrats’ various condemnations of Trump by using labels, particularly in deeming him a fascist, seemed to allow the left to discredit Trump’s genuine strengths as a politician; namely, Trump’s success with working class voters, a vast constituency group which he dominates. Moreover, calling Trump these terms on the campaign trail—regardless of their veracity—echoed Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” comment, because as the logic goes, fascist voters vote for fascist politicians. The Democrats’ failure to address the right’s accusation of lawfare against Trump and the left’s endless taxonomy of Trump’s failings did the opposite of appealing to Americans who had voted for him in past elections. More broadly, this election exposed a damning failure of the Democratic Party, which is their incomprehension of Trump’s popularity, especially among the working class.  As Democrats respond to this humiliating election defeat, they cannot fight fire with fire. “Resistance” politics is cynical and only exacerbates partisan polarization. Democrats moving leftward and embracing more progressive causes would also be a massive miscalculation: Harris tried to renounce her previously-held far-left beliefs, running as a centrist, yet she lost to Trump, who since 2015 has favored bombastic extremism to prudent moderation. If Democrats want to recoup the support they lost this election, they ought to return to the center  on subjects that, unlike Democrat-championed social issues, matter to the crucial swing voters. The Democratic Party dug themselves into a hole by calling Trump the end of democracy, and (assuming that this election isn’t the end of democracy) Democrats must confront the fact that a majority of voters think that Harris is the worse option. George Thornton