Search Results

Middlesex is a school that prides itself on its academic and athletic prowess in the ISL. The school ensures a balance between the classroom and the field to give its students an all-encompassing experience. It is a given that a school steeped in such tradition has produced legendary athletes, on and off the field. In commemoration of the 120th Anniversary of The Anvil , it is important that we take a step back to recognize the athletes that have paved the way for Middlesex athletes of the present and future generations.  Joseph W. Lang, JR: I think it’s safe to say most students on campus remember Joe Lang for his time as a football coach and a great mentor. Joe Lang coached Middlesex from 1996 to 2021 and won 102 games during his tenure. He led Middlesex to the NEPSAC bowl game in 1998, 2001, 2005, and 2019, as well as winning the ISL Championship in 1998 and 2003. Joe Lang was inducted into the Massachusetts Football Coaches Association Hall of Fame in 2015. Victor K. Atkins, JR: Mr. Atkins has played an integral role in reshaping the face of Middlesex athletics. He helped to redo the athletic facilities and refurbished Atkins Cage in 1993 as well as creating the Elizabeth Atkins Field House. Without his contributions, Middlesex would not be the athletically inclined school it is today. Eric A. Kester: Mr. Kester, a legendary teacher still at the school, was quite the athlete. He received 12 varsity letters during his Middlesex career, meaning that he played a varsity sport for every season. Captain of all three sports his senior year, he led the league in touchdown receptions as a Junior and senior and proceeded to play football at Harvard. Mr. Kester is a model athlete that exemplifies hard work and dedication to his profession. C. Kevin Landry: Mr. Landry won four varsity letters in his Middlesex career with two in football, one in hockey, and one in crew. He was captain of the Middlesex football team in 1961 and because of his generosity, he created the Landry Center for hockey and squash and was the driving force behind the construction of the turf fields.  These Middlesex athletes go beyond just their sports. They transcend the values of Middlesex school, like generosity and ambition, to their everyday lives. We are so grateful for their contributions and for making the history of this place so special.  Will Frank

Just three years after Middlesex’s founding, a group of intrepid students formed a school newspaper as one of the school’s first (and only surviving) student organizations. Since its inception and throughout its existence, The   Anvil  has faced various challenges from breakaway newspapers to flagging student involvement. The paper, however, weathered those tests and today boasts high student involvement in writing and enjoys a large readership among faculty, parents, and alumni. However, The   Anvil’ s most pressing challenge at present is not to get students to write, but to get them to write interesting and engaging articles. At 120 years, The   Anvil  must now look to its past to guide its future course.  Over the past four years, my biggest qualm with The   Anvil  and biggest issue I hope to address as an editor is that we have plenty of smart, eloquent, and inquisitive writers and yet our Opinion section often feels strikingly bland. In the lead-up to a highly dramatic and important presidential election, only a few students have been brave enough to put forth their thoughts. Fewer still have overcome the reticence to take a firm stance (or a real stance at all) that has become characteristic of our opinion articles over the last few years. These evasive arguments don’t reflect a lack of skill or knowledge, but rather a general fear of expressing themselves forcefully on both the issues of the nation and even of the school itself.  The   Anvil  (along with extinct campus clubs like the Young Democrats and Young Republicans) seems to be a victim of general chilled political expression on campus. To be fair, I was not a Middlesex student five, ten, or twenty years ago—but diverse evidence, from the death of partisan clubs to faculty concerns about perceived or self-enforced suppression of speech on campus to an Anvil poll which found less than half of Middlesex students felt that others wouldn’t negatively judge them for their political beliefs, suggests that open political discussion and the free exchange of ideas have significantly declined at Middlesex.  There are multiple reasons why I think students are more reserved with their ideas now than in the past, but none is more influential than the nasty turn our national political dialogue has taken. Former President Donald Trump’s use of personal attacks, discriminatory comments, and inflammatory language have single-handedly plunged the national discourse into mud-slinging invective. But much more than Trump’s behavior, which perhaps only ignited existing tension, the coupling of identity and party over the last several decades has created an increasingly personal and consequently ugly partisan divide. Politics have become deeply personal for many Americans. Increasingly, Democrats and Republicans feel that the views of the other party are so fundamentally incompatible with their own that they cannot be friends, partners, or even neighbors with them.  At Middlesex, we value a sense of community above almost everything else, and the ugly political discourse of the nation threatens that because community cannot coexist with the caustic debate that we see in our government. At this critical juncture, we have the choice to step up to the challenge and model respectful dialogue or to ignore and suppress the pressing issues of the day to avoid the discomfort they could bring to our comfortable campus. Too often we choose to avoid conflict rather than attempt to handle it productively and respectfully.  Whether their perception is incorrect or not, many students feel that both the school’s administration and the student body more generally is hostile to opinions on both school policy and national politics. One sophomore who hoped to start writing was surprised that the school would let The   Anvil  publish articles that favored Trump over Harris, a sentiment broadly reflected with only 20% of Anvil poll respondents who said they supported Trump felt that they would not be judged by students or faculty for it. Opinion topics lists have moved away from politics in recent years and even when political topics are offered they are far from the most interesting or contentious. Students do not engage with pressing national issues in writing or in discussion because they fear that their peers or teachers will judge them negatively for their views. Broadly, the school community does not discuss contentious issues as much as it could or should for fear of hurt feelings or heated arguments.  The   Anvil  has struggled with expressing student opinion before. In November 1965, the Anvil addressed concerns over free speech in the wake of the “events in Selma, Watts, and Berkeley” by creating a “Letters to the Editor” section and defining the limits of free speech in the paper. In that year, they decided that the faculty editor could only object to false or slanderous content, not the opinion itself. The   Anvil ’s policy now is not so different—the paper is willing to publish a broad array of viewpoints, but the issue now is finding students who are willing to share their opinions.  In my experience with The   Anvil , it is the students themselves rather than the administration that enforce these limits on student expression. But the school has not made much effort to stir student expression. The election task force is a step in the right direction, and the efforts of some teachers to promote dialogue in class are an often overlooked area of excellence. Overall, however, the school has shied away from conversation, rather than endeavoring to teach students how to handle sensitive issues with the respect and maturity we hope Middlesex graduates will bring to their adult lives. Fundamentally, Middlesex students are scared to express themselves in class, in the dining hall, and in the paper because they worry (and often rightly so) that their classmates cannot hear controversial or dissenting political views and treat them with the same respect and kindness they did before, much less productively engage with them. It is a skill to have these discussions, one which the school could do better in training.  This year, I hope that The   Anvil  will help by pushing students to make interesting and thoughtful arguments about important national issues and Middlesex policies. Other students, namely those running the Politics Club and Women in Politics Club, are also providing spaces for such discussions. The school, however, must take the lead in promoting discourse by publicly committing to a policy of greater freedom of speech among students and continuing to seek out political speakers to spark campus discussion once again. Jack Elworth

In this issue of The Anvil , we celebrate 120 years of student journalism at Middlesex and reflect on the newspaper’s evolution since its inception. A lot has certainly changed since 1904—we now publish online and in print and no longer have to run advertisements in the paper to support it as the early editions did. However, more has stayed the same. We still rely on the same enthusiasm and dedication of Middlesex students to write for, edit, format, photograph, and distribute The Anvil  which sustained the paper through 12 decades. Many of the topics have lasted through decades too: the same questions about free speech on campus and the school newspaper’s role therein remain as relevant as ever. The Anvil  provides students with a special opportunity in both reading and writing to engage in the perennial conversation about both what it means to each student to be a member of the Middlesex community, and what direction the school more broadly should head in. We encourage all students, regardless of past experience, to take part in the life of the school not only by contributing to or reading The Anvil,  but also by engaging in other clubs and extracurricular activities that spark your interest in any way.

It's high time we vote for the right person that can get it back, and we have to do it right. The US presidential election is just around the corner, but the political landscape is looking bleak and chaotic. As disinformation becomes increasingly pervasive, being able to distinguish between what is real and what is not is more important than ever. Fact-checks are always a crucial part of the election process: as voters, the audience has to know if they are being told the truth. Information does matter. Trump’s AI video of Taylor Swift endorsing him prompted urged the singer to speak up on her actual stance on the presidential elections. Following her Instagram post stating that presidential candidate Kamala Harris “fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them,” there was a 400% spike in vote registrationsregistrators. Truth matters. While voters should be competent enough to distinguish truth from slanders, unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. Social media—yes, it’s social media , again–is extremely influential, and many mudslinging memes from both sides are based on false or misleading information, cherry-picked to fit a belief or ideology. Ironically, social media is often where people get their information from–in fact, 20% of adults in America get their news from Instagram. Sorry to break it to you, but that 20-second reel you watched remixing Trump’s statement about immigrants eating cats and dogs should not be your primary source. There are other, more reliable sources available to voters. The Washington Post and The New York Times are both places where voters can get accurate statistical information. Nevertheless, it’s crucial to realize that sources such as CNN, The Washington Post, or The New York Times, have their own fair share of bias. Indeed, there is no objective truth. One can talk about the same event in a thousand different ways by spinning the context. It is ultimately the job of us, as the readers, the voters, and the people, to decide which of the interpretations we want to incorporate into our decisions. A voter cannot be spoon-fed the latest edition of true-or-false by news outlets as if they were a toddler. While it is an expectation that we do not receive any fake news hastily written for clout from any of our news outlets, it is up to the readers who read them to conclude which information they want to absorb, and what information they will discard. Lindsay Baik

Exploring the role of technology in education. School is already overwhelming, but technology makes it even more challenging. Whether it's looking over an online Chemistry textbook before an upcoming test or typing tirelessly on the keyboard to write an Iliad  paragraph, all the experiences of using electronic devices when studying have always annoyed me even before coming to Middlesex. I fail to comprehend that students or teachers can truly benefit from replacing traditional, classic handwriting with technology. My dissatisfaction towards learning online leads to a deeper and universal resentment towards technologies in general. Indeed, I have become frustrated with all forms of technological usage, whether it’s for entertainment, socialization or even payments.   I cannot recall the infinite instances of technological difficulties that prevent me from accessing needed materials. In fact, Although it is impossible to recall all the instances where technology has let me down, I can think of more than a dozen that occurred this past weekend off the top of my head. On the bus ride back from a cross country meet at Tabor Academy, the website of my science textbook denied me access to my Chemistry textbook for an upcoming test, claiming that “I do not have the correct username or password” while my previous attempts to access the Chemistry textbook were all successful. Eventually, after the eleventh time typing in the username and password, frustration finally overwhelmed me and I decided to give up. Similar scenarios have already taken place multiple times this year. I simply cannot understand why many schools have chosen to replace physical textbooks with digital ones—a decision that will create countless difficulties for students in their academic careers.  Additionally, doing homework online irrevocably impairs our visions. Ultimately, there is no difference between staring at cell phones for the latest updates on Youtube/ Reels/Feeds and polishing an essay that analyzed the differences and similarities between the arrogant Agamemnon and the egotistical Achilles. Both of these activities expose the student’s eyes to high-energy blue light produced by electrical devices. According to numerous studies done by ophthalmologists, constant screen time causes irreversible damages to our eyes, including drastic change of our eyeballs’ shape, elongation of our eyeballs, and nearsightedness. Electrical devices produce detrimental, high-energy blue light that penetrates into the deeper parts of our eyes, including the retina— the layer of our eye s that capture and transmit incoming photons to perceive a visual picture. Using technology to study is a curse, not a blessing. While the rapid advancement of technology opens up a world of possibilities, we need to assess the pros and cons of replacing the conventional method to protect the future of the next generation. Otherwise, we risk facing turmoil and suffering instead.  Sunny Qian

As Biden nears the end of his presidency, can his actions still define a lasting legacy, or are they overshadowed by the looming 2024 election? As we approach the final stretch of Joe Biden’s presidency, a crucial question arises: Can a president with so little time left truly make and shape a legacy? With January 20, 2025, fast approaching in just a few months, the window for action narrows down, and the world is watching to see if Biden’s last-ditch efforts will be significant or simply swept away by the succeeding administration. The truth is that Biden's power is effectively diminished  as his influence wavers in what is often referred to as a “lame-duck” period. Historically, most lame-duck presidents struggle to achieve lasting accomplishments, as the nation shifts its view to focus on the incoming leader. A clear example of this kind of administration is Barack Obama's final year in office in 2016, when his Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland was blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate, with leaders arguing that the next president should decide the appointment. Despite efforts in areas like healthcare and climate change, many of Obama's initiatives faced resistance and were later reversed by the Trump administration. The limited time Biden has left leaves him vulnerable to opposition not just from political opponents at home, but from foreign forces like Hamas, who may see the upcoming election as an opportunity to delay important negotiations in hopes of a more favorable resolution.  A few months are not enough to cement a strong legacy.  Consider how many initiatives are launched by one president, just to be reversed by their successor. For instance, Donald Trump spent much of his term undoing the policies of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and it’s likely that whoever follows Biden will do the same. His achievements like climate action, healthcare reform, and economic recovery are vulnerable, especially if they’re enacted via executive orders or policy changes that lack support. Without broad political consensus, many of Biden's efforts may be swept away, negating any meaningful impact he has left, let alone what impact he may leave in his last few months.  Additionally, Biden’s age has already tarnished his reputation , further diminishing his influence. At 81 years of age now, Biden faces widespread public concern over his ability to lead effectively, and this perception has only worsened as he nears the end of his presidency. Many view him as a transitional figure, with his age and declining approval ratings suggesting that he’s already being replaced in the minds of both domestic and international leaders. Not to mention, jokes floating around on social media further dull his reputation, spreading a general consensus that Biden no longer has the ability to make good and effective decisions. This skepticism weakens his ability to command authority or rally support for significant actions, apparent in his weak campaigns when he hadn’t backed out of the elections. All of this makes it even harder for him to secure a meaningful legacy in his remaining time. One might argue that Biden could avoid the constraints of political maneuvering and focus on making bold decisions without worrying about re-election. After all, he no longer faces the pressure of winning over voters or courting campaign donors. In theory, this freedom could allow him to prioritize actions for the greater good, regardless of political consequences. However,  this freedom is largely illusory . A president’s lasting power does not lie in immediate action, but in the durability of their policies. Biden’s remaining time is insufficient to ensure that his final decisions become lasting legacies, particularly in the face of an incoming administration with likely different priorities. All in all, it’s Biden’s successor who decides the final fate of his administration.  The real challenge lies in whether the next president will continue, modify, or dismantle his initiatives. If Harris wins the elections, it may very well be easier for him to establish lasting policies, especially with his former subordinate who shares some of the same priorities. The nature of presidential power in the U.S. means that even the most well-intentioned actions in the final months can be undone. A legacy, in this sense, is not defined by action alone, but by its endurance. Zephyr Liu

A guide to navigating disinformation on social media Anyone who has been on X (Twitter), or any other forms of social media, have undoubtedly come across their fair share of conspiracy theories and fake news in one way or another. But beneath this innocuous facade lies something more malicious than the average user might expect: the hate speech subtly or blatantly embedded in the memes and the posts. One prominent example of this is the blatant racism targeting Haitian migrants in the United States. Alt-right accounts on X have uploaded posts that suggested that Haitian migrants, particularly in Springfield, Ohio, killed domesticated pets for consumption. This is baseless slander: according to credible sources like the BBC and Reuters, there has been no  evidence of Haitian immigrants stealing pets for food. However, on social media, where fact-checking is often missing, this narrative quickly went viral. Many people favoring right-wing beliefs even started to truly believe in it. The most significant believer—who may come across as a surprise given his position as a possible political leader of this country—is Donald Trump. In the recent presidential debate with Kamala Harris, he claimed that “they’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” And yet, despite all the facts and evidence that are available to us in the digital age, tenuous slander is ubiquitous throughout the United States, from the screens of our phones to national politics. If a presidential candidate can fall for disinformation, so can you. So what can you, an ordinary citizen, do about it? Before you succumb to the allure of the easy dopamine high, please do remember that you have free will. Social media, as conglomerate as it is, is ultimately contained only on your phone. The phone is yours—and so is the thumb that you’re using to scroll through hours of endless content. You don’t have the choice to prevent disinformation, but you do  have the power to stop it from getting into your brain. First and foremost, fact-check the sources. Simply search up any given conspiracy theory and look for credible sources —meaning proper news media with facts and evidence supporting its assertions rather than a mysterious screenshot or a caption—confirming or disproving it. In fact, this applies to left-wingers as much as right-wingers. When former President Trump was shot during his campaign rally in Pennsylvania, a concerningly number of left-wing accounts speculated that the shooting was staged—a rumor with just as much evidence as the other one above. Even among the reasonably reliable sources, be mindful of each publication’s own  political biases when consuming their content. From left-leaning networks like CNN and The New York Times to right-leaning ones like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, a single event can be disseminated in two very different ways. Take, for example, Trump and his statement about the Haitian migrants and cats. The New York Times titled its article as “Trump Repeats False Claim About Immigrants,”  whereas Fox News simply reported that  “Trump discusses reports of migrants killing pets in Ohio town” —two very different connotations there. Remember, these news corporations constantly compete with each other to push their own narrative to unassuming consumers for engagement, advertisements, subscriptions, and for profit . Afterall, we’re living in a capitalistic world, and you’re the perfect customer—just like everyone else here. So, before you retweet whatever post that pops up in your favorite social media app of choice, please take a moment to Google whatever you were just reading. Please save yourself the embarrassment of repeating blatant misinformation in front of your friends or family—or maybe even the whole nation. Morgan Kim

Takeaways from 2024 the Vice Presidential Debate Two weeks ago, one of my classmates asked me to bring popcorn and drinks for a small debate watch party. While I envisioned candidates articulating their positions with coherent arguments about policies to improve the lives of the United States citizens, my expectation did not match what I saw.  With less than a month left in the race for the White House, many voters are struggling to choose the right candidate. Indeed, the performances of both Kamala Harris of the Democratic Party and Donald Trump of the Republican Party strayed far from the traditional notion of  a debate, as the presidential debate devolved into meaningless mudslinging. However, the Vice Presidential debate offered a glimmer of hope for American politics. Unlike the presidential debate, the overall tone of the Vice Presidential debate remained civil and composed, focusing on policy differences rather than crude criticisms. While Kamala Harris and Donald Trump engaged in personal insults and irrelevant claims, Tim Walz and JD Vance embodied the true spirit of debate.  JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, showed his rhetorical skills from the outset, by clearly representing the core values of Trumpism. Vance’s composure stood in direct contrast with Donald Trump’s emotional agitation. Throughout the debate, Vance was undeterred by challenges from left-wing broadcaster CBS and interruptions from liberal moderators.  On the other side of the aisle, Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, took a much longer time to find his footing. He appeared nervous and hesitant, delivering long and jumbled responses. When pressed about a discrepancy between his description of his life and the real events, Walz struggled to answer the question and attempted to divert the topic with, “I grew up in a small, rural Nebraska, town of 400” without ever addressing the question. Walz’s rhetoric was reminiscent of that of Kamala Harris herself, who repeatedly mentions her childhood being “raised in a middle-class family” in the hope of sidestepping difficult questions. Indeed, Walz appears to acknowledge misstatement about his personal experiences. For example, in 2018 he claimed to have experience with “weapons of war that [he] carried in war” during his military service, despite never seeing combat.  Later in the debate, J.D Vance challenged the Democrats by questioning “what has Kamala Harris done” over the last three and a half years. He emphasized the record-breaking number of illegal immigrants, as illegal crossings at the “open” Southern border skyrocketed from 0.5 million in 2019 to 2 million in 2023. Moreover, Vance pointed out the extreme inflation affecting cost of living in the U.S.—the staggering 19.4 percent price increase under the Biden-Harris administration according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Ironically, instead of mitigating these issues, liberal politicians led by Kamala Harris shifted the blame to the former Trump administration. This attitude not only communicates indifference toward those pressing issues, but also reveals Kamala Harris’s inability to craft effective policies. Indeed, Vance is right to argue that Kamala Harris “had the opportunities to enact all of these great policies,” yet she failed to carry them out.  The Democratic Party often emphasizes the importance of democracy, but JD Vance rightly points out the irony of the Democrats being “undemocratic” with respect to social media censorship. Vance began his speech by criticizing the Biden-Harris administration for infringing on the fundamental right to freedom of speech. “It is a threat to democracy,” Vance argued, calling attention to the White House’s restrictive policies targeting big technology companies, notably Facebook, during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, regrets that he was not more outspoken about censorship of ideas while under pressure from the White House. It is the government's duty to foster democracy and protect freedom of expression, even if it leads to divisive disagreements. Afterall, freedom of speech is one of the foundations of American democracy.  The multiple polls on the performance of debates indicate that the debate itself may be inconsequential to sway the decisions of voters. However, it is undeniable that the 90 minutes of discussion paved a strong foundation for the Republican party. If Trump loses the election, Vance’s collected and coherent performance will help establish his credentials as the leader of the next generation of the Republican Party. If Trump wins, Vance’s position will be further solidified. In just 90 minutes, while Walz struggled under pressure, Vance successfully transformed his image from a “creepy” and “weird” character into a candidate with a clear blueprint to make America great again.  Matthew Yoon

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 '26

Dr. Laws joins Middlesex as a chemistry teacher, crew coach, and dorm parent. Photo by Caroline Wolford David Laws, more commonly known as “DLaws,” is one of several new faculty members on campus this year. Dr. Laws earned his B.S. in chemistry from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley, where he went on to work at The Lawrenceville School as a chemistry teacher and Dean of Academics. There he taught physics, computer science, and math for 24 years.  Dr. Laws loves Middlesex so far, saying, “The faculty at Middlesex is so welcoming and so helpful,” and an “incredible group to work with.” He also enjoys how close-knit the community at Middlesex is compared to the bigger group of around 800 students at his previous school, Lawrenceville. Dr. Laws “has missed teaching chemistry,” and is looking forward to teaching half of the Chem 10 students; he also eagerly awaits co-teaching a robotics course in the spring and coaching girls’ JV crew. Dr. Laws is also the faculty advisor of the Middlesex Robotics Club and a Kravis dorm parent–his favorite academic building is Clay, however, and he loves that it is air-conditioned. He also notes that he is excited to try out the observatory on the Clay roof! Surprisingly, the very first school to offer him a job as a physics teacher was Middlesex 25 years ago. However, Dr. Laws states that he didn’t take it because his wife took a job in New Jersey, thus taking him to Lawrenceville; despite getting a job here in Concord in 2019, COVID allowed her to work remotely. Currently she works in Cambridge, and Dr. Laws has followed, coming back full circle to Middlesex. “Everything comes around in this world,” says Dr. Laws.  In his free time, DLaws enjoys rowing  on a nearby pond in his town. He rows with a local group of adults during the first few quiet, early hours of the day–around 5 am–a couple times a week. He also bikes to school each day, and appreciates the tranquility of the campus and surrounding area. He advises students to stay open-minded and try everything so that they can discover their passions. His story is a case in point: while his high school friends thought he would be a lawyer, Dr. Laws had two great chemistry teachers, and now he is a chemist with a PhD and loves to spread knowledge in his area of expertise. Dr. Laws is sure to fit right into the community at Middlesex, and we are truly grateful to have him.  Allison Luo

Uncover the truth behind the overcrowded Ware Hall: are remedies possible? Illustration by Katherine Deng Drrrrrrrrrrr! Upon the ringing of class bells, crowds of students form a seemingly unending line at Ware Hall. The stacks of backpacks, jumbled upon one another, block the pathways. Scenes of chaos, marked by constant line-cuts, complaints about the food, and the fights for seats, have become the norm. Indeed, the tumultuous image of the Ware Hall seems to have already settled in students’ hearts as an inherent part of “Middlesex Tradition.” Putting the long lines to get food aside, it’s important to investigate the truth behind Ware Hall’s “overcrowdedness.” Reflecting on past week’s lunchtimes at Ware Hall, the overcrowding issue may be more of an exaggeration than a fact. A welcomed addition to the new schedule—the X-Block period (25 minutes attached after the normal block period)–staggers student arrival times. As every academic day before the Lunch Block contains X-Block, the schedule effectively disperses students and faculty population, and minimizes overcrowding. Even on Thursday, where X-Block is absent, the schedule manages to incorporate “chapel chorus” block, reducing more than 100 visits to lunch on the day.  While Ware Hall's dire situation may be exaggerated, students and faculty members still harbor many concerns about the situation. Others have solutions: in the words of Matthew DeGreeff, Dean of College Counseling, eating lunch at the dining hall is “all about the art of timing.” Indeed, the importance of lunch lies in the ability to build meaningful connections. Yet the tight lunch schedule and the exhausting job of fighting for seats can undermine the very essence of lunch. As Mr. Tolfree reflects, “the meal is way more enjoyable when we have more time and space.”  The decision to reconstruct Ware Hall, one of the proposed solutions to this problem, is impossible in the next few years. While Middlesex has repeatedly discussed the renovations to Ware Hall to accommodate a larger student and faculty population, the administration is currently focused on the construction of the new Field House in Acorn, which already requires significant investment of funding. Instead, introducing a new schedule change, such as rotating lunch block periods, is a more practical alternative. As providing a convenient campus experience remains a goal of Middlesex School, the administration should commit to perfecting even the small flaws of the school, including the lunchtime experience.  Matthew Yoon

Dean of Students Ms. Swain shares her philosophy that led to this rule. Illustration by Lauren Chan Upon the arrival of the new school year, Middlesex students were met by an unexpected change: phones are now no longer allowed during the school day. Many students–notably returners–have voiced frustration, protesting that the restriction complicates communication and school life; many wonder how this policy will align with the needs and routines of students who have already grown accustomed to relying on their devices. In an interview with Ms. Swain, the initiative's key advocate, she declares that this change isn’t about demonizing and restricting technology, but rather about encouraging students to be more involved in their day-to-day interactions.  The idea for this policy came after Ms. Swain read The Anxious Generation  by Jonathan Haidt, a book that investigates the plummet of mental health among teenagers in our era of smartphones and social media. She noted that platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook have built-in mechanisms designed to lure teenagers into an endless abyss of social comparisons and peer pressure. The like button in particular hijacks self esteem by creating a craving for social dopamine reinforcements that can exacerbate social anxiety. Teenagers, who are already undergoing a critical stage of forming their identities, are especially vulnerable to this effect.  “The smartphone is like the Apple of Eden,” Ms. Swain remarked gravely, “great kids make big mistakes on their phones all the time.” However, contrary to what students assume, this rule is not a harsh “phone ban.” Ms. Swain was quick to clarify that the school is not aiming to call for punitive measures against students. “One important decision we made was not tying this policy to a disciplinary response,” she said. Indeed, the school hopes to work in collaboration with students to engage with the policy as a learning opportunity. Rather than punishing students for breaking rules, this policy seeks more to help students recognize the importance of balance in their use of technology.  In terms of potential impacts of this decision, Ms. Swain hopes to see a decrease in discipline matters relating to cyber-bullying, more engagement in class, and a greater sense of connection in common areas. Now, without phones as a back-up plan during awkward moments, Ms. Swain sees this as an opportunity to encourage students to “take risks” by sitting next to a person that they don’t really talk to, building new friendships, or just being present. Social dynamics during non-school hours may also improve, as students reclaim their social lives in meaningful ways instead of retreating to their phones.  That said, the no-phone policy is still subject to adjustments as to whether to push further or to scale down based on feedback from students. Though phones and social media are now integral parts of our lives, it may be worth taking a step backward to consider our place in a society consumed by personal devices. While it is too early to call the policy a success, Middlesex is taking a bold step towards fostering a more engaged and mindful community. Jessica Wu