Search Results

Misunderstood, miscommunicated, and mostly ineffective, Middlesex’s new welcome booth has created more problems than it has solved.  Photo by Lucy Wang When the new welcome booth appeared at Middlesex’s entrance this fall, confusion spread fast among students. Was it a security measure? A response to rising national concerns about school safety? Or simply a logistical checkpoint for deliveries? No one seemed to know, because the school never clearly said. In the absence of communication, speculation filled the void. Many students assumed the “guardhouse” represented a step towards fortifying our once-open campus. Fueled by the belief that the structure was meant for protection of students, opposition quickly grew. After all, if the goal was student safety, why construct a flimsy “shack” with an unarmed attendant at only one entrance to our campus? Why invest in formality over function, especially with something so jarring and unwelcoming into our otherwise bucolic landscape? The truth, as Director of Campus Security Mr. MacIsaac explained in an interview, is less about safety than about management. The booth functions as a “visitor management point” intended to direct drivers, delivery vehicles, and other visitors to the correct locations. It was never quite intended to serve as a line of defense during threats of attacks. For that, Middlesex continues to rely on the nearby Concord Police for emergencies. The welcome booth, according to Mr. MacIsaac, serves as the “eyes and ears” of the campus who can observe and report irregularities if they arise.  This clarification matters, because if the welcome booth is never about physical protection, then it must be judged on its practical effects. Here, the evidence about its success is mixed.  For day students, the booth has created persistent morning traffic jams. Lucy Wang ‘26 reported frequent hold ups in the mornings when vehicles in the front of the line didn’t have their parking permits. Faculty have also encountered issues: one teacher who wished to remain anonymous recounted that the barrier gate nearly struck his car as he was driving in on multiple occasions. Delivery vehicles, especially large UPS or Amazon vans, often struggle to turn around on the narrow road, which lacks designated turnaround zones for maneuvering. Ironically, a system designed to “manage” visitors has instead congested them.  Another justification for the booth has been the safety of faculty children living on campus. Many of the faculty living on campus I spoke to admitted that they feel reassured by the booth’s presence, believing it deters drivers from speeding and posing a risk to children playing near the Circle. However, while this comfort is understandable, it is, at best, symbolic. A driver stopped at the entrance can just as easily accelerate once they’re waved through. The booth, indeed, does not physically prevent speeding. It merely gives the impression of oversight.  The most significant issue with the welcome booth, however, lies in its inconsistency. Multiple students have reported that the booth attendant rarely checks leave requests or verifies who enters. Delivery drivers, despite the new system, still appear disoriented, wandering aimlessly across campus or even knocking on faculty doors in search of the drop-off location. In short, the booth frequently fails to fulfill even its stated logistical function. To the school’s credit, the booth is not an unnecessary structure. In its current form, it was built with reasonable intentions to regulate campus traffic. Yet the lack of communication about its purpose led to widespread misunderstanding, and its flawed implementation has complicated certain aspects of daily life more than it has improved them.  In the end, the hasty execution of the welcome booth created a gap between the school’s intentions and its actual implementation. Had the planning process involved a bit more dialogue, the outcome would have been far more effective. By Jessica Wu ‘27 image by: Lucy Wang

Despite complaints, Security House is a cure, not a poison for Middlesex. Photo by Lucy Wang It’s hard to think of a structure that’s drawn more attention than the welcome booth. The change, of course, initially came with unfamiliarity. Does the Welcome Booth do its job? To be fair, the majority of students, by first instinct, resisted the change.  From long walks to the Clay House driveway for deliveries to morning traffic, students often see the booth as an inconvenience. But in the end, the welcome booth provides something more than a welcome.  Most opposition claims that the welcome booth merely brings symbolic safety. Yet the word “merely” should be investigated, considering its psychological benefit. As an international student at Robert Winsor House, I began to treat the campus as a place like home. In place of that idea of “home,” the welcome booth has opted for a doorway that clearly distinguishes the boundary. It is more than symbolically committed to harboring a sense of belonging, as the structure clarifies the threshold between campus and the public. That’s a decision worthy of recognition by all members of the community, including faculty children.  Others are eager to point out that the structure is flimsy and weak, not strong enough to prevent serious threats. This is a fair point, considering that only an unarmed guard is stationed in the security house. Yet this claim misses the essence of the welcome booth. It isn’t made for fighting the threats, but it is made for prevention. Identification of the threat before entrance matters. The presence of a guard provides a point of human contact for emergencies. The perception alone of security decreases the likelihood of an intruder. The building instills fear on the intruders, while giving comfort to the community. Of course, risks must be weighed against one another, and there are more realistic risks to the security of our community than the gun violence of an unknown intruder. This is not to disregard the possibility of such violence. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Concord has a significantly lower overall crime rate (9.14 per 1,000 residents) than the national average (33.37 per 1,000 residents), as well as a low violent and property crime rate.  Whether or not such violence ever reaches our campus, we need to shift our perspective on the realistic problems that the welcome booth directly addresses. While opposition also points to the cursory checking of leave requests by the guards. Some even say we currently have an almost open security house. These claims probably all have an element of truth to them. But this is a simple fix. The Director of Safety and Security should outline protocols for leave requests for the guards to ensure they are thoroughly checked. Ultimately, if we don’t have an organized structure to properly catalog and screen all students who come and go through our campus, how can Middlesex effectively respond to cases of emergency?  Traffic is another easily resolvable issue. It is undeniable that day students have gotten stuck in traffic at the Welcome Booth in the morning. Yet the summer update noted that “our community members (students, parents, employees, and residents) will use a vehicle hang tag that will grant immediate access into campus.” That would mean that once the standardized tag system becomes a routine, entry time will shorten dramatically. Only after a period of time has passed with the tag in use can we judge the gatehouse’s effect on traffic. While changes don’t always appear welcoming, with a few adjustments, Middlesex will be safer as a result of having the gatehouse.  Matthew Yoon ‘27

How this current government shutdown betrays our Founding Father’s legacy. Illustration by David Yang When French Minister Alexis de Tocqueville toured America, he remarked in his book Democracy in America  that “to meddle in the government of society … is the only pleasure that an American knows.” The America he saw in 1831 was one of a well-reasoned and deliberated disagreement, and consisted of a well-informed public that collectively endeavored to push past local and factional differences to make America a better country. Nearly two centuries later, this is no longer the same America, and the government shutdown we’re currently witnessing is emblematic of that. On October 1, Democrats and Republicans in the US Senate failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to pass the Republican-proposed annual spending bill to keep the government open. This was following intense disagreement regarding the $536 billion proposed cuts to tax credits that would increase the price of health insurance for millions of Americans. As a result, national parks and monuments across the country will be closed, hundreds of thousands of government employees will be furloughed without pay, and millions of government loans or contracts will be delayed. In a highly partisan vote, with all but two democrats voting “no”, and all but one republican voting “yes”, factional disagreement has once again devolved into disfunction. Democrats view the government shutdown as leverage to advance their agenda on issues like healthcare. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stated that “If President Trump and Republicans are finally ready to sit down and get something done in healthcare for American families, Democrats will be there.”  While Congress remains deadlocked, President Trump has expressed his intention to exploit this “unprecedented opportunity” to layoff federal employees, and cut funding especially for legislation he dislikes. This is an especially dangerous act of executive overreach, and will no doubt face challenges in the courts. While both parties are at fault, the current events illustrate a more profound failure in the two-party system of governance. There simply is no incentive for cooperation on either side. With the media landscape littered with declamations of hyper-partisan harangues, as well as strict-drawn party lines, politicians will no doubt trade short-term “wins” against rival parties, over the long-term good of the country even if it means working with those across the aisle. This unwillingness to legislate bipartisanly comes at the wellbeing of the American people, not just the strength of our federal government. As James Madison warned in Federalist Paper 10, “t he public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties.” Since 1976, the US government has experienced twenty shutdowns, yet the deadlock today takes a different and more pernicious form. This shutdown, unlike ones in the past, is purely partisan. Democrats face intense pressure from constituents to oppose the current administration through gesture politics, while Trump and his MAGA Republicans continue to pursue their agenda in cutting federal functions supported by Democrats. There is a complete lack of discourse and negotiation between the two parties, as both sides exploit the constitutional process for political messaging.  The partisan fiasco that is the current government begs a truly American question that we seem to ask ourselves all the time, “have things ever been so bad?” Looking at this from a wider historical perspective may offer a slither of hope. People often forget that America is no stranger to civil discord and disagreement. Partisanship was baked into the identity of America right at its founding. Loyalists and Patriots; often from the same family, clashed on the battlefields over the issue of American Independence during the Revolutionary War. Federalists and Anti-Federalists dueled over the passage of the Constitution. Unfortunately, today’s politics has devolved far from the eloquent deliberations of our founding fathers and into polarizing political gridlock. It may be an exaggeration to say that current events will unfold into another civil war, but a keen historian will perhaps recognize the parallels of rhetoric between the quarrels of today and the fierce disputes during the years prior to Fort Sumter. To find a way out of this shutdown and the political deadlock in general, it requires the collective wisdom of politicians and the American people.  By Calvin Sun ‘29

Removing what the administration deems “woke,” the White House erases uncomfortable historical truths. Photo from The New Yorker In March 2025, Trump issued an executive order aimed at federal sites dedicated to history, accusing the Smithsonian of promoting a “divisive, race-centered ideology”. The order directed that the Smithsonian (according to former senior historian and curator David C. Ward) “celebrate American exceptionalism” and eliminate exhibits or programs that “degrade shared American values”. Trump also escalated his criticisms on social media, claiming that the Smithsonian focused excessively on negative aspects of American history, such as slavery, rather than celebrating national success.  The Smithsonian came under fire in July after removing a temporary placard referencing Trump’s two impeachments from a display at the National Museum of American History although the institution later denied it had been pressured by the government to make changes to its exhibits. In August 2025, the White House initiated a formal review of eight museums within the Smithsonian network, demanding extensive documentation and that they must “replace divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions” within 120 days.  Trump’s actions are part of a wider effort by his administration to influence and control cultural institutions and media. The administration has targeted federal funding for arts and cultural organizations. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) has seen layoffs, firings of council members, and funding withdrawals. There is also an expansion of censorship to other museums where Trump criticizes other museums across the country, referring to them as “the last remaining segment of ‘WOKE’”.  In response to the administration’s pressure, museum organizations and free-speech advocates warn against political inference in curatorial practices. Groups like the American Alliance of Museums and the American Historical Association argue that dictates on what is displayed risk narrowing the public’s access to evidence and a full range of perspectives. Opponents have voiced fears that the administration’s efforts could lead to a sanitized and “whitewashed” version of history by minimizing or erasing uncomfortable truths, including those related to slavery and systemic racism. They sought changes as “demoralizing” and “farcical.” The OAH said the White House’s effort to assert control over the Smithsonian "aggressively push to flatten American history into a narrowly conceived, unrepresentative, and simplified story” and asks the professionals working at the institution to “violate their ethics and their dedication to free and open historical inquiry”. Meanwhile, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch has internally affirmed that the institution's work will be guided by scholarship and remain free of partisanship.  When narratives are sanitized and the brutal realities of slavery or the experiences of Black Americans are watered down or omitted, society risks developing a distorted, incomplete, or triumphalist view of its past.  Institutions like the Smithsonian are often seen as guardians of historical truth. If they are forced to alter their narratives to satisfy political pressures, public trust in these institutions will erode. This selective storytelling can lead to the loss of historical complexity and nuance, as well as weakening the ability to learn from past mistakes, making it harder to address ongoing social problems rooted in history such as inequality to serve communities with integrity. Most importantly, erasure of the identities and lived experiences of marginalized groups reduces empathy and the sense of social responsibility across generations.  Fragmenting shared narrative weakens social cohesion, resulting in reduced trust and increased division. Especially towards future generations, perpetuating injustice by obscuring the root causes of present-day disparities hinders an essential and healthy democracy. Future generations may lose touch with the diverse and complex origins of contemporary America with the risk of cultural amnesia. These pressures can create a chilling effect across the entire museum sector. Freedom of thought and expression has always been foundational American values, and museums uphold them by creating spaces where people can engage with history in ways that are honest and thought-provoking.  When certain narratives are erased or vilified, opportunities for reflection diminish, and individuals may become less equipped to question authority or recognize harmful patterns in current events. This “cultural amnesia” doesn’t just erase difficult histories – it also removes the foundation for constructive problem-solving and cross-cultural empathy essential for growth as a nation.  Celine Shi ‘29

How the FCC’s attack on Late Night talk shows demonstrate a growing suppression on our American liberties. Photo from The New York Times The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the essential freedoms of religion, peaceful assembly, press, petition, and, most notably, speech. Yet, in recent years, especially in the media, this right has become more and more threatened.  Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has long made clear he was a strong advocate for free speech, declaring on Twitter, now X, in 2019, “Should the government censor speech it doesn’t like? Of course not,” and in 2023, “Free speech is the counterweight [and] check on government control.”  This is the same Carr who appeared on a right-wing podcast on September 17, 2025, explicitly threatening ABC, and its parent company Disney, demanding that the Kimmel show be taken off the air after Kimmel suggested that Trump supporters had weaponized the assasination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk to attack the left. In response, Sinclair and Nexstar, two major American media companies that own and operate television stations affiliated with networks like ABC, CBS, and Fox, decided to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live!  off the air, citing concerns around Carr’s statements. After Kimmel’s show was reinstated on September 23, 2025, he accurately described the actions of the station groups who refused to air his show as “un-American.” Carr had gained the approval of the president and of Republican leaders through his criticism of perceived liberal bias in the mainstream media. It was this belief that led to his rise to his current position, rather than the belief in freedom of speech.  A similar situation occurred with Stephen Colbert and his Late Night show in July of 2025. In October 2024, Trump sued Paramount Global, CBS's parent company, over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris that he believed deliberately made her look better. CBS initially denied any wrongdoing, citing the lawsuit as “frivolous,” yet later settled in July 2025 for $16 million. Colbert, in true satirical fashion, described the settlement on his show as a "big fat bribe" intended to get Trump's approval for Paramount’s pending merger with Skydance Media. Colbert's show was then promptly cancelled by CBS, a clear move of political censorship as punishment for his critique. Of course, officials maintained that the decision was “purely a financial one,” despite Colbert’s show leading its time slot. The broader implication of these actions is clear: powerful political interests are limiting the boundaries of what public figures can safely say, even on platforms known for political satire and commentary.  One might ask, “why does it matter if companies and networks occasionally censor controversial ideas?” This would be the same as asking, “Why is our right to freedom of speech so important?” Although the First Amendment does protect against the government itself outright suppressing speech, the true threats come from political pressure and corporate censorship. Public officials and movements use their influence to silence critics by threatening regulatory consequences, such as in the case of Kimmel’s show. If expressing a dissenting opinion could cost a network its FCC license, it’s understandable, yet also concerning, that they would resort to self-censorship. Additionally, media conglomerates, such as Sinclair and Nextar, often control what is aired, and base much of that on profit margins and the preferences of advertisers. The same can be said for any major entertainment platform, news outlet, or social media company. This creates a filter where content that is safe and ad-friendly will be prioritized over content that is controversial or criticizes power. These kinds of content, as shown with Colbert’s show, will be silenced or downplayed because they’re bad for business. Therefore, your opinion is not formed by knowing all the facts, but rather, it is shaped by what platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and Facebook choose to show you. These kinds of censorship are important to address because America is built on the idea that the free exchange of ideas and informed citizenship are crucial. And if we can’t challenge or question higher powers, whether through serious or satirical means, these concepts, and democracy, will fail. Free speech also makes sure that accountability is present, allowing corruption and injustice to be exposed by whistleblowers and journalists. Beyond its civic function, it preserves our individual personal liberty and lets us all think and speak without fear of regulation. So, how do we protect this fundamental freedom? The most important way is to elect leaders, at both the local and federal levels, who prioritize our civil liberties. This means supporting candidates who show that they care about free speech and do not suppress dissent, even if politically inconvenient. There is a current ongoing crisis of free expression in America. We cannot continue to allow corporate interests and political powers to decide what we can say and hear; free speech must be defended, as it is our right, our responsibility, and our safeguard against tyranny. By Holly Hong ‘29

“The Life of a Showgirl” might be her most confusing performance yet. Photo from ABC News Over the summer, Swifties across the world were elated to discover that a new pop album was coming our way. Taylor sat across from her Super Bowl-winning boyfriend, Travis Kelce, grinning that this album was going to be short (only 12 tracks), sweet, and a sharp 180-degree turn from her last (very sad) album, The Tortured Poets Department . As she described it, her new album, The Life of a Showgirl  would be a pop album combining “1989 beats with folklore-esque lyrics.”  Naturally, other Swift-obsessives and I were overflowing with excitement, especially after hearing that this album was going to be exclusively produced by Max Martin and Shellback, the duo who worked with her on pop albums such as 1989 , Reputation , and Lover . But tragedy struck at midnight on October 3rd, when I realized just how far this album had strayed from pop-perfection.  The issue with the album boils down to 2 things: production and lyricism. Max Martin and Shellback are producers known for their complex, multi-layered beats, having worked with artists like Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Ariana Grande, P!nk, and of course, Taylor Swift. Shellback has a similar reputation, producing some of Taylor's biggest hits like Shake It Off , Delicate , and Gorgeous . With this impressive track record in mind, fans had incredibly high expectations.  For the past few years, Taylor has also worked with producers like Aaron Dessner and Jack Antonoff. While following online discussions, I realized that I was not the only one beginning to grow tired of the repetitiveness of the slow-synthy nature of Dessner and Antonoff’s work. A change in pace was exactly what Swift’s discography needed, especially given how well received 1989  and Reputation  were when they first came out. The Life of a Showgirl , however, was far off from the pop landmarks of those past albums.  To start, the whole album felt as if she was trying to emulate something or someone, but continued to fall short. As I listened to the album, I noticed that every track seems to carry echoes of different songs within it. The guitar backups in the song “Actually Romantic” sounded eerily similar to Weezer’s “Say It Ain't So.” Her song “Wood,” which makes several allusions to Travis Kelce’s “New Heights manhood,” blatantly interpolated the Jackson Five's “I Want You Back.” In “Wood,” Taylor was trying to pull off the trademark Sabrina Carpenter’s style of sexual innuendo, which works for Carpenter but sounds unnatural and forced in Swift’s voice. The list of songs that sounded similar to others just keeps going: “The Life of a Showgirl” sounds exactly like “Cool” by the Jonas Brothers, while others also hear Beyoncé’s “Halo.” Other critics have said that they find her song “Cancelled” musically identical to Lorde’s “Yellow Flicker Beat.” For a woman who claims she has “been afflicted by a terminal uniqueness,” why do all of these songs resemble something else?  While the repetitive beats and blatant interpolation disappointed me, I found especially heartbreaking how lyrically stale the whole album felt. Many apologists for this album make a fair argument: why does it have to be a deep and prophetic album for it to be a good album? The answer is that it doesn’t. I can think of plenty of songs by Taylor Swift with lyrics that are certainly not poetic or profound, but are top-tier Taylor Swift songs.  However, just because a lyric isn’t deep doesn’t mean it’s justifiable for it to be bad. There isn’t anything particularly profound about songs like “We Are Never Getting Back Together or Style,” but they are still great songs. They are fun, they are catchy, and they don’t include overly dramatic lyrics like “did you girlboss too close to the sun?” The issue with this album isn’t that she’s not a Tortured Poet anymore. She has forgotten how to write poetry altogether. In so many of these songs, Taylor seems to chase what she once captured on Reputation  or 1989 , or emulating the eccentricity of Lana del Rey, the sensuality of Sabrina Carpenter, and the edginess of Lorde, so much so that she’s forgetting she can just be Taylor Swift. She doesn’t need to recreate because simply continuing what she’s been doing would still be ten times more well-received than what’s on The Life of a Showgirl  right now.  I’ve been a Swiftie since I was four years old, when I would steal my dad’s computer to watch her music videos. But as a Swiftie, I feel comfortable in saying that this album is not her best work, and she can absolutely do better. One of the things that is true about Taylor’s work is that sometimes you need to let it marinate for a bit. I found that with Midnights, which I strongly disliked until I listened to it a few more times and slowly started to discover more songs that I actually really enjoyed. Maybe as we let this album age a bit, we will start to hear it in new ways and grow a taste for it.  Yet, Taylor Swift constantly reinvents herself. I am not worried that this album will be her last, or that her discography will sound this way forever. If anything, I’m sure that the next album we get from Taylor will be a complete 180. Kat Stephens ‘27

The Saudi firm behind LIV Golf and Newcastle United acquires EA, maker of FIFA and Madden, in a massive gaming takeover. Photo from Millionaire.dream Would you spend all your money on your favorite video games if your parents let you? Well, Saudi Arabia did. The Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (PIF) is set to buy Electronic Arts (EA), the largest sports video company in the world, in a blockbuster deal for 55 billion dollars.  EA is home to some of the most popular sports games in the world, including FIFA, NBA 2K, NFL Madden, and more. With this business deal, Saudi Arabia seeks not only to have influence but full control over the entertainment company. Further, this game-changing deal brings in many benefits for the future of Saudi Arabia, both economically and socially.  The purchase of EA is a major plus for Saudi Arabia’s “soft power,” as it reshapes the culture of the nation and diversifies its global image to the rest of the world. To start, the impact of the purchase allows for the expansion of Saudi Arabia’s economy. It’s estimated that 40% of Saudi Arabia’s wealth comes from oil and gas sales. The purchase of EA brings in another powerful source of income. Further, it allows for diversification within their economy, which legitimizes Saudi Arabia as a nation. This development, more importantly, allows Saudi Arabia to cater to a greater population. In a world increasingly defined by technology, this deal becomes more beneficial than ever.  Beyond the diversification of the economy, Saudi Arabia now has the opportunity to gain full control of the most respected brand within the entertainment industry, which opens the door to even greater economic opportunities for the nation. The deal empowers them to have a say in hardware designs and game development. It gives them true and direct influence over the global world of gaming, allowing EA to exercise automatic power over foreign nations and control the destiny in whatever way benefits them the most. In addition, the deal provides numerous cultural benefits for Saudi Arabia. Socially, the acquisition of EA, as stated earlier, directly caters to the world dominated heavily by technology and by the influence of the youth. Moreover, buying this company with globally popular games builds a more favorable national persona for the nation. Instead of being defined by oil, politics, and conservative values, this presents Saudi Arabia with a new opportunity to cultivate an image related to entertainment and fun—relating more to the youthful population and the people of tomorrow. People will begin to view Saudi Arabia with a newer, more futuristic, and modern image. This can even inspire new career pathways for the youth, and a stepping stone to more creativity within the world that breaks traditional ways.  However, despite its many potential benefits, the purchase also has harmful impacts. The controversial image of “sportswashing” can be further amplified by the deal, a perception that the Saudi Arabian government wants to distance away from. Furthermore, many believe that entertainment is a way to cover up the real problems within Saudi Arabia, including gender inequalities and the lack of LGBTQ+ rights. The acquisition of EA appears shallow and fails to resolve the actual societal problems.  The deal creates economic concerns as well. It may revolve in a massive, and potentially irrevocable debt, if all goes wrong, as reports are suggesting that the signing of this deal could lead to over 20 billion dollars in debt. Many believe that Saudi Arabia is overpaying for something that isn’t sustainable. For example, this deal reflects that EA’s shares are valued to be $210 each, 25% over the current market value. Saudi Arabia is taking a leap of faith. They are challenging their traditional societal and economic values in pursuit of modernization. More importantly, they’re paving the way for the world of the future. Henry Orraca-Cecil ‘27

The Middlesex Speech & Debate Club presents the culture of speaking to the campus. Photo from Middlesex instagram On October 2, 2025, the Middlesex Speech & Debate Club launched the school’s first TEDx program in the BAP theater. With eight talented speakers, the club presented a new, promising program that aspires to promote the speaking culture in Middlesex. Behind the scenes of this unprecedented event lies the question of why the club chose TEDx specifically, and what motivated them to begin the project.  Though the club had several reasons for choosing TEDx, the club heads unanimously agreed on one major motivation: “accessibility.” One of the club heads, Terry Qi ‘26 reflects that “typically, only the seniors are allowed to take the chapel talk, and since Middlesex has always had a speaking culture, TEDx provides the opportunity to expand the tradition as a highly intellectual and public speaking-oriented one to more students.”  Students’ interest further reinforced the motivation to begin the TEDx program, as the club wishes to consider every student’s idea and encourage students to develop skills of public speaking. Speech & Debate Club Co-Head Bryan Dong ‘27 shares that “a lot of people were more interested in giving speeches instead of pure debating like in a public forum, and TEDx was easier to get in and for new members to join in the future.”  Beyond providing more opportunities for Middlesex students to speak, the Speech & Debate Club also aims to expand beyond its current community and share this passion for speaking and debating to a wider audience. Co-Head David Yang 26’ answers that it is because “Tedx has a platform, it has recognition, and we are looking at precedents by other schools with well developed debate speech programs like Milton and Andover, which both have an annual Tedx event and they generate a lot of interest within and outside of their schools.”  This event marks a crucial milestone of Middlesex’s speech and debate program, as it takes the first step toward making public speaking more accessible to students of all grades and experience levels, giving them the opportunity to share their unique thoughts with their peers within and outside of the Middlesex community.  Organizing the event was not an easy task. The three clubheads have been planning for about a year and a half, and experienced multiple administrative issues. Securing the license was an important part during the preparation process, as the club needed to amend multiple times in order to get the licensing approved. The stage setup proved equally time consuming, but the club heads worked closely with the photography and stage management team to ensure the event ran smoothly. Apart from the club heads’ efforts and hard work, the student speakers also faced multiple challenges when preparing for TEDx. To record the speech, every speaker is expected to memorize their scripts of roughly 900 words, and each watched many previous TEDx videos to search for the skills that could be incorporated into the speeches.  Looking back to this year’s TEDx event, Bryan Dong '27 and David Yang '26 commented that although the overall achievement and impact is more “internal, they were able to introduce the logistics to the speakers and set up the framework for future events in the upcoming years.” The hard work put in by both the speakers and the club heads was what made this year’s TEDx event successful and promising. With experience from this year, the club aims to improve and refine next year’s event with more speakers and interactions between inside and outside of the school. Ethan Gu ‘28

Middlesex’s Fall and Studio plays are centered on ideas of mortality and death, where characters battle loss and the idea of what it truly means to live. Illustration by Serena Park This year’s Fall Play and Studio Play present twisting takes on mortality, examining what it means to live and eventually die in a way that Middlesex has never done before. The Studio Play centers on concepts of death and what it means to live without someone you love. It follows a photographer who captures the lives of the people she encounters as she embarks on her journey to move on from her husband. According to Technical Director Ryan Dubray, it’s a “slice of life” where you can see people in different stages of life, all connected through this narrator—the photographer.  The Fall Play, Everybody, is much more abstract, including similarly heavy topics. A modern adaptation of a 15th-century morality play, Everybody  begins with ushers—played by the cast—welcoming everybody to the show. Soon after, the Gods speak through the ushers and summon Death (played by Josh Richards ‘26), demanding that Death find somebody to meet before the Gods to present every good and bad action, and memory in their life. Death finds the character Everybody (played by Cate Glass ‘26), who is representative of everyone in the world, and goes on a mission to find the different ‘characters’ of her life to bring before the Gods. She meets Friendship, Love, and other overarching themes of life that ultimately decides the central message of the show: what do you take with you when you die?  The show is meant to make the audience question how they live their lives, and every action and feeling they will bring with them when they inevitably die. The set of Everybody  is supposed to feel like a white wall that represents, according to Ryan Dubray, “a billboard on the road of life [the characters] are passing through.” The lighting will be very fun throughout the show, and the music during the preshow will feature many songs containing the word ‘everybody.’ Tenny Sprong ‘28, who plays Girl/Time, comments that, even for actors with a relatively smaller role, “you’re still engaged in rehearsal and are part of the bigger theater community.” She also notes that rehearsals are “a lot of fun,” starting with a warm-up activity, then running scenes while going back to reinforce any blocking or memorization.  Although the play tackles serious topics of death, Tenny assures the audience that several funny scenes make the play more “lighthearted,” tackling serious themes with “humor mixed into it.” As Ryan Dubray said, the show in early November will be “a lot of fun and everyone should come see it!” Emma McMullin ‘28

Overview of Middlesex Cross-Country Photo from Middlesex Athletics Website The Middlesex girls’ and boys’ cross-country teams are charging down the trails with energy, determination, and a strong sense of camaraderie. This season, both teams are focused on improving their times, fostering team spirit, and pushing each other to new heights. Through interviews with coaches and runners, including standout performances from team captains, it’s clear that Middlesex’s cross-country program is not just about racing—it’s about growing as athletes and building a tight-knit community. The girls’ team has a remarkable record, having lost only three races in the last four years and securing either the ISL or NEPSAC title every year for the past three years. Head Coach Emily Teevens is emphasizing teamwork as a cornerstone of their strategy. “We’re focusing on working together in races, running in packs, and taking advantage of the depth we have on the team,” she said. Support is key. “That’s a big factor in the team’s success.” Teevens described the squad as tight-knit: “They work really hard and are focused on ambitious goals, but they also have a lot of fun together.”  Stella Curwin-Amfitheatrof ’26, the girls’ team captain and top varsity runner, brings leadership and an impressive 5K PR of 18:43, achieved when she won the ISL Championships last year. Her training approach is disciplined yet cautious: “When I train, I make sure to follow what my coach tells me, whether that is progressing on a longer run or hitting a certain mileage. I also find it very important to not run or extend yourself more than you should, as it can be a very physically straining sport.”  For races, she sets clear goals: “During workouts, I place a goal for myself and push myself.” Her ambitions for the season are high: “My goal is to win ISL and NEPSAC and break 18:30.” Curwin-Amfitheatrof also highlighted the team’s tight-knit dynamic: “We are a very close-knit team that has made up the majority of the top seven since freshman year and have trained together and worked together our whole time on the team.  The top seven girls on the team have relatively stayed the same and been very close, and we have always been the top, either first or second in the ISL as a group.” She acknowledges the mental challenges of the sport: “It’s a very comparable sport because you have a number, and you either hit your goal or don’t. It’s not like other sports where you can’t prove if you’ve had a bad day or not; it’s in the numbers, so coming to terms with that has always been a challenge.” Sophomore Stella Pham ’28, who switched from volleyball, agrees: “It has better chemistry than volleyball. Everyone here is very determined. I’m pretty happy with this.” As a newer runner, her goal is clear: “Sub 25 minutes on the 5K.” Pham’s excitement shows how the team’s depth and spirit help even rookies feel at home. For the boys’ team, Head Coach Peter Sullivan is optimistic about the season’s potential. “The team’s game plan this season is really to focus on building on from last year,” he said. “We want to build a great team culture and hopefully see a lot of improvements in speed this year.” Sullivan’s already seeing progress, with the team bringing high energy to practices. “They’re running their workouts really hard and consistently,” he added, noting that the team’s dedication is paying off early. He also described the squad as cohesive, even with a big roster: “Not everyone is super close with everybody, but overall, it’s a pretty cohesive team. Everybody cheers for each other and wants to support each other.” Team captain Terry Qi ’26, a senior with a 5K personal record (PR) of 18:21, shared his approach to racing and leading. “Typically, I try getting out to a pace and holding that pace, keeping a consistent speed for the whole race,” he said. Recently, he started visualizing races after a sports psychology session, which helps on the home course. But he admitted, “The downside is that I often don’t feel the motivation to do a nice kick at the end.” As one of only four seniors—compared to 12 when he was a freshman—Qi wants to inspire younger runners. “My biggest goal is to lay down some strong foundations to motivate our younger runners to train more,” he said, hoping to build a strong team for the future. Balancing cross-country with senior-year stress is tough, though. “Doing my college applications and classes—it’s difficult to balance that with cross-country,” he said. “My sleep has been decreasing. Freshman year, I slept at 9. Now I’m sleeping at 12.” Junior Sunny Qian ’27, a varsity runner, sticks to a steady routine: “I run six times a week, with a long run on Monday, a tough workout on Wednesday, and races on Saturday.” For races, he focuses on time, not placement: “I usually just keep a consistent pace… I try to run for times and not for placement, so I go out slow and try to hang on and kick.” His big goal? “To break 20 minutes in the 5K.” After running 20:16 at Tabor Academy, he’s close. Qian also wants to be a “solid contributor to varsity.” Reflecting on challenges, he said, “Sophomore year didn’t go very well. I tried hard, but it didn’t come through for me.” That setback has only made him more determined this season. As a freshman new to cross-country, I found the start intense because I had never consistently run long distances before. I had occasionally run before, but I was new to this structured form of running. As I built stamina, I started to enjoy it. I think the team is extremely cohesive, and everyone is supportive, helping each other achieve their goals. My goal is simple: I want to put my best self out there and I want to put my best foot forward every Saturday, and I would also hope to at least achieve a sub-25-minute 5K by the end of the season in terms of times. I have improved significantly, going from a 34:46 5K in my first race to a 27:43 PR. The team welcomes newcomers, turning tough practices into bonding moments. Both teams share a commitment to consistency, overcoming challenges, and supporting each other. Middlesex’s runners demonstrate that cross-country is about more than just running—it’s about resilience, teamwork, and chasing ambitious goals together. As they race toward championships, these teams are not only pursuing faster times but also forging stronger bonds. Lawrence Chen ‘29

Avery Swenson Photo from Middlesex instagram In her first two years of high school field hockey (one for Concord Carlisle High School and one for Middlesex), Avery scored 26 goals and had 31 assists. As a freshman at CCHS, Avery was the only freshman to win the impressive title of Dual County League All-Conference, and she earned a place on the NFHCA (National Field Hockey Coaches Association) High School Watch List. This was only the beginning for Avery.  As a new sophomore in 2024, Avery brought her talent and grit to the Middlesex Girls Varsity Field Hockey midfield; she quickly proved herself a key contributor. Scoring 15 goals, and perhaps more impressively, assisting 17 goals, Avery made her mark on the scoreboard greatly contributing to the 18-2 season record and ISL victory. Avery was further recognized on the Max Field Hockey All New-England First team and earned the titles of All-ISL and All-NEPSAC.  Avery is a force to be reckoned with on the field. She is not only fast, strong, athletic, and technically skilled, but she is fiercely competitive and inspired to leave her heart on the field every game.  Senior Captain Alex Hood notes Avery’s particular contributions off corners that often results in goals for Avery, and her incredible ability to distribute and move the ball around the field. Avery has incredible talent for the game and Middlesex is extremely lucky to have her. It would be easy to end the article here having convinced everyone that Avery is, in fact, a phenomenal field hockey player and athlete. However, while it is certainly worthwhile to recognize these major successes, it is equally important to acknowledge her sportsmanship.  Avery inspires the best within others, exemplifies hustle and grit in every aspect of the game, and fiercely supports her teammates. Captain Alex Hood ‘26 encapsulates Avery perfectly in these three words: “competitive, hard-working, and selfless.”  Avery demonstrates her love for the game and her team through her relentless commitment to competition and strong drive to win, though never at the expense of respect. She challenges herself and puts in the extra effort practicing long hours every week.  Most importantly, Avery puts the team above herself. She looks to set her teammates up for success on the field with her exceptional passing, and she goes to great lengths to bring younger players under her wing. According to Alex Hood, Avery “deeply cares about the team.” Alex notes Avery’s complete engagement in team traditions like their sleepover. Avery approaches these things with kindness, “silliness,” joy, and enthusiasm that is contagious to those around her. Notably, this approach goes beyond the field for Avery.  Her work ethic on the field translates to that in the classroom; her support for her teammates translates into love for her friends; her on-field leadership translates into her leadership on campus. Middlesex is lucky to have Avery as a part of the community and wishes her all the best as she continues her athletic and academic pursuits at Princeton in the Class of 2031. Go Tigers!  Avery Green ‘26

Surprises, Busts, and More Photo by ESPN The NFL has had an extremely exciting start to the season, with more action undoubtedly to come. These are the biggest surprises, best teams, players, and disappointments so far. A major surprise to the whole NFL was the rise of the Indianapolis Colts, a team that had not touched the playoffs in five years. Their quarterback, Daniel Jones, had been labeled a bust by most NFL teams, but the Colts took a chance on him and it paid off, big time. His current NFL MVP odds are at +2700, but this doesn’t show his excellence as well as his 4-1 record so far this year. Another huge shock has been the re-emergence of Stefon Diggs of the New England Patriots, who once again solidified himself as a top-10 NFL wide receiver with back-to-back 100 yard games. In week 5, he played his old team, the Buffalo Bills, and put up 10 catches for 146 yards, the fifth-most yards in a single game so far this year. Another big surprise so far has been how entertaining the Thursday Night Football (TNF) games have been. Every game has been within 10 points and has gone down to the wire, such as the Week 5 Matchup between the Rams and 49ers, going to the very end of overtime. Some TNF matchups to look forward to include Week 8 between the Vikings and the Chargers, Week 12 between the Bills and the Texans, and Week 16 between the Rams and Seahawks. Many star quarterbacks have gotten injured early in the season, such as reigning Offensive Rookie of the Year (OROY) Jayden Daniels, 2024 passing yards leader Joe Burrow, and two-time MVP Lamar Jackson. Because of these injuries, there have been many quarterbacks to step up and vault themselves into MVP contention. Drake Maye is a major riser at the quarterback position, as in his second year in the NFL, he has led the Patriots to a 3-2 record to start the year with a gritty win against the division-leading Buffalo Bills. His stats on paper are great, but if you watch the games, there is something different about him. Baker Mayfield of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, a failed #1 pick turned revived superstar, currently has 1,283 passing yards and 10 passing touchdowns, both in the top five league-wide. But part of Baker’s current success is due to his rookie wide receiver Emeka Egbuka. Egbuka, in his first year, has already jumped into the top five for both touchdowns and receiving yards, cementing himself as an OROY candidate. Reigning MVP Josh Allen has also risen to the occasion, leading the Bills to a 4-1 record through five games, being his typical superstar self. Some non-QB candidates include wide receivers Amon-Ra St. Brown and Puka Nacua, who are both off to incredible starts to the season. The New England Patriots have had an incredible season so far, but one player has been completely phased out of their offense, wide receiver DeMario “Pop” Douglas. Despite him setting a record for most receiving yards by a rookie WR under Belichick two years ago, he has been disappointing this year, with only seven catches through five games. This is not entirely his fault, with the coaching staff being to blame for not including him in the gameplan. Another big bust is the Baltimore Ravens, who have been abysmal so far, getting blown out by the Texans in Week 5 by a massive margin and starting off 1-4. Lamar’s injury, paired with many other injuries on defense, have led them to struggle out of the gates. A disappointment to avid football fans has been the inclusion of commercials into NFL RedZone, a way to watch on Sunday afternoon that used to bring you “seven hours of commercial-free football”. This change, while small, has upset many fans like myself. Award Predictions : MVP: Josh Allen, Buffalo Bills; OPOY: Puka Nacua, Los Angeles Rams; DPOY: Micah Parsons, Green Bay Packers; OROY: Emeka Egbuka, Tampa Bay Buccaneers; DROY: Abdul Carter, New York Giants CPOY: Daniel Jones, Indianapolis Colts; COTY: Mike Vrabel, New England Patriots; Super Bowl Prediction: Lions vs. Patriots, 35-30 Lions It’s a great time to be an NFL fan, so tune in to a game sometime soon, and go Patriots! Jackson Winn ‘29 & Kiernan Patel ‘29