Search Results

Are club fairs an effective way for students to discover new interests? Why are so many students eager to start clubs? At Middlesex, we already have a wide range of clubs, many of which overlap in purpose and function. Every year, at the club fair in September, students sign themselves up for at least half a dozen. But, when the time comes, do they really attend club meetings? This year, we had an additional Winter Club Fair, allowing clubs, new or unable to meet the club requirements last semester, to have a chance to attract new prospects. However, many students didn’t even attend, leaving us to question whether or not the Winter Club Fair, and club fairs in general, are effective in helping students to discover new clubs and new interests.  While there are many clubs that try to engage their members with regular meetings, a good amount of them only do enough to meet the bare minimum. I believe that students, under the pressure to have a strong college application, start clubs that they genuinely are interested in but often struggle to commit to. With Middlesex’s demanding sports requirements and rigorous curriculum, many students can’t keep up with everything. Already overwhelmed by schoolwork, athletics, and extracurriculars, students have only limited time to dedicate to their clubs . Despite their best intentions when starting the club, it ends up as just another item to put on their application.  In fact, although the club fair may seem like a total waste of time, it is the primary way for many clubs to attract members and gauge overall interest—it is a way for them to announce their presence on campus. However, many students didn’t show up to the Winter Club Fair, defeating that purpose. In addition, students continue to send their all-school emails for their club meetings and also announce them during announcements. So, even if one doesn’t go to the club fair, they can still participate in these clubs, rendering the club fair as just another social event. Allison Luo

The tragic crash of American Airlines Flight 5342 raises questions about safety, staffing shortages, and the future of aviation. On January 29th 2025, American Airlines Flight 5342 tragically collided with an Army helicopter just outside of Reagan National Airport. Resulting in the deaths of all 67 passengers aboard the aircrafts, the devastating crash is the deadliest aviation disaster in the U.S. since 2001. The confusion surrounding the nature of the crash unavoidably raised the question: is it safe to fly? Before I can answer that, it is important to recognize the causes behind such a tragedy. Due to its close proximity to the Pentagon and military helicopter operations, the airspace surrounding Reagan National is heavily monitored by a team of flight control staff. According to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, there has been a “deterioration of federal hiring standards at the Federal Aviation Administration.”  This supposed reckless hiring would at least result in an ample amount of employees in the control tower, but reports indicate that this is far from the case. According to a preliminary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) report, the air traffic control staff was “not normal for the time of day and volume of traffic” on the day of the crash. Additionally, just one controller was in charge of communication with both helicopters and planes—a job intended for two people. The staffing shortage was not a one-time incident. As of September 2023, Reagan Airport was only reaching two thirds of their targeted staffing levels, forcing many employees to work up to six day weeks and ten hour days.  President Trump also cited poor hiring as the reason behind the crash, claiming that the FAA “actively recruiting workers who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative.” Despite using people with disabilities as a scapegoat, this claim still fails to address the issue of numbers. The reality is that airlines in America are experiencing a severe shortage of workers across the board, causing an inability to effectively monitor and ensure the safety of passengers. While the FAA does commit to equal employment opportunity including the appointment of persons with intellectual disabilities, severe physical disabilities, or psychiatric disabilities, it is unknown—and quite frankly, unrelated—if the control team that night was representative of that commitment.  After analyzing recent major aviation accidents, many have concluded that there is no clear pattern to be found. Guy Gratton, associate professor of aviation and the environment at Cranfield University and a commercial pilot in the U.K. and U.S., dubbed the incident “an aberration” and claimed that flying is still quite safe. In a separate study, it was found that the worldwide death risk per boarding from 2018 to 2022 was one in 13.7 million, an immense improvement from the one in 7.9 million of 2008 to 2017.  In the days following the tragedy above the Potomac, searches for the phrase “is it safe to fly” rose by over 800% in the United States. However, while awful, the crash of American Airlines Flight 5342 is quite literally a one in a million occurrence and should not be used as an excuse to criticize individual workers or the implementation of DEI in the workforce.  Vincent Petti

In the shadow of former President Donald Trump’s truancy, eight debaters wrangled for the rest of the Republican electorate with varying success. At the center of the stage were Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and successful biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. They were flanked by former South Carolina Governor and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and former Indiana Governor and Vice President Mike Pence. Further towards the corner of the stage were South Carolina Senator Tim Scott and former New Jersey governor Chris Christie. The two lowest-polling candidates stood at opposite ends of the stage: North Dakota Governor and billionaire software businessman Doug Burgum, and Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas Governor. The candidates sparred frequently, with most fights involving Vivek Ramaswamy. Seasoned politicians such as Haley, Christie, and Pence criticized Ramaswamy’s lack of government experience. However, the trio’s apparent shared goal of battering down Ramaswamy gave the political rookie lots of air time. The successful, thirty-eight-year-old businessman and political outsider evoked Trump’s rise during the GOP debates in 2016, instigating fights among fellow candidates and drawing both applause and boos from the crowd. Ron DeSantis, who polls second to Trump, mainly stayed away from the disorder between candidates, and while he didn’t feature as prominently as Ramaswamy or Pence, the Florida Governor was left unscathed. By avoiding his fellow candidates’ infighting, he appeared above their disorder, resulting in his fairly cogent performance. He should, however, stand up more forcefully against Trump. Nikki Haley was among the winners of the debate, leveling with voters on issues such as abortion, education, and the federal fiscal crisis, and forcefully deconstructing Ramaswamy’s divisive isolationist foreign policy. In the latter, the former Ambassador admirably articulated the value of supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia and how, unlike Ramaswamy’s view, the U.S. should defend Ukraine as a means of deterring China from invading Taiwan. Haley competently and clearly explained her positions with evident conviction (a quality that lacks in candidates who are unwilling to lambast Trump). While she has struggled in polling prior to this debate, sitting around fourth or fifth place, Haley should see a jump in donations and polling based on her laudable performance. Mike Pence featured prominently, criticizing Ramaswamy’s youth and inexperience, praising his record as Vice President, and voicing both his traditional conservative values and his dedication to the pro-life cause. While Ramaswamy sounded over-excited and bombastic, Pence sounded staid and dependable. While his controversial view on abortion leaves him susceptible to losing a general election, Pence was a voice of reason against Ramaswamy’s bluster. Chris Christie, who has campaigned mainly as an anti-Trump wrecking ball, mocked Ramaswamy as “the candidate who sounds like ChatGPT” and admirably stated the truth that Trump’s conduct, regardless of the validity of the indictments, was indefensible and below the office of the President. The crowd, in response to Christie’s numerous attacks on Trump, emitted boos; this adverse reaction likely suggests that Haley’s approach of being honest with voters without fully condemning the former President is likely the best route to defeating Trump. Tim Scott, like Christie, had a quieter debate, and while he was able to share parts of his background as a child growing up in poverty, he failed to present himself as formidably as Haley. Candidates Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum did not make the splash at the debate needed to justify the protraction of their respective candidacies. Middlesex should care deeply about this 2024 Republican Primary, as the party and the nation is at an inflection point: this is a chance to cast Trump out of national races permanently and pit a younger, more unifying figure against Biden. It is my hope that the low-polling candidates (Burgum, Hutchinson, and perhaps Scott) drop out of the race soon so that an anti-Trump candidate can make the urgent case that a Biden-Trump election rematch would be disastrous. As the Primary and its debates roll on, Middlesex and the nation should pay attention to this democratic process. George Thornton

The new building will feature a fitness center, a track floor, multi-purpose courts, and more. Photo by Max Linton Middlesex is in for a transformational campus project: the much-rumored and long-awaited Field House with a projected opening during the 2025-26 school year. The building, which will augment the existing Atkins Athletic Center, will be a boon for athletes, faculty, staff, and the Office of Admissions: prospective students will be impressed by the facility. Hemming in the North side of campus and situated along Lowell Road, the Field House will take up approximately the footprint of the current Acorn parking lot. The scale of the investment is on par with that of the Bass Arts Pavilion–the Field House is the first big construction since the Covid pandemic and its completion is set to inaugurate the new strategic plan for Middlesex’s campus going forward. For members of the Middlesex community who are closely involved with the project, the Field House represents an opportunity to demonstrate Middlesex’s emphasis on athletic excellence: in the words of Craig Najarian, the Director of Athletics, the Field House will be “eye-catching” and “a difference maker.” The new building will have a host of new spaces for the Middlesex community. Mr. Najarian says that the new spaces will be “not just for athletics, but for fitness, wellness, and performance.” The Field House will have several levels, featuring a fitness center that will complement the existing one, an elevated track floor where the track team can train, team rooms, and multi-purpose courts that can be used for basketball, volleyball, and potentially other sports. The track floor, because of spatial limitations, will not feature a full track. A main function of the Field House is that it will lessen the burden shouldered by the existing A.C., allowing for greater flexibility of use for fitness spaces–for example, the total fitness center footprint will be expanded, totaling 50% more space than what we currently have, reducing congestion. According to Darby, the Head Athletic Trainer, “locker rooms will still be in [the current A.C.] and all the programming in [the A.C.]” will remain there. Darby says that the Field House will include visiting team rooms and an “auxiliary [Trainers’] room that will be used for game days.” Head of School Bessie Speers lauds the progress made on the Field House, as the new building “not so that it will be shiny and new, but rather the ways that this space will support our mission in critical ways.” In terms of competitiveness within the ISL, Mr. Najarian expects that the Field House (and the planned renovations to the existing A.C. once the Field House is complete) “will give [Middlesex] the type of facility that will help us [to] be at our best.” The Field House–as an edifice to the strength of Middlesex Athletics–will also help attract athletic recruits.  Middlesex has made a tremendous investment in the construction of this building, and fundraising for the construction goal, as of January 16th, is 63% complete. The fundraising for the endowment–donations to the endowment to be used to maintain and run the new building–is already complete. George W. Noble, the Director of Advancement, is “cautiously optimistic” that the remaining 17% of the construction goal can be achieved by 2025. According to Kurt LaCroix, the Director of Projects & Safety, the budget for the project is “based on today’s prices with some inflation.” Work on the Field House has progressed to the phase in which Middlesex and the architects decide on the “finalization of the layout; equipment spacing; the landscaping; the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing design, as well as the solar and geothermal systems,” Mr. LaCroix says. The Concord municipal energy source will mostly power the Field House, but to offset the strain on the municipality-provided power caused by this new building, solar panels and geothermal energy will make up the difference. There is already a model of the design–CBT Architects, the firm out of Boston–was commissioned for this project. CBT was the architect for Landry House, the BAP, and the Rachel Carson Center, and the firm has also been commissioned to renovate some of the dorms. Mr. LaCroix says CBT has a “proven track record,” and the Field House will not deviate from the overall design concept that runs throughout campus, stemming from the original Peabody & Stearns-designed buildings around the Circle. People overseeing the project, according to Mr. LaCroix, want the Field House, “although new, to look like it grew out of the ground” as one of the original buildings on campus. As the first major construction since Covid, the Field House will kick off a new strategic plan for Middlesex’s next decade or so. Terry Cunningham, the CFO of Middlesex, and Mr. Noble consider the completion of the Field House as the first step in reconsidering how to best reinforce Middlesex’s values through renovation and construction of campus buildings. According to Mr. Noble, there are “plans down the road for renovating Ware Hall, renovating Orr Gymnasium, [building] more faculty housing, [and] looking at health and wellness” that will be incorporated into the strategic plan. The Field House is going to feature a lobby similar to the lobby in the RCC and the BAP–according to Mrs. Speers, the spaces within the new building will enhance “the way we go about our daily lives on campus as people.” According to Ms. Cunningham, parking will be moved to the bottom level of the Field House, taking advantage of the raised ground near the Kravis Pitch to raise the Field House above the parking garage. The entry to the Field House, via Pratt Lane, is where team buses will park. The entryway will be dramatically enhanced compared to the current drop off and pick up point in the Acorn lot, and Ms. Cunningham emphasizes the efficiency and welcoming quality of the new entrance for day students and team buses. The Field House is the harbinger for a new era of campus enhancements. “As excited as I am about [the Field House,]” Mr. Najarian says he is also “looking at what we can do [to improve the current A.C.].” The Field House will include a deck overlooking the Kravis Pitch, providing a new vantage point from which to view soccer games–the Herd will value this auxiliary feature. The new building will seek to match the zeal and talent of Middlesex Athletics with architectural prowess, in a similar way that the RCC and the BAP matched the zeal and talent of students involved in the arts programs. Students are looking forward to the completion of this project–Mr. LaCroix affirms this optimism, imparting that “[The Field House] is going to be a great thing for Middlesex.” While the building will be a visual statement, at the crux of the Field House project–and all building projects at Middlesex–is the desire to meaningfully improve campus life and the student experience. In Mrs. Speers’ words, “there is a human aspect to all new building projects and Middlesex will always pay attention to people and programs first.” George Thornton

Mr. Hitzrot, a member of the task force, hopes for a diversity of political viewpoints to be shared; says the election is “a great learning opportunity” for the Middlesex community. Ahead of a momentous election year, a faculty task force is exploring how to best prepare the Middlesex community. The task force hopes to get ahead of the tumult a Trump electoral return will foment– a rematch of the 2020 Presidential Election will be at best contentious and at worst catastrophic . Dissatisfaction with Mr. Biden (his approval rating hovers at 39% – lower than Mr. Trump at this point in his presidency) and Mr. Trump’s vengeance-focused campaign is sure to incite strong opinions from both sides this election season. While the 2024 election cycle differs from 2020 (notably the absence of COVID-19), misinformation, potential violence, and as the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel puts it, the “them-vs.-us” nature of politics remains. The faculty task force wants to foster robust civic engagement, diverse political discourse, and a well-informed community.The task force has been assembled by Mrs. Speers and includes Mr. Hitzrot, Mr. Hoar, Starry Zhu, and Ms. Smedley. According to Mr. Hitzrot, the primary objective of the group is to “value everybody’s opinions and everybody’s right to express their political perspectives, and at the same time, preserve the [unity and shared values of the] community.” How Middlesex can achieve this objective is being discussed, and bringing in politically-focused speakers and mixing in civics to campus gatherings is in the works. The task force also wants to protect our community from “cancel culture.” Mr. Hitzrot emphasizes respecting different viewpoints is critical. Unlike the display of political polarization likely to dominate college campuses this fall, Middlesex’s task force wants to help our community to be a beacon of political open-mindedness. The task force also wants to help the Middlesex community steer clear of “the types of ad hominem attacks (personal attacks rather than debates relating to the substance of what one is saying) that we see [from the] media and [from] politicians today,” says Mr. Hitzrot. Rather, the task force wants to encourage productive, open debate that does not denigrate people. Mr. Hitzrot states that the task force is in place in part so that we “don’t surrender to group think or [exist in] echo chambers–why else have a school like this?” he asks. In the spirit of academic inquiry, the task force views the likely presidential election rematch as an opportunity to evaluate and explore a diversity of viewpoints–liberal or conservative . Mr. Hitzrot sees the election as “a great learning opportunity for us.” When ideas are questioned, a better understanding of the truth behind current issues is found. The task force’s understanding is that, according to Mr. Hitzrot, “the more that we think about this election, and the more that we talk about the election, the better we’ll be able to digest and accept the outcomes of the election.”  Middlesex has a tremendous opportunity to encourage civic engagement and political open-mindedness, and this task force is in the process of realizing this opportunity. Mr. Hitzrot suggests that having a panel of speakers or a discussion of political viewpoints on a given issue during Announcements block would be useful, but courses of action are being considered on how to best address the upcoming elections. All in all, Mr. Hitzrot wants students to continue to ask questions and develop their own individual political sensibilities. However divisive the 2024 presidential election might be, the task force is in place so that the Middlesex community emerges stronger for it.  George Thornton

In an exceptional presidential election year, so-called incumbent Donald Trump engages in a race to the bottom. Donald Trump’s win over Nikki Haley in Michigan was no surprise–as demonstrated over the course of  this Republican primary, Mr. Trump’s dominance reflects his position as effectively the incumbent Republican candidate. More notable in the primary contests we’ve seen so far, however, has been Ms. Haley’s presence–she won nearly 20% of the vote in Iowa, a strong showing from a moderate candidate; almost 45% of the vote in New Hampshire in what was a success for her; and just short of 40% in South Carolina, which, while being the state she governed, is highly deferential to the former president. Her numbers clearly point to a sizable faction of the Republican electorate who want a Republican other than Mr. Trump, and if a number of those Republicans support Joe Biden, then Mr. Trump is in trouble.  In a campaign lacking in real policy proposals, Mr. Trump has ignored courting the independent voters necessary to win the general election in the traditional sense. Ms. Haley, meanwhile, has taken policymaking somewhat more seriously, putting out a moderateish approach to abortion; arguing the need for continued support for Ukraine; pledging to keep China in check; and cutting government spending. Nevertheless, as of February 28, Mr. Trump has 122 delegates to Ms. Haley’s 24. Mr. Trump’s candidacy is also affecting current policymaking in Washington. In early February this year Senate and House Republicans killed a bipartisan bill to fund border security and make asylum claims harder to get approved largely to allow Mr. Trump to use the border as a political weapon against Mr. Biden. A vote for Mr. Trump seems to mean three things: support in defense of his numerous criminal trials, revenge on the political left, and a desire to return to the pre-COVID-19 world. Rather than real policy objectives, Trump voters simply want the supposedly better days before lockdown and the crippling inflation that followed, a hit at liberals whose promotion of “woke” ideology has alienated and angered the Republican base, and to buttress their “hero” against his criminal trials, some of which are indeed clearly partisan (Fulton County, Manhattan Hush-Money, and the recent civil  fraud ruling delivered in Manhattan).  All of this makes it especially challenging for Ms. Haley to make a more meaningful dent in Mr. Trump’s lead in the primary contests. However, she has decided to fight on through Super Tuesday, which occurs on March 5, making her case for a conservative alternative who isn’t embattled with 91 felony counts and half of a billion dollars to give in damages (if Trump loses his appeals) from civil trials, who has incurred two impeachments, a general election defeat in 2020, and is 77 years old. Ms. Haley, 51, could be making her case as the de facto 2028 nominee should Mr. Trump win the nomination and then lose to Mr. Biden; alternatively, she could be waiting out for Mr. Trump to be swept off the ballot should the Supreme Court rule that he “engaged in insurrection” on January 6th, 2021, or if Mr. Trump is convicted in one of his criminal trials and loses political support. In a race likely to still have many more wildcards to come, the three main candidates vying for the White House appear dependent on their opponents’ own demise rather than focusing on how good governance can nurture the continuation of the American Dream. George Thornton

Cass R. Sunstein ‘72, Bret L. Stephens ‘91, Rev. Joseph P. Watkins ‘71, and Mr. Hoar ‘07 discussed the changing political culture inside Washington and across the nation, and how Middlesex can emulate the best of Capitol Hill. Middlesex was honored to host three alumni who are eminent figures in American politics and government on May 10. Moderated by Mr. Hoar, a member of the 2024 Elections Faculty Task Force, the panel featured Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, a senior counselor of the Department of Homeland Security, and former administrator of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2012; Bret Stephens, a right-of-center opinion columnist for The New York Times who is considered their main conservative-minded voice; and Joe Watkins, a pastor, Republican media analyst, White House aide under President George H.W. Bush, and at one point the Republican candidate for congress. The panel discussed the decline in general civility in Washington and in the United States as a whole. Mr. Watkins mentioned that during his years on Capitol Hill working for Senator Dan Quayle and President Bush, both Republicans, it was more common to reach across the aisle to write and pass legislation than it is today. He also noted a tendency among members of Congress to do whatever it takes to hold onto their seats once getting elected, a mindset that often obstructs legislative goals. In the eighties and nineties, when Watkins worked in government, elected officials frequently made a point of showing their willingness to work with members of the other party. Nowadays, officials up against a tough re-election campaign tend to drift to the more extreme wings of their party  to stir up their most partisan base of supporters.  According to Mr. Stephens, America’s “hardware” of democracy, such as the courts, is in good condition, while the “software” of democracy is under stress due to citizens’ inability to understand how or why someone else could interpret a political issue differently than they do. America’s us-versus-them way of thinking stems in large part from the modern day reality of getting news from sources that reinforce and inflame one’s political viewpoint . He referenced social media, calling it “anti-social media,” as a now ubiquitous medium that filters our news consumption to further separate, say, political progressives from conservatives and thus divide our nation. Mr. Stephens said that to counteract this feedback loop, he reads the columns of his colleagues at The New York Times, some of whom are liberals or progressives. The panel conversed on constructive ways to think about national politics–Mr. Sunstein used the H-2B visa program, which allows immigrants to work temporarily in the United States, as an example of an important issue that Republicans and Democrats both agree on. In the media sphere, issues on which the two parties are polarized take up greater space than the issues the two parties agree on. Similarly to Mr. Stephens’ comments, this aspect of modern media augments the positive feedback loop of political news consumption. He mentioned polls of parents’ growing disapproval of their son or daughter’s marrying someone of another political party as an example of social forces working to divide Americans. However, Americans of different political parties often have more in common than they think , Mr. Sunstein noted. He provided an anecdote of his senate confirmation to be administrator of the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, in which he had breakfast with a Republican senator who was ardently opposed to Sunstein’s appointment. While the senator was congenial and the conversation productive, the senator still refused to vote to confirm Sunstein due to partisan folly. The U.S. democracy would be in better shape if government officials, and more broadly Americans, of different political parties could be more congenial to each other. The panel discussion was informative and generative. The panel was also entertaining, and all four on stage had moments of illuminating wit. Messrs. Watkins and Sunstein, it was gleaned, were also on the thirds basketball team during their time at Middlesex. A friendly openness pervaded the panel discussion –while Mr. Sunstein works for President Biden, the dialogue between him and the two politically center-right individuals on stage, Messrs. Stephens and Watkins, did not suggest any partisanship. Rather, the conversation, with its casual yet constructive air, serves as an example for the Middlesex community and the nation to disagree well. A functioning democracy depends on this skill. George Thornton

Both presidential candidates campaign on economic policies harmful to American prosperity. Illustration by David Yang With vice president Kamala Harris’ sudden ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket, her progressive, left-wing stances have complicated her winning-over of the dwindling number of “persuadable” voters. Harris’ campaign is based partly off of continuing Joe Biden’s agenda, but as a long-time progressive, she incorporates principles championed by her party’s strident left wing. Selecting fellow progressive Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her running mate reinforces the Democratic ticket’s leftward shift since Mr. Biden’s stepping aside. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s running mate, senator from Ohio J.D. Vance, is a hardcore populist in the Trump mold. For Mr. Vance’s part, rather than campaigning on policies to improve Americans’ lives, he unhelpfully spouts vitriol at seemingly random constituency groups. Notably, both tickets appear most politically extreme regarding money. In an election year racked by inflation and financial uncertainty, Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris eschew the sound economic principles that guided mainstream Republicans and Democrats for decades , from tariffs to capital gains. Mr. Trump’s and Ms. Harris’ proposals on the economy are populist: they play up “ideas” of economic growth to harp on their bases’ various priorities, while in fact their proposals would detrimentally affect consumer prices, markets, or global trade. In Mr. Trump’s case, raising tariffs globally to 10-20% sounds to his supporters like being “America first” and “tough” on foreign adversaries, but in reality, tariffs to that degree would drastically raise prices. In Harris’ case, taxing unrealized capital gains sounds to voters like “cracking down” on the rich, but in reality, the tax would hurt hardest the hundreds of millions of Americans invested in the stock market. The Trump-Harris economic campaign ideas reflect either of two things: that both campaigns think Americans cannot see through their misguided proposals, or that the campaigns themselves lack an understanding of economics. While Ms. Harris’ plan to raise the corporate tax rate to 28% from its current 21% sounds to voters like she is besting avaricious corporations for the people’s benefit, the proposal will raise prices for consumers. That’s because a higher corporate tax rate makes it more expensive for companies to operate, forcing companies to pass that cost onto consumers. Ms. Harris also seeks to increase the tax on capital gains to an all-in top rate of 33%, which will impede on investment in the economy. Capital gains are incurred when someone sells stock at a profit. Taxing profits made in the market discourages the selling of stock because one can avoid the tax if they die with the asset. The tax would also make investing in the market less appealing generally. Of course, less buying and selling of stock is not good for markets. Ms. Harris’ plan disregards the fact that strong markets are key to a strong economy in order to tell voters that she would raise taxes on the rich.  Ms. Harris wants to tax unrealized  capital gains–profits made on stocks before one even sells the asset  and earns actual cash on the investment. Harris incorporates taxing unrealized capital gains into her plan to beat the rich into shape, so to speak. Billionaires exclusively own about 7% of the stock market, which equates to roughly $5 trillion. When this substantial group of shareholders, rightly, sell their stock to avoid being taxed, markets would plunge. While billionaires would likely remain financially afloat should markets tumble, the 162 million Americans invested in stocks would bear the burden of Harris’ tax. The depressed market as a result of taxing unrealized capital gains would likely stymie middle-class Americans who invest in the market to afford retirement and other financial goals. While Ms. Harris’ economic proposals are dangerous, the greatest threat to a strong economy this election is the proposal championed by Mr. Trump. He plans to raise tariffs to a universal baseline of 10%, with some tariffs rising to 20%. Most economists, however, dislike tariffs because they tax imports, a vital part of the economy. Mr. Trump favors these drastic increases in an effort to maximize America’s industrial manufacturing base and encourage American consumers to buy American-made goods. The tariffs are also the foundation of Mr. Trump’s “tough on China” stance. But a tax on imports would directly raise prices for consumers by making cheaper goods, which may be produced abroad, more expensive. Discouraging spending would hurt the economy, and the tariffs would cause inflation and depress economic growth. Mr. Trump’s slogan “America first,” is a misnomer: the American retreat toward isolationism he espouses would burden the domestic economy, among other things. In another example of vacuous populism, Mr. Trump blusters about international economic supremacy to his supporters even though his tariffs would almost certainly derail U.S. growth. Mr. Trump’s and Ms. Harris’ respective campaign platforms would rather stir up their party’s bases with politically extreme economic proposals than promote policies that would actually have a positive effect on the American economy. The Democrats want to raise taxes, which would foment more inflation and drive down markets, and the Republicans want to turn to isolationism and nationalism with destructive tariffs that would harm consumers. The above mentioned campaign proposals are several among many ideas that do not sit well with economists. No taxes on tips (both candidates), the child tax credit splurge (both), a mass deportation of illegal immigrants (Trump), price-controls for groceries (Harris), and a refusal to touch costly federal entitlement programs like Social Security (both) would spell varying levels of disaster for the economy. Mr. Trump’s “America first” economic plan and Ms. Harris’ “opportunity economy” agenda are singularly misnamed. Disturbingly, both party tickets see more government as the solution to myriad economic problems. This mindset, therefore, places American prosperity in danger going forward. George Thornton

David Brooks’s article “How The Ivy League Broke America” in The Atlantic Falls Short In New York Times opinion columnist David Brooks’s piece “How The Ivy League Broke America” in the December issue of The Atlantic, he addresses several explanations for America’s socioeconomic divide as based on educational attainment. However, the title he allowed his lengthy article to run on was a poor choice: the Ivy League, which metonymically refers to prestigious institutions of higher education, has not “broken” our nation.  Brooks argues that our society’s distribution of status seems overly predicated on whether or not one attends a top university. He presents some damning evidence: of a survey of leaders across various professions, over half had gone to the same 34 institutions of higher education. Given the same consulting project to work on, according to one study a Yale student would perform only 1.9% “more proficient” than a Cleveland State student. Brooks writes that in 8th grade, children of rich families perform at four grade levels higher than children of poor families. Income level correlates to SAT scores. Students from the top 1% are 77 times more likely to attend an “Ivy League-level school” than students whose families earn less than $30,000 a year. Brooks provides examples of how education level can also affect social success, such as the fact that people who graduate from college are more likely to marry.  I have great respect for David Brooks: so much, in fact, that I read and enjoyed reading his thorough article. I agree with him in that these statistics denote societal shortcomings which require remedies. I disagree with him in that prestige higher education bears responsibility for the troubling socioeconomic gap between college-educated and non-college-educated Americans. He asserts that colleges and families of college applicants involve themselves in a vortex of prestige-seeking. Then, once students graduate from college, this vortex extends to workplaces, where firms prioritize graduates of ‘core’ universities” over potentially more qualified graduates of less renowned institutions. Brooks himself seems to corroborate society’s deep bond with status. He cites a Northwestern sociologist, a Vanderbilt study, a Stanford study, a Penn psychologist, a Yale professor, a Harvard economist, a UCLA professor, a Harvard sociologist, a Harvard professor, another Harvard professor, another Harvard economist, and a Penn political scientist. Of course students want to attend these institutions: the schools are leaders in research and thought. Brooks pegs his argument on the idea that high schoolers apply to colleges for prestige first, with a design on clinching a lucrative job thereafter. He discredits the idea that students primarily apply based on how his or her particular interest connects with particular institutions. I may be naive, but Brooks seems to simplify this point, running with the idea that the attractiveness of well-regarded institutions is some harbinger of societal decay. Likewise, Brooks simplifies the current prevailing method of pre-college education as a “gigantic system of extrinsic rewards,” comparing high school to a “series of hurdles.” I was no Chem10 enthusiast, but I would like to think that my struggle with chemistry was productive and not simply exhausting. Yet it helps Brooks’s argument to declare the modern method of schooling inadequate, because if high school is a random assortment of challenges from which colleges determine one’s intelligence, then socioeconomic stratification really is  predicated on the prestige of one’s alma mater. In this case, the Ivy League has in fact broken America.  Brooks advocates for alternative, project-based schooling as a remedy. These schools emphasize a student’s character over his numerical acumen. But many colleges already evaluate applicants holistically. The return of many prestigious institutions to requiring SAT scores reinforces the efficacy of quantitative data in determining what a college wants as part of its class. If the top 34 institutions unilaterally decided to put into effect the following methods Brooks recommends to determine a students’ admission: adding tests called the Grit Scale, the Moral Character Questionnaire, the High Potential Trait indicator; and incorporating application elements like a personal “portfolio” of achievements and more complex “Mastery Transcript,” would certainly throw off admission statistics. Drastically altering the application process would make it more challenging for officers of admission to settle on a candidate, make students less eager to submit applications given all these extra hoops, and exacerbate the paucity of lower-income students applying to college.  The efficient market hypothesis posits that markets exist in their most efficient form. The awesome work of free market capitalism extends to secondary schools and higher education. If the University of Chicago was broadly denounced for perpetuating an American caste system, students would not apply. Despite the stress and uncertainty of working to get into a given selective college, students still try their luck.  Brooks sees the durable popularity of Donald Trump, especially the socioeconomic dissatisfaction among the non-college-educated working class, as the offshoot of higher education’s faulty philosophy. Rather than reforming admissions, as Brooks details, perhaps colleges should seek to further their diversity of political thought in response to a Trumpified world. Growing an educated, non-incendiary conservative establishment opposed to the anti-institutional Trump movement would be a laudable goal. No institution is faultless, but America has higher education to thank in large part for its lasting success as a nation. George Thornton

The Anvil  to revive dormant “Letters to the Editor” section. The Anvil  is at its best when as many students as possible contribute to an issue. In an effort to encourage more students to contribute their voice to our paper, we are launching a new section, Letters to the Editor, which had flourished decades ago in these pages. This section will debut in Issue 6. These days, short-form videos dominate everyday entertainment, and one’s “attention span” seems to inhibit extended concentration. Students here, due to the rigorous curriculum, spend a significant part of the day studying. These two forces—the rise of short-form media and the Middlesex coursework—contribute to a lack of student engagement in The Anvil . Letters to the Editor will be a box, in between the News and Opinions sections of each issue, in which students can write short “community notes” rather than submitting a 600-word article. These notes, or Letters, could be club announcements, alerts for community service or other opportunities, satire, brief opinions, or student replies to articles published in previous issues of the Anvil . Editors have observed that some students feel daunted by the idea of taking on an article in addition to their academic and other commitments. With this new section, students can get the feel of writing for the paper without the pressure of a larger article. Letters to the Editor could serve as a springboard for more students to contribute articles. More generally, we want to offer students another way to contribute their thoughts to this paper. The Anvil  must adapt in order to continue to optimally serve the Middlesex community. With this section, we are giving students an opportunity to project their voice in a more succinct way. If people start picking up The Anvil  for upcoming club meetings, they might also skim an article. They might, then, feel inspired to write an article themselves—this process is how our paper evolves and grows. George Thornton

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

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