The Case for Criticism: On Amrita Mukunda’s Article on Cultural Insensitivity
Last year, Amrita Mukunda ‘20 wrote an article about disrespect towards her religious traditions. Two weeks later, the administration cleared every copy of her article from the Hawken Open House. Now it’s part of the Humanities 9 curriculum. How did this all happen?
According to Mr. Harris, head of the Senate, “the ...controversy came about the decision to pull copies of the AffNo from the open house, particularly because of her article. There was a fear that the prospective families wouldn’t understand the kind of role the AffNo plays here.” However, in the end, this controversy was resolved through discussion and collaboration. Mr. Harris states that “what the senate did in the case of Amrita’s article is that we hosted a conversation[about it]. We said: ‘we don’t think that this is the way this ought to go’, and we talked about alternatives. Part of what I heard in those meetings was ... that we encourage dissent, ...and we encourage students to speak up.”
The value of a free student-led press is that it provides a medium that anyone can use to fight for their beliefs. Through the press, students communicate their experiences directly to the school administration and are given a voice.
In truth, a free student-led press is not what most schools have. It is not even legally encouraged. By not allowing criticism, schools are missing out on opportunities for growth and improvement.
However. the handling of Amrita Mukunda’s article is an example of when criticism was taken seriously and addressed effectively.
Amrita Mukunda was inspired to write her article because “debate season was starting and many of the [culturally insensitive] statements were at debate.” While she felt these things before, it was the first time “[she] felt comfortable to speak up... I found the AffNo last year, and realized that this was a place where I could publish my thoughts and opinions.”
On the cultural level, Amrita has expressed her contentment at the way the community responded to her article. She points out that “I really haven’t noticed as many insensitive jokes after I wrote the article...A lot of the people who made the jokes have apologized. There’s a lot more discussion about the issues amongst students and more awareness.”
Through the publication of her article, Amrita’s thoughts and opinions were heard loud and clear. As reported by Amrita, “After the article was published, I was shocked when people came up to me and told me they read it...a lot of people I didn't know asked me about my article, came up to me and talked about it, or told me how they felt like they could relate to my article. I was scared at first about publishing my opinions, but after ...[receiving such] a response, I was very glad I did. A few teachers even met with me regarding the article and how to move forward.”
Mr. Cracraft, a teacher for 9th grade Humanities, explains the importance of Amrita’s article: “I think this piece reminded everyone in the community ...when it came out, that we can do better. …And it was not just me because the rest of the Humanities 9 team shared this article with their students.”
On the administrative level, steps have been taken to address the issues expressed in Amrita’s article.
Mr. Weiskopf, a department chair for Humanities, states that through his course called “The Art of Rebellion”, students were able to propose solutions to addressing the problems discussed in Amrita’s article. One solution proposed was “not only [have] teacher training but ...but also training with coaches. While the faculty that teaches in this building has done a good deal of work in [addressing these issues], there was really little no direct training with our coaches. ” Another proposal was about “ this notion that the works of students or the actual faces of students in this building should be on [Hawken’s walls] and should...be diverse in terms of...celebrating who’s here.”
Additionally, according to Mr. Weiskopf, “we’re doing three different training programs this year...inclusive communities(creation of a more inclusive environment), white fragility…(training around cultural sensitivity), and another course called SEED (training in diversity).” He explains that, through these programs, “what we’re doing is not only trying to diversify what our content looks like in our curriculum but also making sure the training is in place so our teachers can talk more effectively, responsibly, and sensitively about the...content we’re teaching.”
Hawken’s faculty has also taken steps to address the problems described in Amrita’s article. Mr. Weiskopf emphasizes their willingness to fix these issues: “right now the three training programs I mentioned are voluntary… but what you’re seeing is that people are, ... without being told [that they have to], voluntarily signing up for those things. From that perspective, her article really raised [the question of] ‘you’re doing it, but are you doing it well?’ And our answer was, not as well as we could be.” The fact that the criticism expressed in Amrita’s article was taken and converted into positive change in the community shows the potential for growth feedback presents for schools and communities. The press makes the world a better place by causing change. And as shown through Amrita’s article, the AffNo has the potential to make Hawken a better place by holding it accountable.