Navigating Neutrality: Is Loomis Chaffee's Curriculum Truly Balanced in Political Discourse?
Aiyana Gladsden ‘26

As tensions rise between presidential candidates and political polarization reaches a new peak, Loomis Chaffee chooses to take a neutral approach in the classroom, yet students remain wary of such issues. Inevitably, the topic of our government is bound to be incorporated in subjects like English and History and the school at large, which leads one to wonder whether our school is truly balanced or subtly promotes one ideology over another.
In conversations with the student body and teaching faculty, there is a mix of neutrality and feelings of pressure from varying perspectives. While some students feel free to express their views, others face judgment and a fear of being criticized based on politics. James Higgins ’26 observes, “You don’t have to be very open about your views, but you do have to protect your little bubble a little bit, and you need to be able to defend yourself.” This sentiment reflects the subtle pressure Loomis students face when speaking up about personal beliefs.
Similarly, student Olivia Barren ’27 feels that the diverse Loomis community further characterizes a pressuring environment, mentioning, “I don’t want people to judge me about what I believe because everyone comes from such different backgrounds here.” When delving further into her own experiences, Olivia expresses, “I think a lot of people think differently than people from the Northeast, and that's a stereotype at our school. So I do think that’s something that's a little bit pressuring to talk about.” Olivia’s experience encapsulates the challenge of navigating a diverse student body like Loomis’ and the pressure that stems from peers to conform to expected viewpoints. While diversity benefits the school significantly, the importance of an inclusive environment cannot be overlooked, and all voices deserve uncriticized representation.
When looking at the Loomis Chaffee curriculum, teaching becomes tricky to navigate when attempting to ensure that one’s political view does not influence the classroom. Dr. Fiona Mills speaks on her own experience with politics in a school setting and clarifies that “We are told explicitly that we are not to endorse any political candidates or political parties, so I think that’s something Loomis is very mindful of.”
Many understandably think this mindfulness creates appropriate student debate rather than quieting the discussion. Dr. Mills supported this idea, saying that “staying neutral, not saying anything, just being quiet ideally to honor students, discussing different angles, and sharing perspectives” ensures a safe space for students to share their beliefs. Acknowledging the difficulties that come hand-in-hand with ridding educational settings of judgment, she still attempts to pave the way for difficult and controversial discussions. She thoughtfully shares that, “Creating a safe space for my students so that they feel safe in my classroom is really paramount to me and that students come into my classroom and they feel like they can share their opinions. I don't think that happens overnight. I think it's always a work in progress.”
However, while teachers’ efforts are greatly appreciated, there is a certain nuance that goes missing– underlying influences on what is considered acceptable to discuss and criticism on how silent, unbiased approaches from teachers can further interfere with an effective class discussion. Students like Tyrah Mack ’25 feel that the neutrality they show doesn’t always extend to all sides of the political spectrum. “Politics…aren’t spoken about the way they need to be,” she says, referring to how certain viewpoints are often underrepresented. While discussions may be neutral in tone, there are implications on what students are and aren’t allowed to speak about. Eli Somburg ’26 adds, “I just think it has an underlying influence on what can be and what can't be taught in classrooms.”
Ultimately, it is clear that the very nature of political discourse in the classroom is fraught with challenges, even though Loomis Chaffee’s commitment to neutrality is a noble attempt to create a safe, open environment. The struggle between encouraging students to share diverse perspectives and ensuring that no one ideology dominates the conversation is an ongoing balancing act. If the school aims to foster intellectual growth, it should encourage a full spectrum of political opinions that must not be judged but welcomed.