The recent cancellation of No Place for Hate’s (NPFH) April 2nd fishbowl has left many students with questions. The topic for discussion was set to focus on “Taking Accountability: Discussing Relationships Between Students and Administrators,” but after some back-and-forth with administration, NPFH was asked to change the topic—despite initial approval. With too little time to create and advertise a new idea, the officers of NPFH decided it was best to cancel the event altogether. 

No Place for Hate hosts a few fishbowls each year, events meant to identify current problems at school and in society and come up with viable solutions. Something unique about these fishbowls is that, unlike a typical Socratic seminar in English class, the discussion is open to students only. NPFH officers moderate the conversation by asking probing questions and keeping the discussion on track, while teachers and administrators are invited to observe silently. “It was for students to feel comfortable sharing what they thought could be improved and how, without being immediately shut down,” said officer Becca Vitale. Officer Lily Johnson agreed. “It’s specifically for students to share their experiences and opinions without fearing response.”

After previewing the questions, the high school administration decided to cancel the fishbowl for the first time in known history. Fishbowls have previously addressed a host of controversial issues such as the Black Lives Matter movement, feminism, academic pressure, and mental health. Is it a coincidence that the only fishbowl to face opposition from administration had the administration itself as the topic?

The Fordian met with newly hired Assistant Principal Dr. Charles DeTaeye and the officers of NPFH to learn more about the fishbowl’s cancellation. 

When a fishbowl about accountability was brought up, administration seemed to support the idea. However, when NPFH submitted their probing questions for approval and the focus on accountability for both students and administration was highlighted, problems arose. The questions explored the lack of respect toward administration and asked how students, faculty, and administrators could work to establish a more respectful environment. They also focused on a perceived lack of consequences and discipline when students act out, and how that might affect Haverford’s culture. 

Administration approved some of these questions, such as “What are actions that administrators can take to encourage accountability from students?” Others, however, were deemed more problematic. DeTaeye stated, “I think there were a lot of questions around misunderstandings around assumptions that kind of painted administration negatively.” This statement partially refers to questions about “rewarding” bad behavior because principals often spend a lot of time with students who act out. DeTaeye said, “We can’t share consequences with students, and sometimes consequences are things you don’t see.”

Although privacy concerns limit what administration can share, students who’ve experienced the disciplinary process were welcome to speak at the fishbowl— and arguably would have had some of the most valuable perspectives. However, out of fear that the disciplinary process would be misrepresented or misinformation could be spread, leading students to form negative opinions about administration, NPFH was called to a meeting to alter their probing questions. DeTaeye said, “Because we oversee our school building, we just wanted to make sure that when people are walking out of that fishbowl, they are not taking a negative impact from a misunderstanding or misconception.”

While it is understandable to fear that the fishbowl could paint administration in a negative light, NPFH fishbowls are meant to foster constructive dialogue and develop solutions. This one was aimed at restoring respect between students and administration and brainstorming ways that both students and administrators can hold themselves accountable. Haverford can only succeed if every single person in the building feels valued and respected.

Administration’s insistence on altering the content of the fishbowl may have dug them into a deeper hole than if they allowed the event to occur in the first place. Officer Mary Orner explained, “offering to either change the topic or modify the questions together kind of defeats the entire purpose of the fishbowl. It is not supposed to have administration or teacher participation; it’s entirely student-led. Having a ‘modified’ fishbowl makes it pointless because students don’t get to talk about what they really want to.” 

Ultimately, NPFH declined to revise the topic. Becca Vitale said, “[Administration] didn’t cancel the fishbowl, but they put us in a position where we couldn’t feasibly put on the event anymore.” With only a few days’ notice, NPFH felt they didn’t have enough time to pivot; advertising fishbowls takes time and effort, and attendance requires permission from teachers in advance. 

Even though issues with administration would probably have come up during the fishbowl, the administration’s restriction of the topic flexes their power over the student body. With the new insight that administrators have the ability—and willingness— to take action to change student-led conversation, students may feel silenced. In fact, distrust toward administration appears to have grown.

We see over and over in politics and in our personal lives that ignoring the problem is not the solution. Facing flaws head-on is one of the most respectable things a person or institution can do, and though it may be difficult in the moment, it builds more transparency, understanding, and trust between the parties involved. Had administration permitted this fishbowl to occur or even listened in themselves, they might have earned greater respect from the student body. Instead, the school community is now left with a harder task than before, one that is even more deserving of a fishbowl: rebuilding trust and transparency between students and administrators. 

The solution starts with clear communication and a willingness to listen to both sides of an issue, even if others’ ideas threaten your own. We must be willing to face our flaws in order to find meaningful solutions. And, we must be willing to compromise and find some middle ground. As NPFH plans their next fishbowl, we all remember the words of James Baldwin: “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”