Remove Gender Identity Requirements for Head Monitors

By Maggie Viano ’27

We at Milton pride ourselves on our diverse student body and open-mindedness. Our student leaders are crucial in that they serve as models for these values for the community at large. As such, for many years, the student body has elected head monitors who they believe will best cultivate a community that values diversity, inclusion, and justice–values that shape classroom discussions, student life, and the broader culture at Milton. In this context, it’s worth examining the longstanding requirement in the student handbook that the two elected head monitors must be of different gender identities. While the intention behind this policy may have once aligned with goals in achieving equity, its continued presence is now a barrier to fair representation and fails to reflect our ever-evolving understanding of identity.

The first round of voting occurred at the Junior class meeting on April 3rd, where six female-identifying students and three male-identifying students each spoke for one minute on their goals as leaders and initiatives that they would take if elected as head monitor. In the end, three students of each gender identity remained in the race. Because only three male candidates were in the race to start, the question must be raised: did they remain in the race because they were qualified for the position, or was it because they met the requirements listed in the handbook? Also, were the female students who were eliminated from the election actually less qualified than the male students who passed the first round?

The central issue with this rule is that it reduces representation to a binary framework. By requiring that an equal number of each gender advances past the primary, the policy implicitly assumes that gender can be neatly categorized into two distinct groups. This assumption does not reflect the realities of many members of the student body today. Today’s gender diversity challenges the notion that representation can be achieved through simple pairings. In attempting to enforce diversity, the rule may inadvertently exclude or marginalize students whose identities do not fit into traditional categories.

Moreover, the policy restricts the democratic agency of the student body to choose the two most qualified candidates. Elections are meant to select leaders based on their ideas, character, and ability to reflect student interests. The imposition of a structural requirement on the outcome limits that choice. If the two most qualified and widely supported candidates share the same gender identity, the rule prevents both from serving together. This undermines the principle of choosing leaders based on merit while possibly discouraging students from running if they feel their candidacy is constrained by factors they can’t control.

Ultimately, Milton’s commitment to reflection should extend to its own policies. The head monitor requirement, though it is well-intentioned, no longer aligns with the values of inclusivity the school sees to uphold. A truly inclusive community trusts its members to make informed decisions. By removing the gender-based requirement for head monitors, Milton can reaffirm its confidence in the student body while embracing a more expansive understanding of identity.