Restrictive Yearbook Policy

I thought some of you might find this interesting, especially those that like to

do creative senior portraits. Granted this is here in Rhode Island, but given

the climate of the country, this is sure to spread.

 

"The Portsmouth School Committee's policy prohibits students from posing with

objects including props, pets, instruments, hobby items or athletic equipment."

 

And all of this because a senior high school student (a middle ages fan) posed

for his senior portraits dressed in armour, and the school wouldn't accept his

picture for the yearbook.

 

http://www.turnto10.com/northeast/jar/news.apx.-content-articles-JAR-2007-03-15-0004.html

Thats crazy

Hi Michelle, That's pretty silly! But didn't the student prevail? "...his mother sued with the help of the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. The state education commissioner, Peter McWalters, sided with Agin in January, and the district agreed to print the yearbook with Agin's photo."

 

It's pretty sad - and again, a bit silly - since the "sword" was a prop, but it sounds like cooler heads than the principal's prevailed unless I'm reading something wrong.

Yes the student did win the suit. But if I'm understanding this correctly these restrictions are new. They had a zero policy for weapons.... but now.... well you can't use a photo of yourself with your pet or your guitar.

I can see the ban on weapons of any kind, props, real etc, they give the wrong message. Like posing for a class pic with an empty beer bottle. But hobby or personality props is taking the issue to ridiculous. That said, I'm sure the thought is that every student would then try to stretch the envelope so that every picture became an issue, so just do mug shots and that's it.

Yeah, that is pretty bad. My only suggestion would be to take it up with the local School Board and ask why this principal feels compelled to act this way. The only instance I can think of when a guitar was used as a "weapon" was "El Kabong" - who was a hero of the downtrodden! ;-)<div></div>

I had a student demand that I take his underclass photo wearing a Nazi helmet. I refused. He went to the principal and the principal said it was OK. I still refused. It was not a matter of civil liberties, just bad taste. Freedom of expression is a double edged sword sometimes.

Someones vision is for a traditional yearbook where all the portraits are pretty much the same. I assume the rest of the yearbook is the place for candids, pictures of the chess club, and whatever else they want to put in. There are certainly other styles, but the risk goes up as you depart from the norm, and the skill of yearbook staff does range from terrible to great. I believe people should have the freedom to be as foolish as they like, but consider that down the road one might look back and wish they had shown a bit more dignity ;-)

I agree with most of what's been said, but the policy applies only to those photos that will be published, doesn't it? You can still be as creative as you want for the photos that will be used privately.

The principal said it was OK! He should be fired, and forced to write a paper, defending his approval. I realize most people will say it's just a harmless prop, but given all the pain and brutality that symbolizes, I can't see how someone supposedly educated could approve. Did he get his degrees in cereal boxes? We are supposed to teach our children the values that produce responsible adults. What did that teach the student. I say BRAVO to you for being that students true mentor.

The article says, <em>"... a student went to court for the right to pose while

wearing armor and carrying a prop sword..."</em></p>

 

<p>I just re-read my copy of the U.S. Constitutiontwiceand <em>still</em>

can't find that "right" articulated anywhere. Must be something only Rhode

Island citizens enjoy.

All of these new civil liberties are distressing. When I went to school, the SCHOOL decided how you could dress - for everything, not just your senior portrait. We even had to wear socks. And if you didn't like it, you could go home. Now if they don't like it, they clog up the court system with another law suit.

<i>Doug says: Freedom of expression is a double edged sword sometimes.</i>

<br><br>

And well it should be. That's the point of freedom of expression. The easy part is insisting

that MY opinions and expressions be heard and seen. The hard part is insisting that

others' opinions and expressions, even the objectionable ones, ESPECIALLY the

objectionable ones, be heard and seen as well. Nazi helmets are among the most

objectionable things in the world, so when we allow Nazis in America to be heard, we

swallow hard but we do it, often in the hopes that allowing them to speak will allow others

to know how evil and stupid they are. Things that we hide tend to fester and grow. Things

allowed the light of day sometimes disappear just because they are seen for what they are.

Probably one of the best punishments you could have inflicted on this student would have

been to allow him to take the picture that way, because he would have had to live with it

even when he was beyond his foolish teenage years and he would have had to live with the

consequences of his classmates and other parents reacting to that image. That might have

been the best education he could have been provided.

<br><br>

That having been said, I think a school should be allowed to make rules for the type of

yearbook it wants and I can understand, knowing a lot of high school minds and

temperaments, that letting each student individualize his or her own portrait might get out

of hand, so I can understand denying that in this case. If the students and parents want to

get together and change school policy, they should absolutely do so. But while the policy

is in place and as long as it applies equally to everyone, that seems ok to me.

I was left out of the yearbook class pictures two years running, despite being an official School Photographer. <p>My high school refused to print my senior-year portrait because I was wearing a snappy red vest along with my school-mandated coat and tie. They couldn't seem to understand that the vivid red would never show in <i>black and white</i> pictures.

<p>

Oddly enough, I was actually included in more casual pictures than anyone else in the entire school, and somehow the only available pictures of our Journalism instructor and Principal made them look mentally challenged. (Don't mess with a School Photographer.)

I never showed up for school portraits. In all 4 years of my high school yearbook there's one candid of me in my senior year, on the "smoking block" (heh, heh... don't have *those* anymore, do we?), puffing a stogie before class. I was wearing a baseball cap, pulled down, with hair practically down to my waist, looking like (almost) everyone else did back in the 70's - so it's hard to tell it's me. No regrets about "missing out" either. Even in most of the "formal" portraits most everyone looked, well... pretty bad! ;-)

<em>"... The hard part is insisting that others' opinions and expressions, even

the objectionable ones, ESPECIALLY the objectionable ones, be heard and seen as

well..."</em></p>

 

<p>I agree. But the hardest part of allfor me, anywayis deciding <em>where</em>

and <em>under which circumstances</em> these opinions and expressions should be heard and

seen. And by whom. For example, we have <em>every</em> right to speak our views, but <em>no</em>

right to a captive audience. </p>

 

<p>I agree that Nazis have the right to express their views. I believe that racists and

homophobes have a right to express their views, too. But does it follow that Nazis have

some particular right to "express themselves" in front of a synagogue during Yom

Kippur? Do the K.K.K. have some particular right to "express themselves" in a

black neighborhood on Martin Luther King Day? I'm not sure. I just don't know. </p>

 

<p>But, to get back into the OP's original context,  I'm not sure how far any of

these "rights" extend to <strong><em>minor children in a school setting</em></strong>.

And even if they do, no one is saying the kid can't wear armor and brandish a sword. But I

don't think he has any inalienable right to appear that way in his High School yearbook.

School officials that hold these Orwellian views should be held up to ridicule. Their contempt of our history and Constitution is pervasive. There's nothing a propagandist fears more than laughter.

No offense, Bob, but Nazi symbols and organizations are banned in a lot of places which had the misfortune to experience first hand the benefits of Nazis exercising this "right". Tens of milions of people died as a result.

 

I do not know the laws in a country you live in - but maybe you should brush up a bit on them. You may be quite surprised what you may find out.

 

I guess some people just have to learn by their own mistakes.

Why is it so difficult for the kids to just take a nice, traditional, tasteful portrait for the yearbook? If they want to take some fanciful or personality expressing senior pictures to give their friends, that's fine, but it is not good for the senior portrait section of the yearbook. Here's why.

 

The senior pictures for one child are exactly that, for one child. However, the yearbook (as a whole) is NOT just for one child. Many of the other students often feel dismayed and upset as they look through the pictures of their classmates and they see yet another clod who looks so out of touch with showing the importance of being a graduating senior and becoming a full adult. Their image doesn't match the importance of the life event.

 

They think to themselves: "Couldn't this person just take one formal photograph in their life that everyone could find pleasing. Are they that selfish, that they can't at least do that much to help make the yearbook as nice as it can be for everyone? If they want photographs to look hip or trendy, let them do it in the other sections of the book."

 

I've known people who didn't take serious senior pictures, and they regret it, because they look at their images now and say: "Boy, did I look stupid. I blew one of the few times in my life when I could have looked really good on film.".

 

Children need to learn (or should have by the time they are seniors) that even as adults you can't have it your way all the time. Sometimes you have to OR SHOULD sacrifice for the sake of other peoples' happiness.

You have said it very well Dan.

 

BTW, the kid with the Nazi helmet was not a nazi, he wanted to do it just for a joke. The principal still hates me for denying his approval. I really like the KKK comparison. I wonder what he would have said.

 

As a school photographer (well, as a photographer period) I often have to remind people that their photo will be around long after their prank. There's nothing like finding a photo of someone being a complete a** when they are in the middle of an election campaign.

 

Doug