The staff
… puts uncompensated
after-school hours into perfecting the book and can choose what
should or should not go on each and every one of the
300-plus pages.
YOUR VIEWS
GHS yearbook editor defends position on including tattoo page
Dear Editor,
I wasn’t sure whether or not I wanted to get involved with the slamming of the Gilroy High yearbook, but being one of the editors-in-chief and a student of Gilroy High School, I felt compelled to defend the decisions of the yearbook staff, administration, and Section 48907 of the California Education Code which states that “Students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech.”
We understand that this controversy that was stirred up by the Dispatch was intended to increase readership and we hope that you understand that it has increased our circulation as well. While there is tremendous community input regarding these two pages, we hope that you understand that it is incredibly difficult to please each of the 2,400-plus students of GHS, the 100-plus faculty members, each of the 45,000-plus Gilroy residents, and the 10-plus Dispatch staff members. If we tried to accomplish this, our yearbook would not be reflective of Gilroy High School, but would be an impossible task that cannot be accomplished by the select few staffers of the yearbook.
The staff of the yearbook puts uncompensated after-school hours into perfecting the book and can choose what should or should not go on each and every one of the 300-plus pages – just as all of the columnists and editors can pick and choose what to write about in the Dispatch, so does each of the students on the yearbook staff get to choose what goes into the yearbook.
The whole idea of a yearbook is in the title: a book about the year. It isn’t a book about what parents feel should be covered; it’s about what went on in the year of the students. Whether it is sports, a fashion page, or the annual art-lit talent show, important aspects of student life are always covered. Now to someone who doesn’t care about football, he/she would not be forced to read an entire spread devoted to football, and equally is the idea of the tattoo’s and piercings page. No one is shoving it down the readers throat and no one is making anyone else read it; if the reader is so uncomfortable seeing a piece of artwork on someone’s body, believe it or not, flipping the page IS an option.
Now, to those who may not care about “Becca’s ‘tat’ in 20 years,” there are those who may not care about the girls who sport extensions and who are being put on the fashion page because of it. The yearbook is a book to remind us about what our time was like in high school so that in 20 years we can look back and remember, tattoo’s, extensions, piercings, and all.
I am upset by the fact that, as editors of a similar organization, the Dispatch would be the first to point fingers. I am also even more upset that grown men and women have the nerve to call high school students words such as “slut-chic.” Do not flatter yourself by thinking that your tongue can change the thoughts of everyone who read your comments. Like the saying goes, no publicity is bad publicity, and I think you might all be surprised at the amazing outcome of the 2007-2008 Gilroy High School yearbook.
We encourage the Dispatch editor to purchase a yearbook before we sell out, to help us pick out our next controversial issue. While you may find it difficult to fill the space of your daily publication, the yearbook staff has no trouble filling up the pages of the biggest yearbook in the Bay Area. Should you have trouble filling your editorial pages with something significant, maybe note taking from our excellent journalism staff would be a great idea. To us as a staff, this subject is considered closed and we do not feel that elongating the negativity should be covered any longer.
Cherilyn Christian, editor-in-chief, GHS yearbook staff
Editor’s note: Well, the responses could be many, but one is clearly important. The Dispatch commentary on the tattoo issued pointed out that the term “slut-chic” used by a caller to the Red Phone was entirely inappropriate and unnecessary.
