I’m Too Sexy for My Yearbook

It’s 2012 and I figured I would start by trying something a little bit different, testing out a few things. If NASCAR can introduce EFI (electronic fuel injection), then I can try something new too. Not necessarily iMedia, not necessarily racing, more of a commentary/analysis take on things. Things like …

Sexy Student’s Sexy Yearbook Photo Banned for Being Sexy

Kinda grabs your attention, doesn’t it? Yes, it’s the curious case of Sydney Spies and her choice for her senior portrait in the Durango High School yearbook, a photo she described to Matt Lauer on a Today show appearance this way- “I honestly think (the picture) describes who I am, … I am an outgoing person and I really do think it’s artistic.” (nbc17.com, 1/9/2010, http://bit.ly/zQeWZs)

You can read all about it here, here, here, here, and here.

Oh, and here is the photo (via Facebook) –

I have a couple of points of question.

First, this:

“When the yearbook advisor saw the picture, however, she decided that the picture could not be included in the yearbook on the grounds that it violates school dress code. Durango High requires students cover the entirety of their chests, backs, midriffs, and sides during the school day, you see. Fair enough. Except Sydney says that she was never told that her yearbook photo needed to adhere to school dress code, and that, in fact, there’s no policy in place to govern what students can and cannot wear in the picture that will end up smushed up against the pictures of everyone else’s senior quotes from The Notebook or Entourage for all of eternity.” (jezebel.com, 1/6/2012, http://bit.ly/AkL9PQ)

There is no doubt that the photo in question does not adhere to the school dress code. But if what Spies claims is correct, that there is no policy in place dictating what is or is not acceptable for the senior photos for the yearbook, then she totally got hosed. Spies has every right to be upset and claim unfairness. Yet, claiming infringement on her freedom of expression may be taking it a bit too far. First Amendment rights aren’t necessarily black and white when it comes to school-produced publications.

However, apparently “according to Colorado Revised Statutes Section 22-1-120, “students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press” and that “no expression contained in a student publication, whether or not such publication is school-sponsored, shall be subject to prior restraint.” (durangoherald.com, 1/4/2012, http://bit.ly/ybsIBf ), so she may have a leg to stand on after all. Yet, “… school administration can overrule the law under certain requirements, including obscenity” (durangoherald.com, 1/4/2012, http://bit.ly/ybsIBf), so the checkered flag hasn’t flown yet on possibility of this moving from the schoolroom to the courtroom.

In reading more about the situation, there seemed to be a little confusion as to who actually made the call to ban the provocative photo in question. Initially blame was placed on school administrators. Yet, it appears that it was the student editors who made the decision — “The administration really had nothing to do with it,” said Tevan Trujillo, a student yearbook editor. It was us. … The editors – Trujillo, Erin Edblom, Paige Shacklett, Alyssa Spencer and Brian Jaramillo – said they unanimously came to the decision not to run her submitted photo as a senior portrait.” (durangoherald.com, 1/5/2012, http://bit.ly/welX9a).

But, it was the reason the student editors gave that rubbed me the wrong way. It wasn’t the dress code as originally cited when the administration was getting the blame. The reason they gave: “We are an award-winning yearbook. We don’t want to diminish the quality with something that can be seen as unprofessional,” (durangoherald.com, 1/5/2012, http://bit.ly/welX9a).

To me, that just smacks of elitist arrogance. It’s the editors picking on the pretty girl, sticking it back to the privileged and the ‘genetically blessed.’

Those of you following along have to be saying, ‘but Erik, surely this is not the first time this has happened with a student’s yearbook photo, is it?’ It is not. In fact, it is not even the first time this has happened with the Durango High School yearbook. “Two years ago, yearbook staff made a similar decision when a male student wanted to run a picture of himself bare-chested as a portrait” (durangoherald.com, 1/5/2012, http://bit.ly/welX9a).

Eureka! Precedent! Spies’ photo is not the first to run afoul of the yearbook editors. Surely this will settle all the questions, all the protests. ‘But Erik,’ you say, ‘it is comparing apples to melons so-to-speak. Spies is not bare-chested, and it is comparing a male and a female. You can’t do that.’ Apparently, no one did. Frankly, I’m confused as to why the editors didn’t go the precedent route in explaining their decision. That, to me, would have read better than the ‘unprofessional’ reasoning.

All of this could have been avoided if there was a policy in place outlining standards for the senior portraits. The school yearbook had this problem before, with the bare-chested male student, so guidelines should have been implemented then, with the forward-thinking that such a situation would likely happen again. Alas, no one did, and now we have this Spies kerfuffle.

Now, as a yearbook veteran (both high school and collegiate), I find it unusual that the students can submit their own photo to use as their senior portrait. Every yearbook I have been involved with had the class photos, including senior portraits, taken by the official photographer. As far as dress for the senior portraits, everyone had the same thing – males had a tuxedo top and bow tie, females had a shawl/drape wrapped around their shoulders. In fact, when I first read stories about this particular incident, I thought the photo was something for Spies’ senior ad. As it turns out, that is what is going to happen anyway. Spies’ has paid $300 for a full-page ad in order to have her photo published in the yearbook.

Ultimately, what we have here is a failure to communicate. If, from the very beginning, the photo was rejected citing the precedent of the bare-chested male student, and a compromise was offered to run it in a senior ad (perhaps at a discount), I have a feeling all this would have blown over. Yet, those involved went the ‘it’s banned, it violates the dress code – but you didn’t say it had to follow the dress code – you’re infringing on my freedom of expression – it has nothing do to with the dress code, it makes the yearbook look unprofessional – ok, buy an ad and run the photo then’ route, and now lawyers are involved, the national media is paying attention and way more people have seen the photo now than would have ever seen it just in the Durango High School yearbook.

Writer’s note: I agree with Spies. I think the photo is artistic. It is a model-style professional shot. I know it is way more artistic than the mirror self-portrait in a skimpy outfit posted to Facebook or Twitter. But that’s just my opinion.

Post Script: As I mentioned, the problem seemed to be a lack of clear communication coupled with a mishandling of the situation. These are two mistakes that can be the death of you or your organization when it comes to the arena of social media. Not making sure your message is clear and tailored to the medium almost guarantees that someone will misunderstand – possibly take offense to – what you are saying. A deliberate, measured, professional yet personal approach to handling any controversy will be better for you in the long run when it comes to handling social media interactions. Don’t give a canned response or something in PR/legal-speak. Also, don’t run to the nearest microphone (or keyboard as the case may be) and fire off your knee-jerk reaction. Odds are that first thing that pops into your head is something that won’t help the situation; an emotionally-charged, likely-not-fully thought out statement does more harm than good (guess I tied it back to iMedia (social media) after all).

————————————————————

UPDATE:  Apparently, all is not resolved in the case of Sydney Spies.  Reports now state her third photo was also rejected by the yearbook, so her school ID photo was used.  Also, the yearbook took back their compromise of her paying to put her rejected picture in a senior ad.  Read more about it here and here.