Recently, Troy High School organizations have undergone changes pertaining to administrative review. The administrative team started implementing the review process earlier this year, when the 2015 school board policy was brought to their attention. Essentially, Assistant Principal Kerry Brennan and Principal Remo Roncone view publications beforehand, including the newspaper, yearbook, literary magazine, announcements and student government videos. The policy requires “a partnership between our student groups and then our administration team,” according to Brennan, “where we’re working together to make sure that ultimately what is created doesn’t put anybody in a position legally that could be a negative experience.”
The policy can affect student organizations differently. The literary magazine, The Mosaic, revived only last year, and adviser Joseph Verhelle sent their draft once to administration. He explains that the review process hasn’t affected the magazine or members to much extent, the only change being the schedule. The team will need to implement time for the administrative review to be able to print the magazine on time. “We have to push everything up to make sure that we get it to the printer by the deadline,” Verhelle says. He is unsure yet of the necessary time to allot.
However, members curating the magazine “might feel a little bit nervous to select submissions that might be a little bit more evocative or might push violent or overly vulnerable” works, according to Verhelle.
As for the yearbook, The Gladiator, the administration has a live view of the book with access at all times because of its size. Additionally, the publication plans out the year in the summer. “It’s called our ladder,” adviser Emily Rusk says, “so we have every page and spread and the topic all laid out at the beginning of the year. So everything that we’re going to cover is already there.” This allows the administration to look at the specific spreads they need to.
The publication and its practices have not been affected according to Rusk, and she details that “it hasn’t really felt much like we’ve been told that we can’t do certain things or cover certain events a certain way, mostly just because what we’ve done is really rooted in tradition, so we’ve already been doing it for so long.”
Rusk and Verhelle express similar beliefs that their publications may be impacted differently than others. Rusk says, “I think there’s some differences between the newspaper and yearbook publications where I could definitely see those hard hitting stories that sometimes can be controversial. I could see those giving people a little bit of pause where if we’re being completely honest, we’re not writing controversial things in the yearbook, right? Like we’re here to celebrate the school and its achievements and the students too and their stories.”
For the announcements, adviser Harriet Clark is part of the review process. “I don’t have to send videos to admin before they run, but we brainstorm what we’re going to do, and then the kids do the videos,” Clark explains. If there is anything she believes is questionable or defying rules or the law, then she shows them. “So I do show them them periodically. It’s not like we film on Monday, before they air on Tuesday, they must go through an administrator.”
Additionally, this process has been ongoing in Clark’s advisory since before last school year. This school year, Clark sent three videos to administration and removed their uploads. They were ultimately removed because they violated student rules, some regarding phones.
The main criteria of this newly implemented administrative review process is whether the product holds journalistic integrity, according to Brennan. “It’s not so much the topic, because I think sometimes even the more controversial topics are the ones that need to be talked about, right?” Brennan adds, “And we don’t want to stop our students from talking about those things.” She further details the biggest reason to request changes would be anything causing harm, including any hate speech.
The review process affects advisers as well as administration. Rusk describes it to be almost like a safety net for advisers. She says, “It doesn’t feel like so much pressure on me as an adviser to make the ultimate decision where you’ve heard of, of advisers being terminated from their positions because of things that were printed or misprinted or misquoted or things like that.”
Administration, Rusk and Verhelle plan to set a more detailed and communicative procedure following the recent implementation of the process. For instances where administration may request changes, Brennan emphasizes openness to discussion. “Ultimately, I really think that we could make anything work. I would just want to talk to the student, to the writer, or the creator about what message they’re trying to get across and why, and then we can work from there.” Brennan confirms, “I really believe that we can make anything work, and I want to make it work.”
Because the review process is “something that we’re all just trying to navigate,” according to Rusk, it may take time to obtain a successful process.
Nevertheless, Brennan assures, “It’s a partnership, and I am on your team. I am here to support you. Talk through anything you want.”
