Jollee Patterson, the Portland Public Schools’ general counsel, sent a letter recently to WW and Oregon Women Lawyers, blasting WW for its cover story last week on Lincoln High School’s cheerleading team.
Here’s Patterson’s letter, dated Dec. 18:
Dear Editor,
I have grave concerns about your article about one of our transgendered
students. At Portland Public schools, we take very seriously our responsibility to provide a
safe, welcoming environment to our gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and
questioning students. In particular,our transgendered students are increasingly coming forward to embrace
their identity and ask for a school enviromnent that does the same, and we welcome this trend.Unfottunately, the message Willamette Week has sent to transgendered
students is that if your story is interesting enough, you risk being outed to the entire city.
Being featured in WW is tough enough, I would imagine, for most adults; imagine how it must be
for a young high school student already facing the challenges of being transgendered. You even
acknowledge in your story that this student’s mother was trying to shield her from
publicity, yet nonetheless you published her distinctive first name and put her picture on the cover.As we are all aware, our GLBTQ students already face serious risks of
drop-out and suicide. I was sorry to see WW – which I’ve read for years and have much respect
for – create another barrier for these students to feel safe and welcome in our schools and
our city. I hope any future articles on this important subject focus on adults and leave students
with a zone of safety and privacy.I also encourage people to read articles about students with caution,
recognizing that student privacy rules severely limit the information schools can provide that
might balance the story and provide additional context.Jollee Patterson, General Counsel/Board Secretary
Portland Public Schools
Here’s a response by the story’s author, WW reporter Beth Slovic:
As the author of the story about the Lincoln cheerleading team, I’d like to take the opportunity to respond to Ms. Patterson’s letter.
I would agree with Patterson that the subject matter of my story is a delicate one requiring discretion and context. Where we clearly disagree is Patterson’s implication that we should not have written this story. Youth and gender identity is a hugely important issue that is largely underreported and, dare I say, covered up. As I reported in my story:
“Jenn Burleton is executive director of TransActive, a Portland group that advocates for families with transgender children. Burleton’s group estimates one out of 250 children born today doesn’t conform strictly to society’s definitions of gender. One in 500 will identify as transgender. She says the degree to which the local media have danced around this issue is a disservice to the community.
“To not cover this story continues to sweep under the rug the negative impact that gender policing has on our most precious treasure, which is our children,” Burleton says. “There was an old phrase in the gay community…that is still very true: Invisibility equals death.”
The issue is not, as Patterson would have it, whether we report the story or not. It is instead how the story is handled. In our newsroom, we spent an enormous amount of time discussing exactly this. We discussed how to treat the story, which photos to use and not to use, and which reporting to include and which to leave out. (It’s worth pointing out that I spoke with Superintendent Carole Smith and her chief of staff about this story one week before we published it. Smith did not ask me to back off. Instead, she told me how gender identity was an issue she had confronted during her professional career many times.)
I appreciate that some readers may disagree with our choices, but to suggest we published this story without an enormous amount of consideration is flatly wrong.
Patterson criticizes my story for the way in which we called attention to Alonza. I would like to point out that, prior to our story, Alonza appeared twice on local TV news (where she was identified by her first and last name) discussing her dismissal from the cheerleading team and claiming that it was because of racism. Shortly after our story was published, Alonza appeared on KOIN-TV, talking about her dismissal from the team and discussing, quite openly, her gender identity.
The number of transgender children in our school system is far higher than the average Portlander would expect. Until we start talking about this, our schools and our state will struggle with embracing these students as they deserve.
I’d encourage everyone to read the story. If you do, you’ll learn how Washington is ahead of Oregon in establishing policies to encourage transgender students to participate in school sports. That’s a real barrier we in Oregon should be talking about. But we won’t if we can’t even begin to discuss the issue.
Tags: Cheerleaders, Jollee Patterson, Lincoln High School, Oregon, outing, Portland, transgender
As my contribution to the recent Willamette Week article about the Lincoln High School cheerleading team has been referenced here, I feel it’s necessary to clarify a few points.
1) I met with Beth Slovic and after learning some of the details about what happened, I encouraged her to do an story about the challenges faced by transgender students (K-12) in the Portland area. I also felt that unless the specifics of this story were reported more fully, that a “teachable moment” might be lost.
2) The above being said, I had no idea that the identity of the transgender student would be revealed and I certainly had no idea photos of that student would be published. I believe the story could have been told without revealing the student’s identity.
3)Until the story was published, I did not even know the student’s name.
Regardless of whether or not the trans student had appeared on local television programs, I believe we all have a responsibility to, at times, protect youth from themselves. This student probably did not help herself by talking to the media and accusing them of racism, but that act on her part should not have given a “green light” to publication of her name and photo and status as a transgender teen.
The organization I work for, TransActive Education & Advocacy, was not involved in this story in any capacity other than my agreement to speak with Ms. Slovic about the general challenges that trans youth face and the sharing of statistics and other information.
TransActive has, at no point, had any contact with the student, her family or Lincoln HS faculty or staff. It is our policy that we do not share personal information of any sort about the families we support with ANYONE without the express permission of a parent or caregiver AND the minor youth involved.
I believe this story could have been told equally well without specifically identifying the student involved and, certainly, without publishing her photo.
Jenn Burleton
Executive Director
TransActive Education & Advocacy
http://www.TransActiveOnline.org
info@transactiveonline.org
503-927-7052
This is hysterical. The student involved has given numerous public interviews, commented on WW’s article, and has had a number of other classmates comment on the students propensity to be the center of attention.
Jollee, Jenn, – don’t get your knickers in a twist, it’s Christmas.
If the student doesn’t want attention, I would suggest that the student shuts up.
Gross! Only in Portland would self mutilation be cheered about. Ish!
I saw this person on the TV. Explain why WW can’t use her name?
Hillarious!
LJ
Patterson’s perspective just illustrates why we need alternatives to the public school system. The public school system has become a bureaucratic monolythe controlled by unions and political driven agendas. Children are not held to the same code of conduct but thrown into a rainbow of different classifications each with a different code of conduct. How ridiculous. Treating people equally means using the same absolute code of conduct, not creating different standards for different folks.
The issue was not about sexual identity; as reported, it was all about inappropriate behavior. Funny how whenever sexual or racial identity is introduced it unstantly takes over a discussion while the real problem instantly becomes a subtext.
I find this story fascinating because both sides are blind to the obvious. It is OK to print a student’s name if he scored a touchdown at the H.S. football game, a good thing. And it is OK to print the name of the student who fumbled the football, a bad thing. But here we have an argument about privacy. No there is no difference, each has made themselves public on their own and that cannot be changed.
I happen to be transsexual and can attest to there being differing opinions on whether we should be stealth, blend into society without anyone knowing; or openly live our lives so society can understand that we are in fact good people. Personally I believe in being open. This gal made her choice already and it can’t be changed by WW’s writers or school attorneys.
OK, so a safe environment means not telling anyone you are transgendered?
Uh, one day he/she will have to dela with it right or is everyone supposed to be complicit in the charade?
It’s hard not to see that Alonza brought ALL OF THIS on herself.
I don’t see the transgender issues being at all important except when you factor in how P. Chapman bent over backwards to accommodate this individual.
Had this girl been white, Asian or a little green girl from outer space she would have been kicked off the squad and the matter would be over. Chapman made this a big deal be treating her differently.
Just for this story I’m voting to raise taxes.
I am deeply concerned about WW’s decision to publish a story that requires any legal administrator to take the time to express such sadness and concern over the publication of said story. It is unfortunate that professionals like Patterson must surrender their time to the careful scolding such stories seem designed to provoke, not to mention the effort needed to urge caution in making judgments. For it is not just student privacy rules alone but also the unfathomable forces of history that render all events unknowable. It is unfortunate that WW insists on publishing stories that put people in Patterson’s position in the position where not making a statement regretting interest in the story an unattractive alternative to not saying anything at all. Very disappointing. I hope in the future WW will allow such people the freedom to make more productive use of their position, their time and their talents.
It’s not like the story appeared in the Big O and nobody saw it.
Now that WW has been blasted by those who advocate a puritanical policy of journalistic piety …. let’s make sure we spread this notion arould like neosporin on every dicey situation …Dear God, how could anyone have been so vile as to report names when Sam and Beau were sucking face in the city hall men’s room ? It’s blasphemy I tell you … the story should have referred to ” a middle aged man in a position of mayoral authority, with a teen aged hunk in a position of submissive conformity” … let’s get out the ‘ol green head clouds heretofore reserved for Kennedy mistresses … the scrambled computer voices that sound like Orson Wells martians … how bout we git us some mardi gras masks – the Jackson kids probably don’t need them any more … let’s hide so many facts in a story that we need some shadowy slink named “deep throat” to spill it to us in the bottom level of a parking garage … no one is “outing” anyone here, school solicitor …. go back to your human resource homework ……… peace out
Way to go, Slovic. Event the first comment shows that, once again, WW (and you) put hype ahead of any journalistic (or hell, compassionate) standards. Your “response”, full of excuses and “hey, the other guys did it after us” is very sad, and a poor, poor excuse for the careless story.
Like TW, I am deeply concerned about WW’s decision to publish a story that requires any legal administrator to publish a CYA letter or do anything at all to justify their salary in keeping with their job description. It is unfortunate that professionals like Patterson must surrender their time to respond to news, when really, the public would be better served by a constant stream of press releases. For it is not just student privacy rules alone but also the unfathomable forces of history that render all events unknowable, and self-righteous blathering anonymous comments unfathomable. It is unfortunate that WW insists on publishing stories that inform the public as to the real story behind the misleading TV news appearances that a certain cheerleader’s mother apparently engineered. Very disappointing. I hope in the future WW will cease these and any similar news reporting activities, since clearly, there were no important issues in either this situation or how it was covered by other news outlets.
I am deeply concerned by the way this comment seems to ridicule my burlesque of a pompous self-parody. I think we are all aware that anybody who can spare the time to compose such elaborate astonishments is, in addition to the numerous hardships we can surely assume they are already saddled with, also at a much higher risk of becoming a problem drinker. It is troubling that WW has allowed their publication — which I have enjoyed since a wee little child — to so carelessly leave such potentially dangerous comments undeleted.
Patterson gets paid to write CYA letters and deal with issues the district looks at as being legal problems; i.e. numerous other decisions made by Peyton at Lincoln. Do you really think said principal doesn’t check with the legal department before making some of her decisions and if she isn’t, she should be, hence the position. The district no doubt smells a lawsuit in here and she was doing her job. The main issue should be that the 17 year old student has a trail of misbehavior and is now at her 3rd high school. The whole argument was the overruling, by an administrator, of a discipline policy the principal should have known about and was endorsing at one time, but when the tough call was to let the girl go, she backed off. Also, did WW start the whole report, no it seems to have come from the news station that employs the girls mom.
“The main issue should be that the 17 year old student has a trail of misbehavior and is now at her 3rd high school.”
The issue about WW’s decision to publish an identity is–the student’s academic record?
Excuse me, but what planet are you from?
The girl put that on the table when she went public with the issue and appeared on camera numerous times. Where was her mother then and the school officials counseling her about that? It would have been just a bit odd writing a story about her when the public already knew her identity because she made sure we all did This planet is fine
“The girl put that on the table when she went public with the issue and appeared on camera numerous times.”
No, she didn’t “put it on the table”. The subject’s behavior doesn’t excuse WW’s behavior, man. That’s not how it works–not even in the grade school playground. Time to grow up.
“It isn’t how it works?” That’s odd in that the girl and her mother made it a public issue, not the Oregonian or Willamette Week. I don’t see you flailing the mother since you adhere so greatly that a minor’s identity was exposed when the girl and her mother did the exposing. It was an internal affairs issue within PPS and should have stayed that way except the girl and her mother decided to go public with the issue.
Using your great wisdom then how should have it been carried out….
“That’s odd in that the girl and her mother made it a public issue, not the Oregonian or Willamette Week.”
Still not able to distinguish journalistic choices and a teenagers’, are you?
Let me put it into short syllables for you: when you base your ethics on whatever other people do, you don’t have ethics at all. In other words–WW doesn’t “get permission” to out the student just because the student outed themself AFTERWARD. You *did* notice the sequence of events, right?
But no–it’s painfully clear that you’re here to shill for a particular agenda. Or person.
I think the most egregious part of the story is that Slovic attempts to “defend” her amateurish efforts by slanting it as if, in some twisted, perverse way, talking to Carole Smith and Jenn Burleton gave her some permission to do what she did.
Yet she didn’t talk to the subject of the story itself. How very strange. And how very WW.
I have no particular agenda and the ethics component that you jump over everytime is the mother’s right and in this case she exercised her right by having her daughter speak to the news media as a minor. She used the news media to bring light to her daughter’s plight, but you go into the ethics of the same media when they write a story about the girl. Is your outrage also pointed in the direction of the televison people who unethically presented the information on television or in your ethical world since the girl was a minor, no one should have done the story. Once again, I will go slower for you….the family brought forth the issue and presented it to the media hoping to get a response, the mother is ultimately in charge of her minor daughter and allowed one set of media to cover the story; however, you are upset because another media venue took up the story and did exactly the same thing. This was unethical because the mom gave permission for the story to unfold…Ok, I get it now thanks for the lesson in ethical journalism.
Actually , I saw the story on the televison news way before it hit the print media
The whole thing is ridiculous, and I have not seen one adult who acted appropriately! I fault the kid’s mother – for crying racism, for her atrocious grammar (she works for KGW remember), but mostly for not telling her SON to shape the hell up, put on some pants and deal with reality, instead of fantasy! The principal was at fault for overruling the disciplinary policy, and thereby making a mockery of ALL the student conduct codes (why SHOULD a kid on the basketball or track team adhere to the codes, IF the cheerleaders don’t have to?) The cheer coaches were at fault, in my opinion, for allowing a boy to put on a skirt in the first place! As far as Ms. Patterson’s “concerns”: please! She’s a lawyer – she’d come out in favor of concentration camps if she was being paid for it!
As far as the young man himself, when he’s 18, he can be anything he wants; he can cut off or sew on any body parts he can afford to. Until then however, he is still a child, and he needs to learn that children do not always get to do, wear, or be, anything they want, just because they want it!
I’m not being unsympathetic, I simply believe that we are what and who we are for a reason, and that denying the obvious realities of life and biology, simply means that you are not “growing”, soul-wise, and will probably have to come back and “do it all again” – sort of like the kids who don’t pay attention in class, and then have to come back for summer school!
‘Nuff Said!