Late in the afternoon of Tuesday, September 23rd, long after most of the trouble makers had vacated the school, a conflict was brewing in Environmental Club.
Gerlach campaigning for Gregoire on July 4th, 2008. On right, Leslie Peng holding a Gregoire sticker.
Photo Credit: Leslie Peng
The club had been advertising that they would be discussing the views of the presidential candidates at the meeting, which interested the politically-aware junior John Gerlach, who spent his summer volunteering for the Washington State Democratic Party. As such, he was hoping to voice his opinions on the matter, before he was unexpectedly rebuked by club president Connie Kim before even beginning to speak.
The day of, Gerlach had already spoken to former teacher, Ms. Nelson, in hopes of getting her approval to speak. He remarked, “I talked to [adviser] Ms. Nelson during the fire drill and asked her again if it was okay, [and] she said it was great.”
However, once Gerlach reached the meeting, he found his hopes of participation crushed by the bureaucracy present in the club.
“I got there, and talked to the girl in charge, and she said I couldn’t do it, without giving me a reason.”
Although Ms. Nelson, the club’s supervisor, eventually convinced Kim to allow Gerlach to present his ideas, he was only permitted two minutes. Visibly disheartened, John commented, “There’s only so much I can say in two minutes.”
When The Plateau Times attempted to contact Kim regarding the happenings of the meeting on Tuesday, she offered nothing more than a four letter word: “fine.”
Although The Plateau Times does support student-activist groups such as Environmental Club that are both aware of and aiming to improve the world beyond Skyline High School, it still seems that this incident was unjust.
The curious piece of the puzzle is that Environmental Club was heavily advertising this meeting, both in the hallways and on the internet, encouraging people to come to discuss the presidential candidates’ environmental views, as well as to learn about the club itself.
Why then, was a very well-informed student denied the opportunity to share his opinion? Although hesitantly, Gerlach did wonder if political bias was at work, saying, “I may have imagined it, but she seemed a little miffed at the mention of the governor’s name.”
The great irony in this statement is that at the heart of today’s environmental movement, both domestic and international, one of the largest obstacles to overcome is partisanship and contrasting viewpoints. In the United States alone, it is clearly evident that party lines have come to mimic the Berlin Wall, blocking any significant progress on the issue.
If a group is aspiring to effect change, they will get nowhere except to the heights of hypocrisy if they stubbornly reject the opinions of non-members, which is exactly what happened at the first meeting of Environmental Club on Tuesday.
For the best interests of Environmental Club and active students alike, hopefully this unfortunate event does not reoccur.
To learn more about Skyline’s Environmental Club, visit their website.
Corrected: Dues were not mandatory to stay, as was once believed. The article has been changed as such.
Comments
It really wasn’t that big of a deal, I was there. This is making news out of nothing, and tearing down a club for no apparent reason is kind of dumb. Connie said no at first, but she wasn’t “stubbornly reject[ing] the opinions of non-members”.
It probably isn’t a huge deal, but I do find it kind of peculiar that he would be given just two minutes to speak. I imagine the club wasn’t that pressed for time, but correct me if I’m wrong.
The expectation of dues is also weird, since the website says that “Fees are due ONE month after you join the club”.
I’m not accusing anybody of malice, but it sounds like this particular meeting was pretty uptight.
Nobody called for the club to be shut down.
What happened, though not major, was the opposite of what the club had intentionally planned on doing. It was supposed to be a discussion of politics and the environment, and when a truly politically conscious person wanted to say a little bit he was silenced.
Eventually, he was able to speak for a limited two minutes, which is absurd. If you guys want to know something about politics — go to John Gerlach. Inside sources say that Nelson wanted to leave the club control in the hands of the students, but was appalled by the happenings of the club.
Really? You couldn’t let John give a quick little speech on the WA politician’s stances on the environment, which was the point of the meeting. Sure he hasn’t been there before, but couldn’t he be a guest speaker? The whole silencing thing is absurd.
I want to be clear, the club dues thing isn’t right. I was aware that it was going to be in one month, and I wasn’t even sure if it was ten dollars. I left because I had to go, and because I didn’t want to give the impression of interest in the club. I was not a member, and had no plans to be a member.
Also, while I would have loved to have had a debate on her stances, and was prepared for such a debate, I was actually there to recruit volunteers, or enlist the Club’s help in recruiting, because if you believe in protecting the environment, you believe in Chris Gregoire. Period. Dino Rossi doesn’t believe it exists. And we need volunteers, badly. Desperately.
For me, the biggest thing was not giving me a reason why, especially since Nelson had given me permission, permission for 5 minutes of talking. In those extra three minutes, I could have explained what we do, what exactly her stances were, and just get their attention more. She made me talk to them when they were in the middle of eating their food. That abuse of power was what bothered me more than anything else.
I talked to Nelson the next day, and she said that she thinks they didn’t even get to the debate on the candidates, though I haven’t confirmed that. She also said she wanted to make a point to the club, and that she wasn’t able to. What’s up with that?
Most of the officers have read this article and have decided to keep calm about this article.
I am not going to pretend however that the officers of Environmental Club are not upset by the accusations made in this article.
I want to remind all of writers and editors of this publication that they have a responsibility. The people that you have discussed in this article are real. They are not politicans that have been primed for a life of backlash and criticism. If Plateau Times has decided that they want to rival The Forum and other publications, its writers need learn the difference between journalism and LIBEL.
This publication has power. It has sought to be recognized as a legitimate source for Skyline news and discussion. However with that power comes responsibility. I urge everyone involved in the Plateau times to consider what they write. To them, it may seem like an edgy provocative piece; but to the subjects of the article, it feels like a sharp kick in the stomach.
I hate repeating myself but it seems like I will have to reiterate my former issues with the previous article about Environmental Club. Why is it that the author of this article did not interview actual officers of the club? Why is it that John Gerlach himself is disputing some of the “facts” of this article? It’s shabby journalism.
I wanted to remain silent about the issue because I didn’t want to give this article anymore power than it deserved. But this article is nothing more than cyber-bullying. I’m not sure what Environmental Club has done to provoke such vehemence but it needs to stop because people are getting hurt.
The correction was made. We used what we believed Gerlach to have said, it was wrong, and he corrected us on it. It was changed.
As for contacting the officers: An attempt was made, and it was rebuked. We spoke to a member who was there, and he or she agreed with the absurdity of the situation. Though, that person is not quoted in the article. The facts were checked, this happened.
We understand the publication has power, and in no way are we attempting to bring down the club or trash it. Rather, we are reporting on the fact of the situation, that a politically involved student, who wished to speak his mind on the topic of discussion, was silenced and then was somewhat disrespected in the limited time he had to speak. Maybe the members didn’t agree with what he had to say, but he went there just like everyone else.
The facts are the facts, and the story was reported on. The story was true, our facts were real, and we have the right to report on it. We have no intentions to cause emotional pain to anybody in the group, rather, to express a disheartening fact that troubled several The Plateau Times members. We discussed it, looked over the facts, and wrote a piece regarding it. We are not against Environmental Club; their goals are noble. We are just reporting.
The contents of this article are, by and large, not speculative. To the best of my knowledge, the events discussed within actually occurred. Unpleasant facts are facts nonetheless.
We’ve had John contribute his corrections, and Honor has spoke on behalf of the club. We welcome other club members—and readers in general—to comment on this article, but as it stands, there seems to be no other factual disputes.
I guess what I’m trying to say is can anybody cite and refute a fact from the article?
THIS WHOLE THING IS STUPID. Why would you even write an article about this? While I guess most of the “facts” are true, it is blown COMPLETELY out of proportion.
This article should just be erased. We can’t be producing this kind of junk if we want to have a club status.
I personally thought it was an interesting story when I first heard about it, but I realize the weight of the issue is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Just as I frequently disregard the sports articles posted here, those who do not care about this incident can skip over it.
We always want to hear about any factual disputes, but I hope we can put an end to the jabs at journalistic integrity. We’re not perfect, but we’re also not out to attack Environmental Club. Jeff tried to make this point clear in his article, but those considerations seem to be shadowed by the more controversial points. Make no mistake about our overall position regarding the club.
Again, significance is subjective and so we will keep this article up for those who care to read it. Let’s not get caught up in emotions that might put a stop to friendly relations.
I was going to try and have the last word but everything I’ve been running through my head are just variations of what Jordan posted.
The article does not represent all facts. The Plateau Times asked ONE officer to comment and then gave up on trying to contact the FIVE OTHER officers who were there. If the proper research really had been completed, I doubt this article would have been published only a day after the incident happened. Perhaps it would be wise, if the Plateau Times wishes to establish itself as a legitimite SHS club, for the publication to get an advisor. That way “news articles” like these can be avoided.
We’re not going to be an official club. That would put us under a couple school-related restrictions that we are not comfortable with.
I want to say this in the nicest way possible, but please refrain from complaining about facts without offering solid corrections or necessary additions. We’ve heard several times that we’re a cruddy paper, but we haven’t heard anything solid aside from John’s correction, which was fixed.
The Environmental Club of Skyline High School calls for a much-needed retraction of this article, a formal apology to both President Connie Kim and Environmental Club and an opportunity to publish their own editorial on this subject.
Considering the wrongful actions that have been committed not once, but twice, this reasonable request should be granted by the Plateau Times.
Here are a few mistakes in the article:
“When The Plateau Times attempted to contact Kim regarding the happenings of the meeting on Tuesday, she offered nothing more than a four letter word: ‘fine.’” No one contacted Connie specifically regarding this incident. This is a complete fabrication.
“If a group is aspiring to effect change, they will get nowhere except to the heights of hypocrisy if they stubbornly reject the opinions of non-members, which is exactly what happened at the first meeting of Environmental Club on Tuesday.” The opinion of John Gerlach was not rejected. It was his request for 5 minutes of our 45 minute meeting that was rejected. The meeting was planned carefully. In this meeting, we not only hoped to research the presidential candidate but also go over our club goals and requirements for members. So yes, we were a bit crunched for time.
Here are some things that are sensationalist or complete overstatements, both from the article and from some of the defenses of the article:
“rebuked by club president Connie Kim before even beginning to speak.”
“However, once Gerlach reached the meeting, he found his hopes of participation crushed by the bureaucracy present in the club.”
“Although hesitantly, Gerlach did wonder if political bias was at work, saying, “I may have imagined it, but she seemed a little miffed at the mention of the governor’s name.”” Yes, you imagined it. This impression should not be regarded as absolute fact. This is the only peice of “evidence” you have to support your argument that this was political bias.
“It was supposed to be a discussion of politics and the environment, and when a truly politically conscious person wanted to say a little bit he was silenced.” No, he was ALLOWED to speak. He was not silenced, he just had to shorten his message.
“Eventually, he was able to speak for a limited two minutes, which is absurd.” Why is this absurd? It was our club meeting and we had an agenda to get to. Why should his message take precendence over our own?
“Inside sources say that Nelson wanted to leave the club control in the hands of the students, but was appalled by the happenings of the club.” She left the control of the club in our hands. And she was certainly not appalled.
“You couldn’t let John give a quick little speech on the WA politician’s stances on the environment, which was the point of the meeting.” That actually was not the point of the meeting. We were researching the presidential candidates.
“As for contacting the officers: An attempt was made, and it was rebuked.” I sure as hell wasn’t called. None of my fellow officers were either.
Is this satisfactory?
“The story was true, our facts were real, and we have the right to report on it. We have no intentions to cause emotional pain to anybody in the group, rather, to express a disheartening fact that troubled several The Plateau Times members. We discussed it, looked over the facts, and wrote a piece regarding it. We are not against Environmental Club; their goals are noble. We are just reporting.” -Dow
every article you guys write has opinion. it is not right. do you think that the reader can’t hear the facts and think on his/her own? its sorta rediculous. Almost all of your article is speculation. inside sources should not be used unless it is life or death. if you can’t say who said nelson wanted to let the students lead the group then don’t say it. LET THE STORY TELL ITSELF
I completely understand the needs of the club to maintain a strict meeting schedule, and I regret that I caused a problem by breaking it up. However, no one told me this. I had talked to Nelson before the meeting multiple times and she had said five minutes. As for it taking precedence, I agree it shouldn’t. You guys have an agenda, and I guess I wrongfully assumed that you would be immediately appreciative of something I am dedicated to on the same level that you are dedicated to the environment.
I also understand how it would be difficult to have some kid who hasn’t been a member in the past come up and request a speaking role in the first meeting. However, if someone had just explained to me WHY I couldn’t do it, and offered me a counter option, believe me, I would have completely understood. I know what it is like to try to corral a large group of people. But to be clear, without a reason given, this can be qualified as a rebuke. That is my main point.
As for the speculation, yes there was a lot of it, especially the political bias thing. There is no evidence to suggest that there was political bias, except that I really thought I saw something. I’m sorry for repeating that, but again, if someone had simply given me a legitimate reason this would have been even more of a non-issue than it is now.
I think in general that it is important to note that as The Plateau Times is a privately maintained newspaper, we as readers can comment, but we also have to live with, within reason, what is written, and accept that most of these articles are slanted one way or another, as is almost all news. The upside of this is that it creates and stimulates discussion, the downside is that people on the side that the article is not slanted may feel affronted. Posting, as everyone has done here, is the best thing you can do to remedy this.
I agree that this has also been blown out of proportion. However, I suggest to the Environmental Club, that instead of asking for a retraction, as a compromise post your own editorial on your website or, if Bill allows it, on this one, briefly summarizing your side of the events and then outlining a policy for incidents like this in the future.
I hope that this resolves some, if not all of the issues here. I think it is clear that the article was addressing this particular issue in general, and should not be viewed as a rebuke of the club as a whole. I, for one, completely support the club and its activities.
On another note, Chris Gregoire desperately needs volunteers. Talk to me at school if you are interested. I’m the kid with the Gregoire sticker on his big ass backpack. There are only 38 days left until Election Day!
We are not retracting the article.
Environmental Club, like anyone else, can write for The Plateau Times. I have nothing against hosting articles critical of ourselves, as long as it is done tastefully.
If such an article were written, I would precede this article with a disclaimer and link to the rebuttal.
Tony: I would have expected more from you. I mean that in the most sincere way. As your friend, I find it pretty offensive that you would come to our website and swear at us. I’m not deleting any comments, but I ask that you keep things tasteful regardless of whether you use your name.
Emma: Thanks! That’s the kind of rebuttal that could be worked into something more formal (at least the points addressing the article itself). Ideally the format of such an article would be more than a point-by-point dissection, but at least we have something there.
Anonymous #234: I challenge you to find three articles of our 70+ repertoire that are based around making fun of people. That’s not a fair statement.
In regards to editorial slant: We are not your CNN. If you want objectivity in every article, go elsewhere. Perhaps we haven’t made it clear enough, perhaps people need to stop expecting objectivity whenever they hear the word “news”, but let it be known that we are not promising impartiality. When we introduced ourselves, we expressed a hope to be your “soapbox and megaphone”. Think of us like that.
All the complainers: Have you forgot that this is a website? Have you forgot that we are your peers? Do I need to remind everyone that once you step away from your computer and regain your cool, this article means nothing?
Stop treating us like the propaganda machine and start treating us like people. You aren’t talking to The Plateau Times. You are talking to Alex Hanson.
The Environmental Club is completely welcome to write an article challenging our methods. That is o.k. I feel that everything that could have been stated rebutting this article can and as been, though, and people aren’t ignoring the 21 comments. The retraction request will not be honored, plainly because everything stated in this article is valid. The wildest accusation is the “miffed response to Gregoire’s name,” and even such is stated as John’s opinion.
Remember: this wasn’t a critique of the club as a whole. The Environmental Club sets aims at mending a problem troubling our common-day world. The motives behind the club are noble, and The Plateau Times recognizes that. The article, as John said, was simply to document the situation, which several people found absurd. All of the facts were valid, and whether you believe that they were overblown or not, they all occurred. The first Environ. Club article was complete editorial. It wasn’t criticizing the club, just saying what they COULD HAVE done to draw more attention to the recycling cause.
Here’s the (hopefully final) comment on the situation:
The Plateau Times and its contributors do not type with malice toward the Environmental Club. We simply tried to report the happenings of the club in this article, and what we believed could have been done in the first. We also do not wish to cause emotional pain to any member of the club or any person stated in these articles. If we have caused said distress, we apologize, but wish to make clear that it was not our intention.
—
Tony: Really? Have some respect for yourself and stave from posting that kind of stuff. If you want to critique, do it in a civilized manner much like the Hawkins, Gerlach, or Faires have. Your hatred for us simply because we “rival” The Forum is disappointing; we didn’t desire such a response.
I agree with the other posters that this article is truly unnecessary. I mean can you seriously classify this as news? Or just an attempt to arouse attention to such a minor event? I mean who wants to read about a kid who was just unable to voice opinions at an already fixed club meeting? I know I don’t.And yes I did read this article, but only because I know that the Environmental Club (Connie and all of the other officers) wouldn’t do such a thing and I find it ridiculous that PT would report so much BS surrounding a minor event. If some kid interrupted their History test by farting, would you write an article about that? Honestly, before writing an article think about this: if you were to publish all the articles on paper, which articles would people want to/most likely read?
Envir. Club is probably one of the most organized clubs in the entire school. So maybe John should have just asked one of the officers about the possibility of his speaking at the meeting, as the club is run by the officers. I’m not trying to attack John or anything, but I think if he had done so, this situation and article could have completely been avoided. I’m sure that John would have received the same response if he did this at other club meetings. By asking beforehand if the club can fit your announcements into their meetings, the club would probably try to fix their schedules to do so.
Why don’t you guys write an article about Connie winning the $10,000 Nordstrom College scholarship instead? Now that would be an interesting read.
On behalf of Bill and I, we have nothing more to say.
This conversation is going in circles. If the article wasn’t worth reading, then we’re sorry to have wasted your time.
So if you wish to continue circular debate, do it among yourselves. If you want to have a serious discussion, find us at school.
Wow… Are you saying that a Highschool club did not do a satisfactory job in allowing a guest speaker to express his opinions/ point of view on a particular subject? All I can say is that I am profoundly shocked that an organization founded by and organized around a group of highschoolers could do such a poor job! You know I bet they chose to reject his opinion because of his ties to the Democratic Campaign! This would be expected considering environmnetal clubs long history of right wing bias! I mean come on! Who would start an environmental club other than die hard republicans? Ok lets be serious, Dow, your newspaper isn’t some bastion of objective thought, its basically a reflection of any particular opinion that you or one of your writers may have. That being said, I now turn my attention to those in charge of the environmental club. You screwed up… oops maybe this “event” didn’t turn out the way you wanted to. Boo hoo how sad! That being said own up to it, say “Maybe through lack of organization, motivation, etc. we were not able to put on a fair and/or complete open discussion of contrasting environmental views. Maybe thats because we’re a HIGHSCHOOL CLUB. Hey! Maybe in the future we shouldn’t take ourselves so seriously as to get offended about what someone writes on an online newspaper!”
***first off: i would like to apologize for the language that i previously posted on this site. I was in the heat of the moment and made a mistake. I hope you can all forgive me, but when all you hear at school is how the forum sucks from plateau times writers it gets pretty frustrating.
With that said, I would love to see the recent statement that i sent bill show up on this website. sometimes people need a reminder about their purpose. but if it does not show up then i will just post it as a comment anyway.
alex. when you say we are talking to you and not the times, you cant be further from the truth. this is a news reporting website, or so i thought, and a mistake was made. so none of this is personal, its all about the sites intentions.
at the end of the day, i still see all of the writers for the times as friends. people make mistakes. i know i did when i used profanity on the site and you should know you did when you submitted this article.
I guess I’m going to break my previous statement of “nothing more to say”, since the tides have changed a bit here.
Tony: Well when they are criticizing an article, they are criticizing The Plateau Times. When they are debating me in the comments, they are talking to me. That’s the why I see it at least. I just want people to talk to us over the Internet like they would talk to us in person.
Anyway, apology accepted in full. I haven’t personally talked to you about The Forum at school, but I hope that when the others do it is friendly ribbing instead of genuine competition. We’re not trying to replace The Forum.
As an impartial reader, I appreciate this. I write for The Plateau Times but I don’t affiliate myself with all the opinions on this site. I like this because I’m not a member of Environmental Club so it’s the first time I’ve heard much about it. And I’m not coming away with a bad impression of anyone, given the 20+ comments I read from my peers.