Editor-in-Chief Jessie Welcomer stared, a little distressed, a little stunned, as she was asked to make a quick decision about the possible use of profanity in The Acalanes High Blueprint. She hesitated embarrassedly; with the possible reputation of the newspaper at stake, a wrong choice could be costly.

At the advisor’s request, I had approached Welcomer and requested to use the f-word in an article as part of a direct quote from a court case. However, I was acting as part of a temporary conspiracy to gauge her reaction. The advisor had predicted a decision that using the word would go beyond the editorial boundaries of taste.

After several moments of stressful pondering, she decided that she wouldn’t feel comfortable printing a direct expletive, even in the context of a story about profanity itself, and would prefer to replace some of the letters with asterisks.

Welcomer’s reaction encompasses the ethical dilemma facing editors. Technically, profanity is legally permitted in public school student publications, according to Adam Goldstein of the Student Press Law Center.

“There’s no amount of profanity that would inherently violate” the law, said Goldstein.
However, the comedic or shock value of using an expletive should preferably outweigh the risk of upsetting the reader and degrading the standing of the newspaper.

The focus on whether or not profanity belongs in a school newspaper emerged after the publication of a cartoon in the previous issue of Blueprint that used a watered-down version of a swear word. When interviewed about the presence of the term, most adults agreed that the paper had crossed a line, while many students reacted with indifference.

“I wouldn’t say I was upset, but I was not happy. I don’t think that we need expletives in our high school newspaper,” said math teacher Arnie Hoffman.

The incident of partial profanity in Blueprint sparks additional discussion about the nature of “virtual profanity,” wording that is clearly meant to represent an expletive without stating it explicitly. Although some people may not be absolutely certain about what the language represents because some parts are removed, it is clearly implied that only a few letters could replace the removed letters in the term.

For example, if one replaced the asterisk with an “O,” the word would be shot. If one replaced the asterisk with a “U,” the word would be shut. Since replacing it with an “E” does not result in an actual word, that only leaves two realistic options for the masked word. The word could only be either a certain noun or the past tense of the verb form of said noun, leaving little room for interpretation deviating from the word’s identity.

Many say that using only symbols instead of replacing one letter with one symbol could have lessened the seriousness of alluding to an expletive in the cartoon, and some feel that the masking the word could even have been taken a step further.

“Four symbols would have been an improvement, maybe five, just because four implies one of only a couple words,” said history teacher Jed Morrow.

California law is not explicitly clear on whether or not profanity is prohibited in student publications. Section 48907 of the California Education Code, the student free press law, prohibits content that is “obscene, libelous, or slanderous,” content that will “create a clear and present danger” to the public, and asserts that it is the journalism advisor’s responsibility “to maintain professional standards of English and journalism.”

 Dictionary definitions show that obscenity and profanity are not synonymous; however, whether profane language or implied profanity falls under rule of 48907 depends on its effect on the public.

Some claim that the use of profanity, even in a somewhat incomplete form, is unprofessional. However, others disagree, noting that many printed materials that are considered professional allude to profane language.

  “I can think of a lot of professional publications that are exceptionally profane. It’s erroneous as a matter of logic, let alone as a matter of law, to say that profanity is unprofessional,” said Goldstein.

However, Blueprint advisor Larry Freeman respectfully disagreed with Goldstein’s interpretation.

“Case law in California, 1995 Lopez v. Tulare Joint Union High School District, makes it very clear that profanity as used by students in projects, under Ed. Code 48907, is not permitted. That was the ruling in the case law. I quote from the court, which said, ‘while students have recognized free speech rights, school districts may limit certain types of speech under section 48907.’

That includes what I will refer to as the f-word, the s-word, the word that pertains to a female member of the canine species, or the son of said female member of the canine species, even a word pertaining to a donkey, a three letter word, and a three letter reference to a woman’s breast. [These words] are clearly prohibited under 48907 by California case law,” said Freeman.

Behind the legal issues of dealing with profanity in newspapers are the ethical ramifications of the practice.

“If the word is not necessary to add to [the] meaning, and it’s just for what I would call shock value or gratuitous effect... better judgment indicates that you refrain from it unless it serves some kind of necessary purpose of accuracy. That would be pretty rare and have to be strongly considered,” said Freeman.

Part of the hype about profanity, in newspapers especially, stems from the reality of the permanence of the written word. The immortal existence of print journalism contrasts starkly with online content, which can be easily deleted, and television programs, which are often viewed once and forgotten.

“I think that journalists have to have a higher standard than just anybody blogging or on the web. To me, print media is still held to a higher standard. In some ways, I respect it more to this day than a lot of what’s on the Internet,” said Morrow.

The application of virtual profanity applies not only to newspapers and online journalism, but also in real life when words are replaced with seemingly gentler forms. Some call into question the purpose of replacing a word when the actual word is presumably known by the intended audience. This reasoning plays on the assumption that the taboo nature of a swear word is in its impact, not the word itself.

“These are just syllables, and when people say ‘effing,’ it doesn’t really change their meaning,” said math teacher Bruce Downing.

Despite the fact that the meaning of the implied word may not be any different, many feel that masking its true identity decreases the severity of the statement.

  “You don’t want to hear [swear words] in the hallways of the school or in your daily conversation. So if they’re completely omitted, even if I know what is being said, it doesn’t sound as bad to me,” said Hoffman.

Part of the reason that replacing the word diminishes its effect is the knowledge that the speaker made an effort to avoid potentially offensive language.
“They actually made a conscious decision not to say the word, so rather than not thinking about what they’re saying, they actually thought about what they were saying. They self-censored,” said history teacher Joe Schottland.

Some teachers use a form of implied profanity in the classroom for emphasis. They might pause or insert a kid-friendly alternative to foul language to show that a word was omitted, making a point while trying to avoid irreverence.

“Sometimes teachers will even do that in discussing to the class. They’ll say, ‘bleep.’ But saying ‘bleep’ is a lot different than saying the actual word,” said Morrow.

Some students, however, find this practice pointless because it’s often obvious what the reference was meant to represent.

 “I think it’s kind of funny when teachers use implied swear words. They might as well just swear, because we all know what they mean,” said a senior who requested anonymity.
Fighting students’ use of profanity seems like a useless battle for many, and adults often choose to ignore the younger generation’s word choices. Perhaps Blueprint’s cartoon was the product of the cultural phenomenon of swearing.

“We’ve become so jaded because of our own use of profanity,” said Goldstein. “It’s no longer even unusual, let alone shocking, for students to see profane language or to hear it.”