The administrative ban-hammer struck, and this time it’s axing a lip dub.
Twelve juniors on the Winter Ball marketing team spent an ACT period creating a lip dub to promote the Hollywood premiere-themed dance. In the video, nine students were featured wearing formal suits and dresses while mouthing lyrics to Michael Bublé’s “Feeling Good,” dancing, and walking down an imaginary red carpet.
Despite the soundtrack, though, the administration (“admin”) was not feeling good about the video. In reality, the juniors were told by admin that one scene in which Henry F. ’26 and another junior strut down an aisle wearing dresses could be “perceived as offensive or like a joke,” Henry recalls. Owing to a lack of time, the juniors never refilmed and hence, never published it.
In a later interview, Mr. Bonar, a Stud Gov facilitator, clarified admin’s stance on the reel’s censorship, saying, “It came off as performative in my opinion. I know that was not the intent, but I could see how it would be received that way. I didn’t think that that was a good message to send out to our community.” He also added that other administrators — Whitney Suttell, Hans de Grys, and Ryan Boccuzzi saw the reel and that the decision was made collectively.
First of all, the choice “wasn’t necessarily a joke,” Henry clarifies. “Definitely a humorous act, but mainly driven by the fact that I didn’t have the suit I was supposed to bring.”
When Tatler reached out to the 12 juniors on the Winter Ball marketing team for comment on the situation, only one junior agreed to share their opinion on the banning, and only under anonymity, explaining “I’m not tryna have my name in the paper and be the only one going after the administration.”
Their opinion was that the censorship was “way too far. It’s good to consider how something will be received and who will be affected, but in the case of the Winter Ball video, that just seems like it came outta left field.”
Personally, I agree. The choice came from a place of flawed reasoning and also resonates with my general annoyance with administrative rejection. Though often there’s a solid reason, the logic is twisted this time.
To sum it up, in the junior’s words, “If I was a dress-wearing man and that was something I cared about, I feel like it would be cool to see that represented in a Stud Gov video. I just think that pointing it out as being wrong abnormalizes [it] even more.” Similarly, I believe there’s nothing in this reel that points to the dress having a humorous intent.
But ultimately for Mr. Bonar, in his opinion, the decision to show Henry wearing a dress could’ve been seen as a joke. Especially in light of national politics, he wanted “to err on the side of caution” and not make students feel like they couldn’t come to school as their true selves; he argued that in this case, the impact mattered more than the intent.
Of all the other juniors on the team, two agreed to speak on the record, but only on facts. In addition, only I was allowed to see the unpublished lip dub.
The reason for this silence? Cailyn C. ’26, a member of the marketing committee, says it is because she “doesn’t know the situation well enough to make any statements about it.” Adding on, she thinks the “only issue people are encountering with doing this interview is that they might get in trouble by [the] administration.” And it makes me concerned that everyone’s so afraid of speaking out.
All in all, this decision isn’t life-changing. But the issue is that the lip-dub-that-never-was doesn’t exist in isolation: Admin, over this past year, has continually censored or altered student initiatives for reasons that are, quite frankly, trivial. As a member of Stud Gov who regularly interfaces with the admin, I should know. Put simply, I believe that admin should be more chill.
“Admin, over this past year, has continually censored or altered student initiatives for reasons that are, quite frankly, trivial.”
There are small examples of this phenomenon. For example, the decision to shut down the idea of having a Shark Tank-style club competition to fund unique, creative, and larger projects; the largest voice of opposition, admin, reasoned that Stud Gov as a body shouldn’t be promoting competition within our community but instead be uniting it.
In September, for a spirit booster, students had to stack Jenga blocks; failure meant having a .5 photo taken of you (with consent) and posted on the “wall of shame” on @lsstudgov, Stud Gov’s official Instagram account (with consent). Even though the name “wall of shame” was clearly a joke with all students involved knowing so, admin eventually decided to change the name to “topple troupe” because of similar reasoning to the previous example. Another instance of what I see as a pointless and clumsy change.
Speaking of spirit boosters, this year the well-liked events were rebranded from being called “Stressbuster” because the admin thought the name carried negative implications. Once again, a meaningless choice. Though these examples are more minor, this problem of censorship and fear has been pervasive, often affecting larger projects and needs.
In October 2024, for instance, a Stud Gov representative was expelled. However, in the following months when the notion of filling that gap was brought up, we were told that discussing this situation was inappropriate and thus, Stud Gov will not be electing or appointing another representative. This silence on the vacant spot even persists now. However, a simple search on Stud Gov’s newsletter or website shows that there are only 15 members. After talking with Mr. Bonar, he said the expulsion was not an event “that can be easily wrapped up for everyone in a month or two.” I understand that rushing to appoint another representative is inconsiderate, but will admin try to keep silent forever? It also hurts the sophomore class to be underrepresented — and we have the opportunity for a fresh perspective on the team.
Lastly, the most irritating and disappointing event was while first introducing two new projects: Stud Gov file reorganization and SAGE reforms. Reps had reached out before to faculty members to learn about how the project could be run. Then, admin told us they did not want representatives talking to other people about prospective Stud Gov projects at all before first presenting them to Stud Gov at a meeting. They confirmed this includes reaching out to teachers about the feasibility of a project. Even though I agree that all projects should go by Stud Gov, preventing any progress on ideas before sharing with a group seems a bit counterintuitive — wouldn’t it be more efficient to get a grasp on the execution of an idea before sharing it?
Mr. Bonar explained that his perspective reflected wanting students to slow down on ideas and prevent the unfortunate situation of hard work only to face a shutdown. This is a fair point — however, my biggest frustration is still admin trying to control what conversations we have; it feels too restrictive. Especially Stud Gov’s one short B5 period per week with myriad other things to discuss, I believe reps should do their homework before bringing up an idea officially.
Don’t get me wrong — I strongly believe admin should be a body to ensure we don’t go too out of control; I genuinely appreciate their concerns for details when they make sense and help develop ideas. But when they restrict our freedom, it’s too far.
In fact, I fear this constant shutdown of ideas has stifled Stud Gov’s creativity and innovation, making us drastically more conservative with ideas. In several cases, I have seen representatives reject their own ideas even before admin could, many with great potential. Perhaps, even students’ view of what is reasonable at school has been shaped by admin’s mindset of choosing to avoid any potential negative effects over some good old fun. Conversely, Rohan D. ’25, Lakeside’s Student Body President, points out that younger students tend to be more hesitant since it’s “part of how it is to be the youngest” and not necessarily’s admin’s fault. More experienced representatives are more willing to share things, but while carrying an expectation that admin will “cut down” on some things. As a first-year rep, I feel there’s a mix. It does feel intimidating being new, but it still seems like a lot of the censoring comes from an administrative sentiment.
Going forward, I hope administrators can learn to trust representatives and encourage creativity or passion instead of treating our projects like potential disasters. First, hear the student’s reasoning and their why behind an idea before immediately saying no. Second, learn to take a joke! Let more fun stuff happen! You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. But until this feeling of control recedes, Student Government is but a puppet of the administration.