Magazine criticized for lack of student inclusion
In the 2012 edition of “Leonardo”, CNM’s literary magazine, editors abused power for their own personal gain, said Allocation Board member James Roach.
Of the five editors, three had five or more of their own works published in the magazine. Out of hundreds of student submissions, only 25 total authors and artists were included, according to the magazine’s table of contents.
“Leonardo”, which was released in April, started with 243 submissions this year, which is about the average number received each year, said “Leonardo” Adviser and full time CHSS instructor Patrick Houlihan.
“I am ashamed of how these students have selfishly taken advantage of this student organization to make themselves feel more important; it’s just distasteful,” said Roach.
The magazine used to be a project for a class which has been since cut from the curriculum, said Houlihan. All of the editors and layout designers are volunteers, he said.
The pieces that made it into the magazine were chosen by a majority vote, said General Studies graduate and “Leonardo” Editor Cat Hubka. Hubka had 10 pieces in the magazine, more than any other contributor.
“Leonardo” Editor Joel Wigelsworth was not available for comment; no contact information could be located for editors Aaron Stout, Milly Leyva or Leah Leyva
“Everything came down to votes. If three of the editors voted for it; it got in,” said Hubka.
Selection guidelines may be needed for “Leonardo”, said Roach, who has worked with literary magazines before. Selection should be left open, but editors should be limited to a maximum of two works, he said. To avoid favoritism, submissions should be limited to three per applicant, said Roach.
“These guidelines are pretty simple, and standard for most literary magazines,” said Roach.
If the magazine had more time, more submissions would have made been included in the magazine, said Hubka. There was also a shortage of art work submissions, she said. Editors were also concerned about layout because they did not want to go over budget, said Hubka.
“I didn’t know how the software and layout worked, or I would have crammed more in the magazine,” said Hubka.
More pieces could have been put in “Leonardo”, said layout designer for “Leonardo”, Jonathan Gamboa, who also works for the CNM Chronicle. The magazine had a 50 page minimum and pieces were placed, on average, one to a page just to fill space, he said. All the pieces for the magazine had already been chosen when he came into the project, said Gamboa.
“Pretty much with design you can do anything. There’s no limit,” said Gamboa.
The magazine was a total of 65 pages and took two days to design.
“Leonardo” is a student organization and is allotted funding by the Allocations Boards to put something together that represents the students, said Roach. The magazine is given more money than the average student organization because they are a campuswide publication made for the benefit of all students, said Roach.
“If “Leonardo” did what they did, but only used the minimum amount of student funds that all student organizations get, then I wouldn’t have had a problem with an abuse of power,” said Roach.
To Whom It May Concern:
Someone recently made me aware of the May 22nd Chronicle article on Leonardo, CNM’s literary magazine. Some pretty inflammatory statements and accusations were made in that article. I would like an opportunity to put in my two cents.
I’m not likely to make any friends with the following testimony, but I am more interested in truth than gaining allies. I will state my case without naming names, at least for now.
Did some editors saturate the 2012 edition of Leonardo with their work? I believe so. I was not in support of the large number of pieces per editor in Leonardo. I was fairly vocal about it among select friends, classmates, and CNM instructors—and my wife certainly got more than an earful. Should I have been more vocal within the editorial staff, and with Patrick Houlihan, the faculty advisor for Leonardo? With the glorious gift of hindsight, yes. Well, here comes a big nasty secret; I did not care much for my co-editors on a professional level. I often exercised silence as a means of maintaining a professional relationship and not losing my temper. When it comes to negotiations I generally have two settings: peacemaker, and Tasmanian Devil. I tend to err on the side of passiveness when no one’s health, well-being, or civil liberties are at stake. In retrospect, I should have been more vocal, but I was just trying to keep the peace and get the magazine out.
The Chronicle article stated that James Roach of the Allocation Board feels that more than two published works by an editor is too many. Perhaps he is correct. Why do I have five published works in the 2012 edition? I submitted six fine art photos, another photo of a woodcarving I made, and three literary works. I didn’t submit all of those items because of any kind of ego trip, but because I always advocate for variety—the more options, the better. Although I have some artistic accomplishments under my belt, anyone who knows me will tell you that I don’t take myself too seriously. I don’t think anyone should take themselves too seriously, and I don’t keep the company of those who do. Of all my submissions, one literary work and three photos were published. More of my photos were approved but I voted against their inclusion because I felt it was wrong for an editor to have so many works published. What about the cover, you ask? I threw it together one evening so we would have something to fall back on if we didn’t receive any cover submissions. In fact, we didn’t.
The article lists 243 total submissions. I don’t know where this number came from. I looked back through my Leonardo-related e-mails at the submissions and counted 113 literary works, and 54 art pieces—a grand total of 167. In all, 22 authors were published out of 32 applicants. Some works had to be rejected solely for excessive length. Patrick Houlihan advised us that previous editions were kept in the low 60’s for page count because of limitations for stapling or binding. This is where our page count came from. I’ll admit that 17 published works of art looks bad compared to 54 submitted, but four of those rejected were mine, and 14 others came in an anonymous .zip file without attribution. Others were of poor resolution quality. We simply didn’t have a lot to work with. By comparison, the 2011 edition had 80 published works of art.
I petitioned Patrick Houlihan and the editorial staff to push back the deadline for submissions, and despite some opposition the request was approved. For the sake of conjuring up more material, I made announcements in my classes, sent e-mails to students who I knew had literary or artistic talent, asked instructors to make announcements in their other classes, and accosted people in the hallways if I saw them carrying a portfolio. Unfortunately, very little came of my frantic campaigning.
I made further efforts to level the playing field. After initial editorial voting I noticed that one person submitted five literary works without a single one being chosen, and suggested that we include at least one, which we did. Another author submitted two works which were also not selected, but I strongly advocated for the inclusion of one as I found it to be an exceptional work of fiction, and it eventually made the issue. Furthermore, many of the literary works I voted for were left out, and several I voted against were included. Such is the democratic process.
Allocation Board member James Roach had some strong opinions on the 2012 edition of Leonardo. I will agree with him that guidelines should be put in place for Leonardo editors. I will also agree that certain aspects of the last issue are distasteful. However, I will strongly disagree with Mr. Roach that I took advantage of any student organization. I tried my damned best to include more people and works, to better represent the full spectrum of talent within CNM, and to provide a public outlet for aspiring writers and artists. Despite the allegations of Mr. Roach, I personally don’t need Leonardo to feel important. I am an accomplished photographer, artist, and writer. My selfish gains as he calls them consist of being able to add editor and cover design to a resume, a lot of lost sleep, some heartburn, and a few more gray hairs. I don’t appreciate him including all Leonardo editors in his negative blanket statements, as not everyone was deserving of this condemnation.
I was compelled to respond to this article because I have a reputation for being an honest, helpful, and nice individual. I consistently assist both students and faculty in numerous ways, occasionally to my detriment. I simply could not stand by and have this reputation tarnished by someone making a blanket statement based on incomplete information. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joel Wigelsworth
Leonardo 2012 Co-Editor