Anthony Pesce

I recently took a photo down off of the Daily Bruin website for “security reasons.” One of the most delightful parts of my job as Editor of the Daily Bruin at UCLA is dealing with the many constituencies that make up the university when they’re mad at the paper, and generally when I say “dealing with” I mean putting out fires. The most recent frantic call I took from an administrator had to deal with a portrait we took of our newly minted Sustainability Coordinator on campus. It was a very well done portrait. I’m sad you can’t see it, because apparently it included a large security risk to the university.

What conceivable security risk could have been in a portrait? UCLA has its own co-generation power plant. It’s part of what helps the university to reduce its carbon footprint because it recycles water to generate some of the energy we use every day on campus. It’s a good thing to have when the university has launched a marketing blitz about their green efforts, and it’s a very visible building in the area: anyone in Westwood can see huge plumes of steam bellowing out of it on any given night. In fact I was told about the plant on my first visit to UCLA, as a senior in high school, from an administrator giving a talk to an incoming group of students. We took the portrait from the roof of a building next to the power plant, and in the background the plant was clearly visible.

That was the problem. The plant was visible. Apparently UCLA doesn’t allow anyone to publish pictures of power plant equipment (including the outside of the building), because if someone were to attack the university it would be an obvious target. Never mind that all buildings in the area have been updated to the latest seismic standards, and part of that process was including thick firewalls to protect buildings adjacent to the plant in case something went horribly wrong. And never mind that the plant is clearly visible to all members of the public who happen to walk by.

The university demanded we remove the photo from our website because the angle we took the photo from couldn’t necessarily be accessed by a casual member of the public that wasn’t being escorted by our new Sustainability Coordinator. They didn’t provide me with a specific reason for removing that photo, for instance they didn’t actually confirm there was equipment in the photo that could compromise the plant if tampered with. They simply said that they have never allowed photos of the plant to be published for “security reasons,” it had been a long standing policy, and we should have been aware of it.

I have no way of knowing if the precise angle of the portrait we took could have compromised the university, and it’s not like I have the resources to determine the legitimacy of the claim myself. Under the circumstances I think I was obligated to simply take the information I was given by the administrator at face value. I certainly would have appreciated it if he would have taken the time to actually give me comprehensive answers to my questions, or some hint that this was a grave matter. But the approach was firm but casual. It didn’t seem terribly urgent, only when I said I would have to think about it did he get worried. If he had done a better job of convincing me I certainly wouldn’t have written this post.

So, I pose the following questions to the journalistic public: Did I do the right thing? Would you have done the same thing? Any general advice on dealing with administrators? Do you know something about pictures of the outside of power plants I don’t?

Follow me on twitter @anthonyjpesce