Yesterday, May 19, the OCSArts account posted that the EmpowHer and Medical Club hosted a fundraiser on its page and pushed it out through Student/Parent Square. The promotional graphic outlines the pricing and other information surrounding the fundraiser; however, many OCSA students noticed that the promotion seemed to be made with AI. This led to widespread outrage within the student body, who were quick to criticize the school’s choice and take to social media to express their discontent with the school.
The original post was deleted just a few hours after it was made, and EmpowHer and the OCSA Medical Club both issued apologies on their Instagram pages. This apology came soon after a protest against AI was planned by OCSA students to happen Thursday morning. They have since issued a new promotion, this time human-made, following the apology.
They also promised that 30% of the proceeds will now be donated to the ArtNotAI organization, a start-up charity without a non-profit status. The choice of organization has been criticized, as there is little cohesive information on it. The organization’s website does not disclose where the donated money goes or which other organizations are joined with its cause and also does not currently have social media accounts set up, saying they’ll have them “soonish”.
However, even after the apology, the event organizer – Jackson Brady – has stayed firm on his stance, asserting that the protest still needed to happen and elaborating that even if it’s good that they apologized, “They can’t undo what they did, and I want to get a group together to show them they can’t get away with this kind of thing.”
The student body seems mostly in agreement, with many speaking out on their socials in support of Brady’s stance, saying that AI goes against the artistry OCSA is supposed to cultivate. “They shouldn’t feel safe to promote any AI in this school, because this is a school of artists, and AI directly threatens us as students,” he added, doubling down that the protest must happen regardless of the apology to deter something similar from happening in the future and that the promotion betrayed the core values of OCSA as an arts school.
Brady cited a larger reasoning than just the promotion, saying the school has been noticeably using AI in smaller ways before this, but he told the OCSA Ledger that this was the final straw because “it’s the first time it’s really out there for people to see, and I think it’s good to take action now before it’s too late.” Reflecting that the protest’s goals lie within protecting OCSA’s image and showing the student body’s distaste for AI before it’s too late. His end goal is for OCSA to “remove any AI material they have out right now and for teachers and staff to stop using it in their emails and assignments”.
When pushed on how far he wants to take this stance, he said, “I don’t want to see AI anywhere on our campus; it’s not welcome here” and that “there should be regulations on teachers using it for assignments because it can be harmful and a real slippery slope, but more than anything, we need to bring awareness so it’s used less.”
At the protest itself this morning, students gathered with signs and pamphlets, chanting, “Mr. Neal! Keep it real! No AI at OCSA, deal?” Many were there for different reasons, but most seemed to echo Brady’s statement that it betrayed the school’s values. “I got removed from my major because of a suspicion of AI; it’s completely hypocritical and not fair at all, and we need to do something about it,” said protester Naiyah Negron when asked about why they felt it was important to make it out and protest.
In an interview with the OCSA Ledger, EmpowHer representative Miah Beltran spoke about where the AI poster came from, saying that it was created by EmpowHer president, Soleil Franceschi, during an extreme time crunch. She added that as soon as someone questioned Franceschi, “she instantly regretted it” and that “within twenty minutes she made a new one and sent it to the school, but the school used the AI one.”
Regarding the backlash they faced, the club has vowed to not use AI for club advertisements again. Beltran also agreed with the sentiment of the protest and understands why the situation has spiraled the way it has but says she doesn’t think the club should be “covered up and cornered” over their mistake and that the president had no intent to shadow the visual arts department, as “in her mind posters aren’t the art, like, don’t represent art; they are just something made to be visually appealing.”
Putting her involvement with the situation aside, she also added that she’s glad “artists and students are speaking about it”, because it shows that the student body is willing to speak up against anything they might not stand for in the future.
As for the uninvolved student body, those who were neither on EmpowHer nor participants of the protest, most seem in support of the spirit yet skeptical of their methods, especially those that were watching the lunchtime protests. “I mean, I feel like it’s good that they’re doing it, but I don’t feel like it’s doing anything. Like maybe it’s getting attention, but the school’s not doing crap about it,” commented Band Major Renata Tubillas. The sentiment was echoed by others, with visual artist Anthony Chamorro saying, “I don’t really think it’s doing anything, but it’s a nice thing.”
Other students have shared that they thought the protest was misguided due to its call to action for Mr. Neal’s involvement and the emphasis on also restricting AI for teachers. “I do agree with them, but also I feel like they are targeting teachers, but they didn’t do anything; it was more the students, so it doesn’t make sense,” said dance major Abi Torres. “I think they’re handling it well, but I just feel like they’re targeting Mr. Neal when it was really a student who made it because they needed to,” added her fellow dance major, Abigail Roman.
Overall, the blame has been shifty on whether the staff or students are to blame and whether the people behind the protest handled it appropriately in regard to that. As such, we also interviewed Visual Art teacher, Angel Rivera, about the situation. “I was aware of it due to a post I saw in relationship to that, and I think us being an art school, all these opportunities for promotion should be turned into opportunities for students to develop their creative process,” he said in regard to the promotional material itself. In regard to the protest, he said: “I think that always coming up with a statement about what you believe is important because it creates awareness.” Even if you don’t get what you expect in the beginning, the awareness can eventually filter into something closer to our expectations.”
But that doesn’t mean he fully agrees with their demands. When it comes to AI use for teachers, he said, “I think this kind of tool is something that got here to stay. I honestly don’t think that forbidding the use of it will help. We are living in a real world; around us, everything is changing. If we deny ourselves the capacity to work with technology and to learn how to use it, we’re staying behind.” But that does not mean he agrees with the practices the students are opposing, as he admitted AI can be a useful tool for teachers, but it cannot replace actual teaching strategies, saying that “You can always create beautiful assignments, but if you do not know how to implement them, if you don’t know how to support your students as they learn, then you’re doing nothing. AI won’t do the work for them.”
The situation itself is complex and multifaceted. It seems like the multiple angles to which it is being approached create difficulties when it comes to generating actual results; however, most of the campus seems to share a positive outlook on our student body’s ability to rally together and fight for what we believe in, regardless of what response might actually arise from it.
