NationStates Jolt Archive

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.

Hoover said Friday the photos are art and made no apologies.

"I'm an artist, and I'm going to participate in the arts," Hoover said. "If that's not something they want me to do, then I want to be told that. I don't feel as if I was doing anything that was beyond expectations."

The school district said the photos were inappropriate and violate the "higher moral standard" expected of public-school teachers. As she was escorted out of class last month she was told she's become an ineffective teacher.

So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?

Her life is her own outside of her job, just like the rest of us.

If she wants to make nude art, then thats ok, as long as she does it when shes not working, and dosent leave it were students can pick it up

"Morality" is hogwash - ethics is what we should be valuing, and thus firing this woman is a shitty thing to do.

What the teacher does in her spare time is of no concern of the school. It's unfortunate that many of the males in her classes are going to go looking for pictures of her topless. Besides, it's not like she announced it to the class, some of her students just found it.



Oh and pixplzkthnxbai

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.



So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?

It's crap. Teachers have a freedom of speech just like every other American. I can see how some actions are disruptive but this is imposing a moral code that really can't be seen as anything but a violation of freedoms.

I can see if a teacher was involved in amateur porn or something as it creates some issues with the learning environment, but the idea of calling artwork porn for having nudity has been rejected soundly as a violation of freedom of expression.

I think it's bullshit. The question should be, how did the kid find them?
I mean if the teacher wants to do that, it's her business. We shouldn't judge her because she's a human just like us.

Her life is her own outside of her job, just like the rest of us.
Ah, but as teachers, we hold a rather special position in the community. We are entrusted with your children, and it has long been the position of the community that a teacher is held to higher moral standards than just anyone because of that trust.

Some Catholic districts, for example, will not hire or retain teachers that are living with their partner, but not married...or who have children out of wedlock. Many times, these rulings have been upheld.

You know perfectly well the whole thing has fundamentalist christianity behind it. Or at least, you reasonably suspect. Thus the words are meaningless. The school board just wants to punish her for being naked.

Screw that, as long as what is done outside the workplace does not interfere with what happens in the workplace it shouldn't be a problem. I mean, it's like drinking. If you show up to work drunk, that's bad, but if you go drinking on the weekend and show up on time perfectly fine Monday morning then what do they have to complain about?
It's not like she's stripping in the cafetria or anything.

The school was attended by President Bush's daughters, Barbara and Jenna.

...

Well, I dunno why you would want to have nude photos of yourself online, but what the heck... I guess my question would be, are the photos any good? ;)

I don't see any reason to fire the teacher for what seems like a personal vagary... If she was using the photos in class that's a little weird, but again, what the heck... If she wasn't, I'd be more worried about how exactly the students found them than why she had them taken in the first place.

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.



So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?
I certainly think that educators could be held to a higher moral standard. However, I don't think showing your boobs indicates "lower morals." I think the real sickos are the people who would teach our children that women's breasts are obscene.

It's crap. Teachers have a freedom of speech just like every other American. I can see how some actions are disruptive but this is imposing a moral code that really can't be seen as anything but a violation of freedoms. I'm sorry, but I think you're referring to freedom of expression, since she wasn't describing herself topless.

I can see if a teacher was involved in amateur porn or something as it creates some issues with the learning environment, but the idea of calling artwork porn for having nudity has been rejected soundly as a violation of freedom of expression.
You know very well that there is often a fine line between porn and art, and that line gets tugged back and forth depending on the prevailing 'morality' of the time...David's genitals were covered at one point, weren't they? Who then is going to determine what is smut, and what is art?

Ah, but as teachers, we hold a rather special position in the community. We are entrusted with your children, and it has long been the position of the community that a teacher is held to higher moral standards than just anyone because of that trust.

Some Catholic districts, for example, will not hire or retain teachers that are living with their partner, but not married...or who have children out of wedlock. Many times, these rulings have been upheld.

That's not the public arena. Private employers are permitted to discriminate in some ways that public employers are not.

What if the school finds it offensive to the sensitivities of the students for this teacher to support democratic candidates? Could she be fired? She didn't do anything that couldn't be displayed in public places like museums and such. As such, her actions should be protected.

She has broken no law! This is a crock of brown recyclable fertiliser! We can thank the conservative "ethics" of prudedom for vicitmising a person who has done nothing wrong and even fts in with the remit of the "art" part of being an "art" teacher. Even in the UK, where I am a teacher, you wouldn't get sacked for this. Laughed at maybe, but not sacked!

I think it's bullshit. The question should be, how did the kid find them?
I mean if the teacher wants to do that, it's her business. We shouldn't judge her because she's a human just like us.
Apparently a student found them and showed them to a rival teacher (who was having issues with this teacher) and that teacher spitefully provided the pictures to administration.

You know perfectly well the whole thing has fundamentalist christianity behind it. Or at least, you reasonably suspect. Thus the words are meaningless. The school board just wants to punish her for being naked.

Indeed. I hope for the day we break the power of Christian fundamentalists once and for all, but for now it seems they will continue to oppress.

Apparently a student found them and showed them to a rival teacher (who was having issues with this teacher) and that teacher spitefully provided the pictures to administration.
I bet the teacher who showed the pictures to the board was jealous ;)

I'm sorry, but I think you're referring to freedom of expression, since she wasn't describing herself topless.

Freedom of expression is a part of freedom of speech. Freedom of expression isn't expressly in the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You know very well that there is often a fine line between porn and art, and that line gets tugged back and forth depending on the prevailing 'morality' of the time...David's genitals were covered at one point, weren't they? Who then is going to determine what is smut, and what is art?
I say if it can be displayed in public, at a museum for example, then it's art.

Indeed. I hope for the day we break the power of Christian fundamentalists once and for all, but for now it seems they will continue to oppress.
It will get worse, for at least a century. Cultural cycles usually last longer than a human lifetime.

It's probably not a good idea to post nude pictures of yourself on the internet if you are a teacher, especially one of adolescent boys, who are likely to be searching for porn. However, it's a bit over-the-top to fire her. Maybe they could just ask her to be a bit more discreet.

That's not the public arena. Private employers are permitted to discriminate in some ways that public employers are not. In Canada, we have two public systems, Catholic and just 'public'. Assume that we are keeping this conversation in the public sphere for now.

What if the school finds it offensive to the sensitivities of the students for this teacher to support democratic candidates? Could she be fired? She didn't do anything that couldn't be displayed in public places like museums and such. As such, her actions should be protected.
Teachers have also been let go for getting drunk rowdy, for getting charged with a DUI, for rumours about wild sex lives...and so forth. Despite the fact that we obstensibly have 'fixed hours of service', we are told to consider ourselves 'on the job' at all hours, and behave appropriately. Hence, party outside your school district, and you'll probably be fine...

I certainly think that educators could be held to a higher moral standard. However, I don't think showing your boobs indicates "lower morals." I think the real sickos are the people who would teach our children that women's breasts are obscene.

Applauds. You want obscenity how about the lack of equality that is expressed in the fact that I can bare my chest in a plethora of places that a woman may not. There is no logical reason for denying a woman the same access to toplessness, yet we are legally allowed and oftentimes encouraged to disciminate against women in this way. Obscene, that is.

Well I happen to agree with all of you, but I am bound by our code of ethics to 'tone it down' and behave in a manner that does not denigrate the teaching profession (so no dressing up as a dom teacher, and 'schooling' some naughty boys and girls). I didn't even bother applying to the Catholic boards because they made it clear that unless I got married, they would have issues with me 'living in sin with bastard children'. Oh, and it didn't help that I am a rabid atheist.

Once I'm a lawyer, THEN I can dress up as a dom teacher and do some schooling:p

In Canada, we have two public systems, Catholic and just 'public'. Assume that we are keeping this conversation in the public sphere for now.


Teachers have also been let go for getting drunk rowdy, for getting charged with a DUI, for rumours about wild sex lives...and so forth. Despite the fact that we obstensibly have 'fixed hours of service', we are told to consider ourselves 'on the job' at all hours, and behave appropriately. Hence, party outside your school district, and you'll probably be fine...

It's all crap. I don't buy into policing the private lives of people, particularly when people don't make enough to take on such a burden. I'll tell you what. I get paid a small stipend for every hour that I'm on-call. If teachers are expected to act as if they are teachers 24 hours a day, I say pay them an hourly fee for this service. How's $5/hour for ya, Sin? Hold on, let me do the math......

That's about $650 a week plus a bit more in the summer. I'm gonna write my congressman. I think that sounds fair. Thoughts?

she doesnt look too bad either

I don't know why a teacher shouldnt be able to have a private life outside of teaching and do whatever she wants provided it isnt illegal.

She didnt bring the pictures into class... if a student found them on the internet and brought them to school, then that student should be punished for distributing unwelcome material at school.

A teacher can't be held responsible for a students internet browsing.

In Canada, we have two public systems, Catholic and just 'public'. Assume that we are keeping this conversation in the public sphere for now.


Teachers have also been let go for getting drunk rowdy, for getting charged with a DUI, for rumours about wild sex lives...and so forth. Despite the fact that we obstensibly have 'fixed hours of service', we are told to consider ourselves 'on the job' at all hours, and behave appropriately. Hence, party outside your school district, and you'll probably be fine...
How very strange. Some of the students in my school(the older ones)(actually my old school now) have seen some of the younger teachers at night clubs on the weekends, usually quite drunk. We have a bit of a laugh at the teachers expense but that's all that would come of it.

That's about $650 a week plus a bit more in the summer. I'm gonna write my congressman. I think that sounds fair. Thoughts?
I don't think you've factored in overtime ;D

This great article described a diatribe about teachers just being glorified daycare workers. The author of the article went on to point out that if you paid us as such, per child, by the hour, we'd be swimming in the cash...so by all means...make us 'glorified daycare workers' if you so wish!

Once I'm a lawyer, THEN I can dress up as a dom teacher and do some schooling:p
Cos that wouldn't denigrate the legal profession. It'd take a lot more than kinky sex and boobs to do that ;)

It will get worse, for at least a century. Cultural cycles usually last longer than a human lifetime.

Yea, I doubt things will be getting better. Looming crisises in the future such as Peak Oil are only going to fuel the such radicalism.

What gets me is how fundamentalism persists in the face of ethics, logic, law and science. The weight of evidence and experience is firmly against it, yet it remains throughout the ages. It's incredibly resilient.

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.



So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?
It's Texas, what can you expect.

How very strange. Some of the students in my school(the older ones)(actually my old school now) have seen some of the younger teachers at night clubs on the weekends, usually quite drunk. We have a bit of a laugh at the teachers expense but that's all that would come of it.
It's not an across the board policy...it generally comes up if parents or students make an issue of it. The fact is, a teacher has to have the support of the community...if they don't, it causes serious problems. People pulling their kids out of your class, harrassing you etc. The board could stand up for you, but it just creates a huge rift...and they don't like the publicity. 'Low morals' has always been a valid reason for not renewing a teaching contract, because of our special relationship with the community.

I don't like it, but I can't see it changing.

Cos that wouldn't denigrate the legal profession. It'd take a lot more than kinky sex and boobs to do that ;)
There's a question...is it possible to denigrate the legal profession?

once I had a teacher in high school ask me if he could buy weed off me

I wish teachers could be more open about their private lives. I bet more students would pay closer attention in class considering the wacky perverted things they might hear - eh Sin?

There's a question...is it possible to denigrate the legal profession?

Yes, by having a lawyer with high moral standards.

It's Texas, what can you expect.
Honestly, it's not just Texas. This thing is more common than you think...most of the time teachers don't make an issue of it, or are let go for various 'other' reasons.

But think about it. A kindergarden teacher who moonlights as a stripper...that is going to concern people.

A principal who dresses up like Barbara Bush at night.

A teacher who is gay.

These have all been reasons to fire educators...and many of the firings have stuck.

At last in Alberta, Delwin Vrind (http://www.santaanacaus.com/section/Delwin_Vriend) was fired for being gay. He fought the case, and he won...but it was a hard battle. That case finally got provinces to recognise LGBT people under their human rights legislation, which was previously NOT done in most cases. I suspect that many states in the US do not protect LGBT people from such discrimination (while others may).

But in any case, the point is...how many people don't fight their dismissals? How many do...and lose? The community clearly believes it should have a voice in the 'moral character' of its teachers.

It's not an across the board policy...it generally comes up if parents or students make an issue of it. The fact is, a teacher has to have the support of the community...if they don't, it causes serious problems. People pulling their kids out of your class, harrassing you etc. The board could stand up for you, but it just creates a huge rift...and they don't like the publicity. 'Low morals' has always been a valid reason for not renewing a teaching contract, because of our special relationship with the community.

I don't like it, but I can't see it changing.
I'm so happy I'm far to impatient to be a teacher. Sounds like a right pain in the genitals.

In this case I doubt the students would have made an issue about it(;) ), though some of the parents might if they found these pictures. I really hope she gets her job back, though I wouldn't blame her for quitting anyway.

Stupid Flickr...removed the photos...

I wish teachers could be more open about their private lives. I bet more students would pay closer attention in class considering the wacky perverted things they might hear - eh Sin?
Well, I keep my identity secret for a reason.

It's not an across the board policy...it generally comes up if parents or students make an issue of it. The fact is, a teacher has to have the support of the community...if they don't, it causes serious problems. People pulling their kids out of your class, harrassing you etc. The board could stand up for you, but it just creates a huge rift...and they don't like the publicity. 'Low morals' has always been a valid reason for not renewing a teaching contract, because of our special relationship with the community.

I don't like it, but I can't see it changing.

That's the excuse we use for everything.

"Transexuals shouldn't be allowed to raise children because they will be traumatized by what their parent is subjected to."
"So stop subjecting them to discrimination."
"But until then we have to think of the children."
"So the solution is to discriminate until discrimination stops? Bizarre."

We can't use the fact that community has an unfair moral standard for teachers as an excuse while encouraging and supporting that unfair moral standard. The same argument could be made for a 'patriotic' community that gets upset that a teacher doesn't support the war or a 'Christian' community that gets upset because a teacher turns out to be Atheist, etc. We cannot allow teachers to be discriminated against simply because it's the status quo.

There's a question...is it possible to denigrate the legal profession?
I'll bring the video camera, Goofballs can get the mud, and we'll meet you outside the zoo.

Well, I keep my identity secret for a reason.

yeah but Sin, it's just a catwoman outfit and a whip... you dont really have super powers and foil the plans of evil-doers.... or do you?

Stupid Flickr...removed the photos...
I agree. This thread needs topless teacher pics.

Stupid Flickr...removed the photos...

theres a site with the story and pictures on it (not all of the pictures I think as there are no real topless pics of her... only her friend)

a simple search will find it

Well, I keep my identity secret for a reason.

Bah, no secret. I know who you are. You should really put a shade on that window by the way, Sin. The neighbors are starting to talk.

Bah, no secret. I know who you are. You should really put a shade on that window by the way, Sin. The neighbors are starting to talk.
The shade is gone for exactly that reason...the guy who lives across from me likes to watch;)

Flickr had one pic left. The woman is topless, but has her arms across her chest and has a very lovely smile. It isn't a seductive or salacious or prurient photo, it's quite nice, actually.

What gets me is how fundamentalism persists in the face of ethics, logic, law and science. The weight of evidence and experience is firmly against it, yet it remains throughout the ages. It's incredibly resilient.
Because people are vain, believe they are in some way important, and hold the highest measure of truth to be how important it makes them feel.

Also, did anyone catch this paragraph?

The district wants to revoke her teaching certification, which would keep her out of Texas classrooms permanently. Hoover will appeal the ruling and is prepared to take the case to court, she said.

They don't just want to fire her, they want to REVOKE HER LICENSE. That means no public school teaching in Texas ever again without some elapsed years and significant effort and expense to get reinstated. That's a complete load of horseshit. Texas, sadly, is a bellwether state in education in the US. Getting a license revoked there would most likely mean she'd be unable to get licensed in any other state in the nation. That's more than "a bit severe", that's effectively justifying restraint of trade because you don't like the fact that an ART teacher might have posed NUDE for ART photos. Hell, I'VE done that! And no, nopixplzthx, it was before the whole online thing exploded -- 1991.

To expect that an art teacher would have nothing to do with, y'know, ART would be like expecting me (a music prof) to never attend concerts. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Texas has it's nice places and loads of decent people, but on the whole, when Texans git t'gethr 'n start talking morality, it's bad fucking news for anyone with a sense of reality and proportion. This from a state who only fairly recently instated an open container law (when I was there in the spring and summer of 2003, open containers could be in the vehicle so long as the driver didn't drink...hello?!?)

This story is appalling.

Also, did anyone catch this paragraph?



They don't just want to fire her, they want to REVOKE HER LICENSE. That means no public school teaching in Texas ever again without some elapsed years and significant effort and expense to get reinstated. That's a complete load of horseshit. Texas, sadly, is a bellwether state in education in the US. Getting a license revoked there would most likely mean she'd be unable to get licensed in any other state in the nation. That's more than "a bit severe", that's effectively justifying restraint of trade because you don't like the fact that an ART teacher might have posed NUDE for ART photos. Hell, I'VE done that! And no, nopixplzthx, it was before the whole online thing exploded -- 1991.

To expect that an art teacher would have nothing to do with, y'know, ART would be like expecting me (a music prof) to never attend concerts. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Texas has it's nice places and loads of decent people, but on the whole, when Texans git t'gethr 'n start talking morality, it's bad fucking news for anyone with a sense of reality and proportion. This from a state who only fairly recently instated an open container law (when I was there in the spring and summer of 2003, open containers could be in the vehicle so long as the driver didn't drink...hello?!?)

This story is appalling.
Don't forget that she isn't actually naked in any of the pictures. She's topless in one but has her breasts covered.

Don't forget that she isn't actually naked in any of the pictures. She's topless in one but has her breasts covered.
Exactly. None of the photos that I've seen (okay, one), are in anyway salacious or prurient.

I don't see any problem with holding teachers to a higher standard than other people. They're the people that are supposed to teach children things. Parents would be concerned if someone of questionable morality was teaching their children. What I do see a problem with is the idea that nude art is immoral. It's art. Furthermore, I don't think that people should get all fussy over a woman's breasts like they do. They're not even included in the act of sex. Their original purpose was to feed babies.

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.

So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?

Hey they pulled her pictures!

They are probably trying to cover their tracks as it might turn up they were looking at them. ;)

"Morality" is hogwash - ethics is what we should be valuing, and thus firing this woman is a shitty thing to do.
perfectly stated...

This is just silly, and it seems to be happening more often. A woman (in Florida, I think?) recently quit her job over controversy started when a student found pictures of her modeling lingerie. This woman had even done so under another name, specifically to keep her students from finding it.

Some Catholic districts, for example, will not hire or retain teachers that are living with their partner, but not married...or who have children out of wedlock. Many times, these rulings have been upheld.

But in most western countries, employers aren't allowed to ask those questions.

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.



So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?
What do you mean what could be used to justify it?! She revealed her BREASTS! She had PICTURES taken of them! She is clearly an evil, disgusting slut bent upon corrupting our children. She shouldn't have just been fired: she should have been jailed. I don't want such an influance anywhere near my kids. Disgusting unChristians freaks...
And if ANYONE took that post seriously...they need to get their heads checked.

What an absurd and depressing case. The idea of an art teacher losing her teaching certification for posing semi-nude for artistic photos is ridiculous, as is the idea that posing semi-nude for artistic photos is "immoral." Good lord, at least a dozen of my friends in college posed nude for art classes; it was a nice, easy way to bring in a little extra cash for textbooks. Apparently this makes them dirty whores. Who knew? :rolleyes:

As for the original question as to whether there should be a higher moral standard for teachers - perhaps, to a limited degree. Teachers are role models, pretty much by definition. That said, the "limited" part is essential. If something is (a) not in any way illegal, (b) done off school grounds, and (c) not actively advertised to students, I have a hard time finding any way it can reasonably be considered objectionable. (Sadly, of course, many people ignore that "reasonably" part...)

But in most western countries, employers aren't allowed to ask those questions.
They can not. But they can find out, and decide that you don't 'fit' into Catholic morality, and refuse to renew your contract.

Ah, but as teachers, we hold a rather special position in the community. We are entrusted with your children, and it has long been the position of the community that a teacher is held to higher moral standards than just anyone because of that trust.

Some Catholic districts, for example, will not hire or retain teachers that are living with their partner, but not married...or who have children out of wedlock. Many times, these rulings have been upheld.
How right you are -- in loco parentis is a huge responsibility. It's also a burden every teacher shares. It is also the basis for the higher moral standard that is required.

A stockbroker or even a police officer may be able to have a truly private life, but a substitute parent is going to get a lot more visibility when they do something outside the norms of the community.

"Morality" is hogwash - ethics is what we should be valuing, and thus firing this woman is a shitty thing to do.

I agree. It's amazing how so many people confuse "morality" with a simple issue of ethics.

How right you are -- in loco parentis is a huge responsibility. It's also a burden every teacher shares. It is also the basis for the higher moral standard that is required.

A stockbroker or even a police officer may be able to have a truly private life, but a substitute parent is going to get a lot more visibility when they do something outside the norms of the community.

"I object to my kids having black substitute parents."
"I object to male teachers. It's my right. They ARE acting as a substitute parent."
"I object to non-Christian substitute parents."

You let me know where the subversion of the personal rights for a person who enters such a noble profession. We've made all this progress in respecting the rights of everyone but not for people who care enough to help prepare our youth for the future, huh?

How right you are -- in loco parentis is a huge responsibility. It's also a burden every teacher shares. It is also the basis for the higher moral standard that is required.

A stockbroker or even a police officer may be able to have a truly private life, but a substitute parent is going to get a lot more visibility when they do something outside the norms of the community.
Finally, someone who sees the other side of this.

You are exactly correct. We are in a position of in loco parentis, and this does in fact set us apart from other professionals.

Now, while it may inconvenience me sometimes, it's something I've accepted. There are some things I'd love to do that I have to think twice about...and that includes agitating too much in my community. When you lose the faith of the parents of your students, what good are you?

I don't necessarily agree in this particular case that this woman should lose her job. In fact, I think the situation is crap, and the teacher that brought the pictures to the attention of the board is violating her professional code of conduct which generally requires that you deal with issues one on one with colleagues FIRST (assuming she didn't). Nor do I believe that you should lose your job for being gay, transgendered, a minority, or whatever. BUT I do believe that you have a responsibility to behave in a socially appropriate way within the community in which you teach.

"I object to my kids having black substitute parents."
"I object to male teachers. It's my right. They ARE acting as a substitute parent."
"I object to non-Christian substitute parents."

You let me know where the subversion of the personal rights for a person who enters such a noble profession. We've made all this progress in respecting the rights of everyone but not for people who care enough to help prepare our youth for the future, huh?
Brushing aside your diversions, isn't in loco parentis how courts have reconciled the abbreviation of student's civil liberties by schools? If someone has the power to take away your rights, shouldn't they be of outstanding moral character? After all, if someone is going to search a student's locker, shouldn't we be reasonably certain that they are not going to either steal from it, nor plant evidence?

I don't think you've factored in overtime ;D

This great article described a diatribe about teachers just being glorified daycare workers. The author of the article went on to point out that if you paid us as such, per child, by the hour, we'd be swimming in the cash...so by all means...make us 'glorified daycare workers' if you so wish!

Do professionals in Canada get paid hourly wages or piecework rather than salaries? That is even scarier than boobs!.

I think they over reacted to the pictures and I think she probably knew better than to let her sig-other post them in the pics on flickr in the first place. Despite rantings to the contrary I doubt any church intervened in the school board's decision. It's more likely a community standard than a church enforced standard. If it were up to me her boobs could roam free. Ive got no problem with a school board which doesnt keep teachers who insist on showing pics of their tits on the net either. There are othwer places to teach that Im sure would love to see her pics on the net. And there are other art teachers who dont insist upon posting nude pics of themselves on the net. She will fit in better elsewhere. They will be happier with a teacher who enjoys more clothing. Its not really a problem.

I disagree with her losing her job, but yes, we teachers are held to a much higher standard than everyone else. It's not particuarly fair, but we are intrusted with people's children and even the most liberal of parents turns into a dragon when it comes to their child and who takes care of them.

We're also highly visable (And students always seem to be amazed that teachers leave the school and have a life outside of the classroom. I wonder if they think we're just plugged in for the night, maybe in the teacher's lounge?), so anything we are seen doing gets reported back a hundredfold. Add in that teachers are paid through tax dollars and people are just about as protective of that as they are about their children and you have a society that expects teachers to be more than human at all times.

Like I said, not particuarly fair, but something you HAVE to think about when you become a teacher.

Brushing aside your diversions, isn't in loco parentis how courts have reconciled the abbreviation of student's civil liberties by schools? If someone has the power to take away your rights, shouldn't they be of outstanding moral character? After all, if someone is going to search a student's locker, shouldn't we be reasonably certain that they are not going to either steal from it, nor plant evidence?
To a certain extent, but SCOTUS has also curbed in loco parentis quite a bit as of late.

Her life is her own outside of her job, just like the rest of us.
What was said here - plus, I believe that I have fairly reasonable and high moral standards concerning my future job as a teacher.

Teachers have an obligation to act morally, even outside of the classroom. I think the Texas school district acted in the best interest of the students. The importance of teaching values to our young people supersedes the right of the teacher to act in a way would corrupt young persons. I think the teacher was treated very fairly given the nature of the act.

King Paul

Teachers have an obligation to act morally, even outside of the classroom. I think the Texas school district acted in the best interest of the students. The importance of teaching values to our young people supersedes the right of the teacher to act in a way would corrupt young persons. I think the teacher was treated very fairly given the nature of the act.

King Paul

Muppet

I think the teacher was treated very fairly given the nature of the act.

Yeah, darn those art teachers and their "producing art." It could be worse, though - I hear music teachers sometimes sing. And I'm not even going to talk about the filthy things those geometry instructors do with a protractor and compass... *shudder*

Teachers have an obligation to act morally, even outside of the classroom. I think the Texas school district acted in the best interest of the students. The importance of teaching values to our young people supersedes the right of the teacher to act in a way would corrupt young persons. I think the teacher was treated very fairly given the nature of the act.

King Paul
I wonder how many of her students had already posted their pics on Flickr or Myspace....

I wonder how many of her students had already posted their pics on Flickr or Myspace....

Hmmm where did you post yours? :p

Teachers have an obligation to act morally, even outside of the classroom. I think the Texas school district acted in the best interest of the students. The importance of teaching values to our young people supersedes the right of the teacher to act in a way would corrupt young persons. I think the teacher was treated very fairly given the nature of the act.

King Paul

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good post!

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good post!

Muppet

Teachers have an obligation to act morally, even outside of the classroom. I think the Texas school district acted in the best interest of the students. The importance of teaching values to our young people supersedes the right of the teacher to act in a way would corrupt young persons. I think the teacher was treated very fairly given the nature of the act.

King Paul

Yeah, it would be a tragedy if people loved what they were teaching. An artist engaged in art *gasp*. Would someone please think of the children?

Perhaps we'll end up with a generation of children who end up loving learning as much as these teachers love teaching. A tragedy, I know.

And, of course, it's damaging to children to see nipples. I mean they didn't spend several years with them in their mouth and they don't each have them. Yep, I can see why people are upset.

And, of course, it's damaging to children to see nipples. I mean they didn't spend several years with them in their mouth and they don't each have them. Yep, I can see why people are upset.

I sometimes wish breasts somehow lived up to the fear some people have of them. You'd think with all this hype, I'd be able to shoot laser beams from my nipples or something.

I sometimes wish breasts somehow lived up to the fear some people have of them. You'd think with all this hype, I'd be able to shoot laser beams from my nipples or something.


Fembots, anyone? :p


Groovy, baby!

I do believe this situation was really blown seriously out of proportion.

But consider instead, a teacher who performs live sex shows in a sleazy bar.

Should it matter?

(and no, I'm not asking because I'm considering it, sorry Jocabia)

I sometimes wish breasts somehow lived up to the fear some people have of them. You'd think with all this hype, I'd be able to shoot laser beams from my nipples or something.

I know. I thought the first time I saw them my eyeballs were going to explode or something, after all that hype that I got for like fifteen years. The first adult non-family breasts I can remember seeing (other than when I was molested as a child) was when I was eating at a restaurant in FL and a family hid behind a bush outside of the restaurant windows and changed clothes. It was pretty funny. I remember thinking, that's it.

That's why men expect so much from women. We hear so much hype about the boobs that we figure they must help you with the housework or something.

I do believe this situation was really blown seriously out of proportion.

But consider instead, a teacher who performs live sex shows in a sleazy bar.

Should it matter?

(and no, I'm not asking because I'm considering it, sorry Jocabia)

Actually, no, I think it shouldn't matter. Current law wouldn't allow a kid in her class to ever see the show.

While I agree in practice with what has been said on this thread I disagree with a lot of it in principle.


Teachers have almost as much, if not more, to do with the personality formation and maturation of children as parents, and as such they should be good role models in addition to being good at instilling knowledge into children.

Teaching and learning, which are supposedly what happens at schools, does not by definition exclude the prospect of acquiring or providing behavioral understanding.


I can safely say that first and foremost my parents did the most for my moral framework, but the teachers that I liked the most also contributed heavily. In fact one of my favorite english teachers used to intersperse philosophy discussion into his curriculum, and I think I got more out of that class both intellectually and morally than any other class I'd ever taken.



The private lives of teachers should be allowed to remain private. This much I will agree to. But the public lives of teachers is a matter of public record, and that which stains the record of a teacher can and does affect the views of students. I think we all agree that teachers which engage in criminal activity should be harshly punished, but I would go even further to state that teachers should avoid engaging in activities which, while legal, would make a teacher prone to being a bad character model for children.

I can state with a perfectly clear conscience that if a teacher was prone to lewd gestures and mannerisms, extremes of alcoholism/smoking (even if it didn't adversely effect his ability to teach the curricula), didn't punish or showed favoritism in issuing punishments for violations of school behavioral policies (EX. Not punishing children for interrupting the class or not punishing those would obviously were bullying other children), and did all this while showing a predilection towards fraternization with the students I would fire this person immediately if given the authority to do so. Now I would be willing to assert that a single quality of the above would be insufficient to warrant job termination, especially if the person was good at teaching the academic curricula, but this is not to say that character formation is an unimportant aspect of teaching.


On that note though I don't believe that what the teacher did was something which should reflect poorly upon the teacher. Semi-Nude, even Nude, photographs of someone should not make the teacher a bad role model. Acceptance (I despise the use of the word tolerance when it comes to minority peoples, positions, creeds, and ideologies) of the naked form when not posed or framed in any kind of sexual manner should not be an indicator of poor moral framework. Now if a teacher were to star in a pornographic film, then I think that would qualify as a behavior that while not illegal should be something a teacher should avoid doing. A teacher that is also a porn star sets a poor example for the children; this is a business that in modern society should not be considered wholesome. Quite simply there is way too much corruption and questionable behavior (bestiality anyone?) that goes along with associating with the porn industry for it to serve as a profession that a character model should associate with.

In a more perfect world sexual representations of humans would not be something to be ashamed of associating with, but our world is far from ideal.

NT

Muppet

You over rate Western Slavs. For him that is an honorific!

I sometimes wish breasts somehow lived up to the fear some people have of them. You'd think with all this hype, I'd be able to shoot laser beams from my nipples or something.

That was a bit hard on nursing infants so the practice of arming the lasers was abandoned. The lasers are still there of course but there are no longer any means of powering them. That is why human females still have breasts which are proportionally much larger than those of any other primate.

I do believe this situation was really blown seriously out of proportion.

But consider instead, a teacher who performs live sex shows in a sleazy bar.

Should it matter?

(and no, I'm not asking because I'm considering it, sorry Jocabia)
Would that affect the teacher's ability to teach? I don't see how it would, unless they spent too much time shagging in the pub and not enough sleeping or preparing for classes. But you could spend too much time reading Shakespeare and not enough sleeping or preparing for classes, and that should be treated no differently.

I certainly think that teachers should be held to the same standards as, if not higher than, the rest of society. After all, they get to interact with our children in a period of their life where they are easily influenced.

However, who is to judge what standards should be enforced? I have no problem with nudity – but apparently others have…

I certainly think that teachers should be held to the same standards as, if not higher than, the rest of society. After all, they get to interact with our children in a period of their life where they are easily influenced.

However, who is to judge what standards should be enforced? I have no problem with nudity – but apparently others have…I'd think the parents and teachers together should decide the moral standards they're held too.
In an ideal situation, one would think they'd get to know each other a little, seeing as they both play important roles in the child's upbringing. If parents just dump their children at a school, they don't really have a right to complain about the teachers. They should've taken time to get to know the teachers and decide whether they could entrust their children to them.

I do believe this situation was really blown seriously out of proportion.

But consider instead, a teacher who performs live sex shows in a sleazy bar.

Should it matter?

(and no, I'm not asking because I'm considering it, sorry Jocabia)

It should not.

I don't want my kids viewing their teachers as role models, anyway, so why would I care if they're good role models?

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.



So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?

Membership in NAMBLA, while perfectly legal, would be highly questionable for a teacher of young children.

It should not.

I don't want my kids viewing their teachers as role models, anyway, so why would I care if they're good role models?

Seeing as how your kids can and will end up seeing your teachers as role models no matter what you do your objection is moot at best.


And on that note you should care probably because they are going to come to see some of their teachers as role models. Young children are especially plastic, and their normative views are shaped heavily by what they know and learn when they are young. This is EXACTLY the time when being surrounded by good role models is important.


By the time someone is 17 they have already made up their mind about most things in their life, and their mannerisms are essentially set. Its when they are 6-10 that things are really important.

NT

Hey they pulled her pictures!

They are probably trying to cover their tracks as it might turn up they were looking at them. ;)

There you go.
Can you say Hyp-O-crites?

I'm a teacher. I've had a MySpace account since 2003. This past year, some students found my account and started messaging me, asking to add me as their friends. Knowing the reputation of the site, and that it's associated with pedophiles, I decided at that time to cancel my MySpace account. Being a male teacher, that crap just isn't worth it. Yes, teachers are held to a higher standard, right or wrong. It comes with the territory. Should it? I dunno. But it does -- that's reality.

This is not a civil liberties issue.

People have the freedom to do what they want within the law. But, employers also have the right to set standards for their employees, including dictating behavior that reflects upon the employer. When that employer is funded by people's taxes, the standards tend to be much higher.

I've been a public school teacher for nearly 20 years. That expectation comes with the job. Only an idiot would think he or she can pose naked, participate in a wet tee-shirt contest, publish a KKK newspaper, post essays on MySpace about hating kids, or many other (legal) activities and assume kids' parents won't care.

Teachers are, and should be, role models. For some kids we are the only real role models they have in their lives. I wish more of us did a better job of it.

I'm a teacher. I've had a MySpace account since 2003. This past year, some students found my account and started messaging me, asking to add me as their friends. Knowing the reputation of the site, and that it's associated with pedophiles, I decided at that time to cancel my MySpace account. Being a male teacher, that crap just isn't worth it. Yes, teachers are held to a higher standard, right or wrong. It comes with the territory. Should it? I dunno. But it does -- that's reality.
Anyone is vulnerable to the kind of destruction of your reputation and standing in the community that comes along with even the HINT of child abuse, but teachers are particularly at risk simply because we deal with so many children as a matter of course. I agree that it is vital that teachers avoid situations where they can be in any way even suspected of such...which is why they tell us not to close the door when having a talk with a student...and so on.

This is not a civil liberties issue.

People have the freedom to do what they want within the law. But, employers also have the right to set standards for their employees, including dictating behavior that reflects upon the employer. When that employer is funded by people's taxes, the standards tend to be much higher.

I've been a public school teacher for nearly 20 years. That expectation comes with the job. Only an idiot would think he or she can pose naked, participate in a wet tee-shirt contest, publish a KKK newspaper, post essays on MySpace about hating kids, or many other (legal) activities and assume kids' parents won't care.

Teachers are, and should be, role models. For some kids we are the only real role models they have in their lives. I wish more of us did a better job of it.

Public employers cannot punish you for actions that have no bearing on your job. I would love to see the case where a public works employer fires someone for participating in a protest or belonging to the wrong church.

You gave examples other than posting naked of things that could actually affect their behavior at work, but this woman is an art teacher that *gasp* actually enjoys art. She did not participate in porn or anything like. She was in artistic photographs taken by a photographic artist. They were published on a site showcasing her art. Why would anyone find an art teacher participating *gasp* art to be shocking? Next they'll be firing science teachers for participating in the black art of investigating evolution. Or music teachers for singing that heathen music.

It is really hard for me to see how making any kind of art (even including adult porn) is immoral. However, I think we as voters in our respective school boards should be able to vote for school board members who represent our views on what sort of behavior is unnaceptable for the teachers of our children.

However, we need to have some restraints on what is considered immoral. In the recent past married female teachers were not allowed to work if they became pregnant because kids might ask where babies come from.

I think it is immoral to have children out of wedlock and I would not want my tax dollars to support children being exposed to role models who have children out of wedlock. The problem though is that once you start discriminating against teachers for morality concerns such as mine, then you go down a slippery slope that brings us back to pregnant married women not being able to work while pregnant.

Public employers cannot punish you for actions that have no bearing on your job. I would love to see the case where a public works employer fires someone for participating in a protest or belonging to the wrong church.

You gave examples other than posting naked of things that could actually affect their behavior at work, but this woman is an art teacher that *gasp* actually enjoys art. She did not participate in porn or anything like. She was in artistic photographs taken by a photographic artist. They were published on a site showcasing her art. Why would anyone find an art teacher participating *gasp* art to be shocking? Next they'll be firing science teachers for participating in the black art of investigating evolution. Or music teachers for singing that heathen music.

Public employers cannot punish you for actions that have no bearing on your job? I guess that depends on your definition of "bearing on your job." Certainly, there are examples of employers firing employees for getting a tattoo. There have been numerous examples of people fired for things they have posted on their MySpace. In this country (the U.S.) employers can pretty much fire you for anything they want, as long as it doesn't involve discrimination.

Can you be fired for participation in a protest? I hope not, since I have very publically done that. Religion and politics are different. I personally see nothing wrong with what the teacher did, but the reality is her posing for nude pictures, seen by her students, can have a bearing on her job. She has to maintain the respect of her students and control her classes. That may be impossible if her kids see her as a sex object or pin up girl. Right or wrong, that is the reality.

Everyone who goes into teaching knows we are held to a different standard. You can argue whether or not that is fair, but it is the way it is.

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.



So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?

Dildos are illegal in texas (and "dealers" of the illegal product have been thrown in jail for years)... What do you expect from such people?

Dildos are illegal in texas (and "dealers" of the illegal product have been thrown in jail for years)... What do you expect from such people?
Seriously! Deprive women of their orgasms, and if all you get is a few topless teachers you can consider yourselves lucky. I'm surprised there hasn't been an armed uprising.

Public employers cannot punish you for actions that have no bearing on your job? I guess that depends on your definition of "bearing on your job." Certainly, there are examples of employers firing employees for getting a tattoo.

What state and what public agency, please? I'd like to see the details of that case.

There have been numerous examples of people fired for things they have posted on their MySpace.

What state and what public agency, please? I'd like to see the details of that case.

In this country (the U.S.) employers can pretty much fire you for anything they want, as long as it doesn't involve discrimination.

Not in the public sphere. You do not give up your rights by accepting employment.

Can you be fired for participation in a protest? I hope not, since I have very publically done that. Religion and politics are different. I personally see nothing wrong with what the teacher did, but the reality is her posing for nude pictures, seen by her students, can have a bearing on her job. She has to maintain the respect of her students and control her classes. That may be impossible if her kids see her as a sex object or pin up girl. Right or wrong, that is the reality.

Do you honestly think whether or not she has posed artistically has any bearing on whether or not she'll be seen as a sex object? Young boys will consider her a sex object if she's got boobs and she's under 75. That's what young boys do. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that until a teacher was stupid enough to allow students to bring up the site in school that it was affecting her classroom in any way. All evidence points to the opposite, in fact.

Nothing you said describes the reality of the situation. The reality is that the students knew about the pictures before it was a problem.

Everyone who goes into teaching knows we are held to a different standard. You can argue whether or not that is fair, but it is the way it is.
Yes, and at one point that different standard was violation of equal rights. Fortunately, we are not longer working from that sphere. I'm not arguing that discrimination against teachers does not exist, but I'm certainly arguing that it shouldn't. This should not be supported by our courts. It's a dangerous road and a horrible precedent to set.

This woman was performing her job function well and she was enjoying as a hobby the exact thing she teaches. They should be ecstatic.

Regardless of what rights she has, it's definitely fucking distracting to the learning environment when just last night you were spankin' it to your teacher's "art".

You think a kid can keep his attention on school with the thought "Good lord I saw those boobs! They're right there in front of me!" running through his mind all day?

Regardless of what rights she has, it's definitely fucking distracting to the learning environment when just last night you were spankin' it to your teacher's "art".

You think a kid can keep his attention on school with the thought "Good lord I saw those boobs! They're right there in front of me!" running through his mind all day?
I think the fact that we've fetishized boobs so much is to blame for this. The best thing to do is to make sure that everybody sees boobs so often that they no longer freak the fuck out at the sight of a female nipple.

And it's best to start this as young as possible, so that girls don't have to deal with stupid freaks on their dorm floor who have a fit every time a girl walks around in her 'jammies without a bra under them. Cripes, lads, get a grip.

I think the fact that we've fetishized boobs so much is to blame for this. The best thing to do is to make sure that everybody sees boobs so often that they no longer freak the fuck out at the sight of a female nipple.

And it's best to start this as young as possible, so that girls don't have to deal with stupid freaks on their dorm floor who have a fit every time a girl walks around in her 'jammies without a bra under them. Cripes, lads, get a grip.

In Texas it is legal to show your boobs in public though no one does it. What she was doing in these photographs she could have done legally in the town square.

I think the fact that we've fetishized boobs so much is to blame for this. The best thing to do is to make sure that everybody sees boobs so often that they no longer freak the fuck out at the sight of a female nipple.

And it's best to start this as young as possible, so that girls don't have to deal with stupid freaks on their dorm floor who have a fit every time a girl walks around in her 'jammies without a bra under them. Cripes, lads, get a grip.

The Adult Conspiracy is there for a reason - until a certain age, kids just aren't equipped with the maturity or the intelligence to handle something like the details of where babies come from or what's a 69 position or "Why did I see mommy with beads in her bottom last night?" - that kinda thing is strictly for adults, because they can handle it. Most can handle it, at least.

Kids are stupid. Too early of knowing certain things in the wrong conditions will lead to preteen pregnancy happening much more often than it does now. "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" becomes more interactive when they actually know what to do.

In Texas it is legal to show your boobs in public though no one does it. What she was doing in these photographs she could have done legally in the town square.

Good for her. If she was a model. Or anyone who doesn't regularly exercise command over the minds of children - teachers are held up to certain standards - not by the parents, or society, but by the children. I guarantee none of the students would've taken her seriously after that happened.

The Adult Conspiracy is there for a reason - until a certain age, kids just aren't equipped with the maturity or the intelligence to handle something like the details of where babies come from or what's a 69 position or "Why did I see mommy with beads in her bottom last night?" - that kinda thing is strictly for adults, because they can handle it. Most can handle it, at least.

Bullshit.

First of all, my entire point was that the female breast isn't any more or less sexual than the male chest, and it's time we quit fucking up our kids with these bullshit notions.

Second of all, Kids are ready to know the names for genitals as soon as they are ready to know any other body parts. They're ready to know how babies are made as soon as they are ready to know that babies exist. They're ready to know about oral sex, anal sex, or any other kind of sex as soon as they are old enough to want to ask. Kids should feel safe asking any questions they want, and they should receive nothing but the complete and honest truth from the adults in their lives.


Kids are stupid.

Nope. Adults who underestimate kids are stupid. Adults who think they should wait until kids are already having sex to tell them about sex are even stupider. (Is that really a word?)


Too early of knowing certain things in the wrong conditions will lead to preteen pregnancy happening much more often than it does now. "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" becomes more interactive when they actually know what to do.
Absolutely backward. The main reason I waited to have sex for as long as I did was because I knew what to expect...and EEEW. I knew all the risks, I knew all the messy bits, and I knew that I wasn't ready for that. The kids who experimented the earliest were always the ones who knew the least about what they were getting into, and the kids who knew the least were also the ones who ended up pregnant and infected with STDs before we were out of high school.

I cannot believe anybody thinks it is a good idea to keep kids in the dark about this stuff. That's like giving every kid a new car, and then thinking you can keep them safest by refusing to teach any of them how to drive.

Good for her. If she was a model. Or anyone who doesn't regularly exercise command over the minds of children - teachers are held up to certain standards - not by the parents, or society, but by the children. I guarantee none of the students would've taken her seriously after that happened.

They were already aware of the pictures before this came out and she was awarded for her excellent service after the pictures were already available. No problem existed until another teacher acted incredibly unprofessionally and allowed another student to bring up the pictures in class. Clearly the other teacher is the problem.

There was a time when being divorced was the argument. Or being pregnant. Or living with your boyfriend. (Notice how generally the issue is with the innocent behavior of 'slutty' women.)

When I was in school we had a teacher who offered to answer any question posed by a student in our sexual education class. Any question that was not a joke she promised to answer to the best of her ability. She was asked what ejaculate tastes like and answered that it is affected by diet but is typically said to be salty and/or bitter. Some people would have had a fit if they'd have known she was answering questions like that, but we got honest answers to honest questions from her. There wasn't a single pregnant girl in my graduating class of 300, a problem that was fairly common when I was a student. Clearly, she didn't lead us all astray (or, at least, there was no evidence for it) and there was no problem with us paying attention in her classes or behaving. She was hot, and I'll plainly admit to her being the subject of more than one nighttime ministration. As was one of my science teachers and my all-too-sexy spanish teacher. Students are going to see some teachers as sex objects. This woman did nothing wrong and did lots of things right. The only person who should be punished is the woman who thought it was a good idea to bring up her personal relationship to the other teacher in a class full of students and then allow those students to talk her into vengeance.

The Adult Conspiracy is there for a reason - until a certain age, kids just aren't equipped with the maturity or the intelligence to handle something like the details of where babies come from or what's a 69 position or "Why did I see mommy with beads in her bottom last night?" - that kinda thing is strictly for adults, because they can handle it. Most can handle it, at least.

Kids are stupid. Too early of knowing certain things in the wrong conditions will lead to preteen pregnancy happening much more often than it does now. "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" becomes more interactive when they actually know what to do.

Someone's never met a Catholic schoolgirl. The most promiscuous girls I knew of in my neighborhood were always the girls who were denied access to the information in any way other than experimentation.

Seriously! Deprive women of their orgasms, and if all you get is a few topless teachers you can consider yourselves lucky. I'm surprised there hasn't been an armed uprising.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/obscenity.trial.reut/

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-08-11/xtra_feature2.html

lots and lots more come up if you google.

Bullshit.

First of all, my entire point was that the female breast isn't any more or less sexual than the male chest, and it's time we quit fucking up our kids with these bullshit notions.

Second of all, Kids are ready to know the names for genitals as soon as they are ready to know any other body parts. They're ready to know how babies are made as soon as they are ready to know that babies exist. They're ready to know about oral sex, anal sex, or any other kind of sex as soon as they are old enough to want to ask. Kids should feel safe asking any questions they want, and they should receive nothing but the complete and honest truth from the adults in their lives.


Nope. Adults who underestimate kids are stupid. Adults who think they should wait until kids are already having sex to tell them about sex are even stupider. (Is that really a word?)


Absolutely backward. The main reason I waited to have sex for as long as I did was because I knew what to expect...and EEEW. I knew all the risks, I knew all the messy bits, and I knew that I wasn't ready for that. The kids who experimented the earliest were always the ones who knew the least about what they were getting into, and the kids who knew the least were also the ones who ended up pregnant and infected with STDs before we were out of high school.

I cannot believe anybody thinks it is a good idea to keep kids in the dark about this stuff. That's like giving every kid a new car, and then thinking you can keep them safest by refusing to teach any of them how to drive.

Here, here. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the best way to prevent curiosity is ignorance. I know I'm a hell of lot more likely to open a box when I don't already know what's in it.

Bullshit.

First of all, my entire point was that the female breast isn't any more or less sexual than the male chest, and it's time we quit fucking up our kids with these bullshit notions.

Second of all, Kids are ready to know the names for genitals as soon as they are ready to know any other body parts. They're ready to know how babies are made as soon as they are ready to know that babies exist. They're ready to know about oral sex, anal sex, or any other kind of sex as soon as they are old enough to want to ask. Kids should feel safe asking any questions they want, and they should receive nothing but the complete and honest truth from the adults in their lives.


Nope. Adults who underestimate kids are stupid. Adults who think they should wait until kids are already having sex to tell them about sex are even stupider. (Is that really a word?)


Absolutely backward. The main reason I waited to have sex for as long as I did was because I knew what to expect...and EEEW. I knew all the risks, I knew all the messy bits, and I knew that I wasn't ready for that. The kids who experimented the earliest were always the ones who knew the least about what they were getting into, and the kids who knew the least were also the ones who ended up pregnant and infected with STDs before we were out of high school.

I cannot believe anybody thinks it is a good idea to keep kids in the dark about this stuff. That's like giving every kid a new car, and then thinking you can keep them safest by refusing to teach any of them how to drive.

I didn't say I wanted them to be "In the dark" - but kids don't usually take this kind of thing seriously. I mean, c'mon - who invented "cooties"? Kids.

Of course, by "kids", I mean K-5 graders - around 6th grade is when everyone in my class started talking about sex. Maybe it's changed since then, I dunno. But try sitting down talking with your 10 year old after catching him 69'ing with a girl from class and explaining to him why it's bad. Kids are already told to wait till they're older for enough things, and they don't put up with that very well.

"But daddy she's not gonna get pregnant, and it feels good for both of us. Why not? Neither of us have STD's, because neither of us have done this before."

What's your argument against that other than some wall of morality you've assigned yourself but can't logically force onto your child with anything other than a "Go to your room, you're grounded" - it just further makes the kid see you as an idiot to be able to outsmart you like that, and therefore he listens to you less because he respects you less.


No, seriously, I'm really curious what you'd say.

Someone's never met a Catholic schoolgirl. The most promiscuous girls I knew of in my neighborhood were always the girls who were denied access to the information in any way other than experimentation.

Catholic schoolgirls aren't denied access to the information - they're given the information, then they're given death threats and promises of lakes of fire and brimstone if they do anything like what they were told. Who the fuck is gonna take that seriously? They're given the information, and are put in a bad situation of doing so by creating a backwards environment of superstition and illogical demands by people they probably resent anyway.

I didn't say I wanted them to be "In the dark" - but kids don't usually take this kind of thing seriously. I mean, c'mon - who invented "cooties"? Kids.

Of course, by "kids", I mean K-5 graders - around 6th grade is when everyone in my class started talking about sex. Maybe it's changed since then, I dunno. But try sitting down talking with your 10 year old after catching him 69'ing with a girl from class and explaining to him why it's bad. Kids are already told to wait till they're older for enough things, and they don't put up with that very well.

"But daddy she's not gonna get pregnant, and it feels good for both of us. Why not? Neither of us have STD's, because neither of us have done this before."

What's your argument against that other than some wall of morality you've assigned yourself but can't logically force onto your child with anything other than a "Go to your room, you're grounded" - it just further makes the kid see you as an idiot to be able to outsmart you like that, and therefore he listens to you less because he respects you less.


No, seriously, I'm really curious what you'd say.

I wouldn't say anything. I would take them to a shrink. I don't know of any children that have engaged in such activities that were not molested as children. There is no evidence, none, that ignorance discourages the kind of activity that you're suggesting and there is much evidence that such ignorance not only encourages it but makes it decidedly less safe.

Here, here. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the best way to prevent curiosity is ignorance. I know I'm a hell of lot more likely to open a box when I don't already know what's in it.
We don't apply that kind of bullshit thinking in any other area.

We don't say, "Hey, if we refuse to tell kids anything about driving until after they have a car, then they'll never get into an accident!"

Or, "If we make sure kids never learn anything about swimming, then they'll never want to go in the water!"

Cripes people, how stupid do you think your own offspring are? Maybe your kids are fuckwits who won't think to look down their own shorts until you tell them to, but I'm sure their classmates will help clue them in.

They were already aware of the pictures before this came out and she was awarded for her excellent service after the pictures were already available. No problem existed until another teacher acted incredibly unprofessionally and allowed another student to bring up the pictures in class. Clearly the other teacher is the problem.

There was a time when being divorced was the argument. Or being pregnant. Or living with your boyfriend. (Notice how generally the issue is with the innocent behavior of 'slutty' women.)

When I was in school we had a teacher who offered to answer any question posed by a student in our sexual education class. Any question that was not a joke she promised to answer to the best of her ability. She was asked what ejaculate tastes like and answered that it is affected by diet but is typically said to be salty and/or bitter. Some people would have had a fit if they'd have known she was answering questions like that, but we got honest answers to honest questions from her. There wasn't a single pregnant girl in my graduating class of 300, a problem that was fairly common when I was a student. Clearly, she didn't lead us all astray (or, at least, there was no evidence for it) and there was no problem with us paying attention in her classes or behaving. She was hot, and I'll plainly admit to her being the subject of more than one nighttime ministration. As was one of my science teachers and my all-too-sexy spanish teacher. Students are going to see some teachers as sex objects. This woman did nothing wrong and did lots of things right. The only person who should be punished is the woman who thought it was a good idea to bring up her personal relationship to the other teacher in a class full of students and then allow those students to talk her into vengeance.

Granted, but how old were you in that class? Also, she was your sex-ed teacher - what else did she teach? Did it require as much concentration as long division in the third grade?

Catholic schoolgirls aren't denied access to the information - they're given the information, then they're given death threats and promises of lakes of fire and brimstone if they do anything like what they were told. Who the fuck is gonna take that seriously? They're given the information, and are put in a bad situation of doing so by creating a backwards environment of superstition and illogical demands by people they probably resent anyway.

That's not true. Many schools, particularly Catholic schools, do not educate children about sex. Abstinence-only education does not allow for the proper instruction of birth control use, the proper instruction on STD prevention and other such information. It's far more common than I'm comfortable with and that's in PUBLIC SCHOOL. Many private religious schools have virtually no sexual education.

They are not given the information. What you're stating is utterly false.

Granted, but how old were you in that class? Also, she was your sex-ed teacher - what else did she teach? Did it require as much concentration as long division in the third grade?

I was a high school student. You might be surprised by this, but hormones don't kick in until puberty. Children in the third grade have no sexual attraction to breasts. This woman was an art teacher. False comparison.

I wouldn't say anything. I would take them to a shrink. I don't know of any children that have engaged in such activities that were not molested as children. There is no evidence, none, that ignorance discourages the kind of activity that you're suggesting and there is much evidence that such ignorance not only encourages it but makes it decidedly less safe.

You'd take them to a shrink for outsmarting you logically? They would fucking hate you, for not being able to demonstrate that you're superior to them mentally as a parent, that you need someone else to help you deal with your kids (the shrink) and that you've taken them away from something that feels good and has seemingly no consequences except that which you've created for no reason.

You'd take them to a shrink for outsmarting you logically? They would fucking hate you, both for not being able to demonstrate that you're superior to them mentally as a parent, that you need someone else to help you deal with your kids (the shrink) and that you've taken them away from something that feels good and has seemingly no consequences except that which you've created for no reason.

For outsmarting me logically? Ever heard of a strawman. If a child is engaging in sexual activity prior to puberty it is almost certainly due to molestation. I was molested and I wish my parents had taken me to a professional to help them deal with it. They instead relied on bad advice and the type of ignorance your showing in spades.

You made up a scenario that in the real world only happens as a result of a sexually traumatic experience and then chastise me for trying to help my child process that experience. You're not even a little amusing.

I was a high school student. You might be surprised by this, but hormones don't kick in until puberty. Children in the third grade have no sexual attraction to breasts. This woman was an art teacher. False comparison.

Untrue. They simply don't have as many well-formed breasts around them, so they don't consider them. When I was in 3rd grade I had crushes on girls because they had cute faces and body shapes that my mind agreed with. When I got older, I had crushes on girls because I realized that body shape changes for the better and their faces become more mature while staying attractive.

We don't apply that kind of bullshit thinking in any other area.

We don't say, "Hey, if we refuse to tell kids anything about driving until after they have a car, then they'll never get into an accident!"

Or, "If we make sure kids never learn anything about swimming, then they'll never want to go in the water!"

Cripes people, how stupid do you think your own offspring are? Maybe your kids are fuckwits who won't think to look down their own shorts until you tell them to, but I'm sure their classmates will help clue them in.

I wish our friend here was trolling, but, unfortunately, I believe he actually thinks that if young children figure out what a vagina is they'll be having sex in the closet at the first opportunity. Apparently, knowledge causes early puberty. Didn't you know?

I wish our friend here was trolling, but, unfortunately, I believe he actually thinks that if young children figure out what a vagina is they'll be having sex in the closet at the first opportunity. Apparently, knowledge causes early puberty. Didn't you know?

That's a new one.

I believe that people who have vaginas are well aware of them as soon as they are born. Somehow, they manage to put off sex for at least a decade.

Untrue. They simply don't have as many well-formed breasts around them, so they don't consider them. When I was in 3rd grade I had crushes on girls because they had cute faces and body shapes that my mind agreed with. When I got older, I had crushes on girls because I realized that body shape changes for the better and their faces become more mature while staying attractive.

Ha. Amusing. In many European countries, any child that goes to the beach is surrounded by well-formed breasts. 8-year-olds are not sexual creatures. I distinctly remember that I didn't have to start trying to hide hardons in the third grade. Start a poll. I'm betting you won't find anyone who had an issue with that at such an age. Don't mistake the beginnings of interest with sexual attraction. 8-year-olds do not experience lust.

That's a new one.

I believe that people who have vaginas are well aware of them as soon as they are born. Somehow, they manage to put off sex for at least a decade.

There are some people here that think that an 8-year-old would actually desire and look forward to sex if we just informed them about it. Am I the only one finds such a suggestion not just patently false, but sickening?

There are some people here that think that an 8-year-old would actually desire and look forward to sex if we just informed them about it. Am I the only one finds such a suggestion not just patently false, but sickening?

Even if you told them, they wouldn't remember. Why do you think kids go back to school each year, and spend the first few months trying to remember what they learned the year before.

I actually believe that the whole point of an abstinence-only (or ignorance-first) sexual education is to make it impossible for teenagers to have sex without being caught. Kind of ridiculous when you hear the arguments that are made for this sort of thing, when you know what they really want is an unwanted pregnancy or active case of the clap to make it possible to catch their kids doing something that people have done for all of time.

I didn't say I wanted them to be "In the dark" - but kids don't usually take this kind of thing seriously. I mean, c'mon - who invented "cooties"?

The Puritans?


Kids.

Oh.

Honestly, kids may joke about cooties, but they also have some pretty serious thoughts on the subject. There's a lot of speculation, and a lot of misinformation that kids pass to one another. They're going to be learning all about sex whether you like it or not...the choice is whether they learn it from you, or from the kid at the next table who eats his paste.


Of course, by "kids", I mean K-5 graders - around 6th grade is when everyone in my class started talking about sex.

A ton of kids already have a baby brother or sister by then. I know I did, and my brother is a decade younger than me. Hell, kids start puberty as early as 8 years old these days, so you're going to be at least 3 years late for some of them. They'll already be speculating plenty on their own, and you're going to leave them festering in their own ignorance with nothing but MTV to fill in the blanks.


Maybe it's changed since then, I dunno. But try sitting down talking with your 10 year old after catching him 69'ing with a girl from class and explaining to him why it's bad.

And you think NOT TALKING TO HIM ABOUT SEX will reduce the likelihood that he tries this stuff?!

Seriously, were you ever a kid?!?!

The first kids to try those "games" were the kids who didn't know the first thing about sex! The kids who are MOST likely to play around with sex are the ones who've been told the least about their own bodies, and the risks and responsibilities that go along with sex. Keeping your kid ignorant is one of the best ways to ensure that when they have sex (and they WILL have it) they are going to end up hurting themselves or somebody else.


Kids are already told to wait till they're older for enough things, and they don't put up with that very well.

Most kids don't have any interest in sex until puberty anyhow. They are curious, and they want to know what's what, but they aren't in any rush to have sex until the hormones start kicking in.

Frankly, the best way you can make pre-pubescent kids want to have sex is to refuse to explain it to them and make it into a big grown-up secret. Then they DO want to play around with it, because they have picked up on the fact that grownups think it's something they aren't supposed to know about.


"But daddy she's not gonna get pregnant, and it feels good for both of us. Why not? Neither of us have STD's, because neither of us have done this before."

Frankly, if your 10 year old is wanting to have sex or 69 with somebody, then you've pretty much already fucked up as much as you possibly could. Teaching your kid about safe sex, and having a frank and honest discussion about sex with your kid, may be one of the few ways to keep them from totally ruining what's left of their life.

But, honestly, if you've got a kid who is so messed up that they will run out and fuck the moment they learn about sex, then I think intensive therapy is your only option.


What's your argument against that other than some wall of morality you've assigned yourself but can't logically force onto your child with anything other than a "Go to your room, you're grounded" - it just further makes the kid see you as an idiot to be able to outsmart you like that, and therefore he listens to you less because he respects you less.

Dude, you make it seem like all kids hate their parents so much that they will run out and have sex just to piss off Mom and Dad. I don't want to pry into your personal life, but that ain't how it worked in my house. If that's how it works in your house, then that interaction is what you really should be worried about. If you think in terms of forcing your kids to remain chaste, and having to lock them up to keep them from making stupid choices, then THAT is the parenting problem you've got to work on.

I don't remember when I learned about sex, because I pretty much always knew. I didn't feel any desire to have sex until well into puberty, because it just didn't seem like something I wanted to do. When I did start thinking about sex, I remember all the things I'd been taught about being safe and responsible and caring with my partner, and I knew that my parents wanted me to make responsible decisions because they wanted me to be happy and healthy.

Sex wasn't something dirty and secret that I had to sneak around about, it was something I could talk about with my parents comfortably. They helped keep me safe. They didn't want to punish me or keep me ignorant. They trusted me to make good choices because they knew they had brought me up to be thoughtful and reasonable.

You aren't going to be able to stop your kids from having sex, no matter how ignorant you try to keep them. If that's your main worry then you might as well get over it now. Your kids WILL FUCK. You choice is whether you're going to give them the information and the values to make good choices, or if you're going to withhold information and try to strong-arm them into living your way.

There are some people here that think that an 8-year-old would actually desire and look forward to sex if we just informed them about it. Am I the only one finds such a suggestion not just patently false, but sickening?
Deeply. Deeply sickening.

That's a new one.

I believe that people who have vaginas are well aware of them as soon as they are born. Somehow, they manage to put off sex for at least a decade.
I knew "penis" and "vagina" as soon as I knew "elbow" and "nose," yet somehow I managed not to have sex for many years. I guess maybe none of my fellow 4 year olds thought I was hot?

I knew "penis" and "vagina" as soon as I knew "elbow" and "nose," yet somehow I managed not to have sex for many years. I guess maybe none of my fellow 4 year olds thought I was hot?

*imagine insulting comment about appearance here*

yeah, I'm trying to avoid flaming today

For outsmarting me logically? Ever heard of a strawman. If a child is engaging in sexual activity prior to puberty it is almost certainly due to molestation. I was molested and I wish my parents had taken me to a professional to help them deal with it. They instead relied on bad advice and the type of ignorance your showing in spades.

You made up a scenario that in the real world only happens as a result of a sexually traumatic experience and then chastise me for trying to help my child process that experience. You're not even a little amusing.
Seriously. This guy is starting to really disturb me. I'm constantly freaked out by people who think children are sexual beings that will run out have have sex the moment they see a bared boobie or wee-wee.

There are some people here that think that an 8-year-old would actually desire and look forward to sex if we just informed them about it. Am I the only one finds such a suggestion not just patently false, but sickening?

Don't you remember? You are training them to think sex is wrong at a young age.

Don't you remember? You are training them to think sex is wrong at a young age.

Yes, but unfortunately they usually don't decide it's wrong until they've screwed a few of their classmates when they weren't ready and then felt guilty about it the rest of their lives. I believe DK's right in that this is an attempt to ensure there is no chance that their mistakes won't have consequences. God forbid children make mistakes and have the knowledge to, at the very least, mitigate that mistake so as not to end up ruining their lives. Teen pregnancy has been falling for three decades. I suppose we should live in terror that this means teenagers are getting away with sex.

Seriously. This guy is starting to really disturb me. I'm constantly freaked out by people who think children are sexual beings that will run out have have sex the moment they see a bared boobie or wee-wee.

My children will learn appropriately about the body. I won't teach them about their ovaries any younger than I'll teach them about their spleen, but no later either. They should learn that sex is a natural part of simply being, but that like balding, childrearing and puberty is something that we are not physically or emotionally prepared for until a certian point in our lives.

For outsmarting me logically? Ever heard of a strawman. If a child is engaging in sexual activity prior to puberty it is almost certainly due to molestation. I was molested and I wish my parents had taken me to a professional to help them deal with it. They instead relied on bad advice and the type of ignorance your showing in spades.

You made up a scenario that in the real world only happens as a result of a sexually traumatic experience and then chastise me for trying to help my child process that experience. You're not even a little amusing.

I didn't make it up, I gave you a situation you couldn't get out of using logic.

Right now, as it stands, if kids are molested, while they know nothing about sex, they tend to be sexual prematurely. Yes. But if they were educated -to a degree- then they wouldn't be so quick to indulge.

Bottom line, when you get right down to it, there's no reason other than the "Kids shouldn't do that" stigma that you could throw at your son.

Seriously. This guy is starting to really disturb me. I'm constantly freaked out by people who think children are sexual beings that will run out have have sex the moment they see a bared boobie or wee-wee.

*sigh* You're exaggerating. They won't "run out and have sex" - they will start to wonder, however, why adults can do it and kids can't. They'll question it, and adults won't have an answer. Note the fact that I haven't gotten a solution to the son who was 69'ing.

No answer? Nobody can tell me I'm wrong with a straight face? Yeah.

I didn't make it up, I gave you a situation you couldn't get out of using logic.

Ha. Couldn't get out of? I used logic. I handled it in the most appropriate way based on the real world. Your view of raising children is frightening. It's not a game where I'm a wus if Use the manual.

Right now, as it stands, if kids are molested, while they know nothing about sex, they tend to be sexual prematurely. Yes. But if they were educated -to a degree- then they wouldn't be so quick to indulge.

There is nothing you can teach a child biologically about sex that is going to increase their likelihood to indulge. I challenge you to show any evidence that suggests otherwise. However, even if ignorance doesn't promote sexual activity, and I believe that it does, it clearly doesn't encourage safety.

Bottom line, when you get right down to it, there's no reason other than the "Kids shouldn't do that" stigma that you could throw at your son.
Really? If you think there's nothing wrong with it, why do you think it's wrong? The fact that you can't find a logical reason to deal with just evidences your flawed views on child sexuality. I can explain to my children why it's dangerous to them just as easily as I can explain why cocain is a bad idea or a plethora of other things that are bad for children.

Children are fairly intelligent. They're quite easy to reason with in a lot of ways provided you don't treat them like they're stupid. How do you keep kids from doing anything if you can't explain to them why sex is an issue?

I get the impression you don't want to teach children about their bodies because your logical failures happen early and often and since logic won't work for you, you have to rely on having more knowledge than them. How long do you think that will last?

No answer? Nobody can tell me I'm wrong with a straight face? Yeah.

It's hard to keep a straight face when we're laughing at you.

By the way, I know this is surprising, but you might guess that sometimes people actually stand up and do things that are not in front of a laptop. You're not really make a compelling enough argument to make it worth waiting for a reply.

*sigh* You're exaggerating. They won't "run out and have sex" - they will start to wonder, however, why adults can do it and kids can't. They'll question it, and adults won't have an answer. Note the fact that I haven't gotten a solution to the son who was 69'ing.

The solution is obvious. We simply find it hard to believe that you even think your 'scenario' is even remotely related to what we're discussing.

They'll question it and you can either be the one to provide the answers or you can allow television and ignorant little kids answer those question. I would prefer the people giving answers were people who cared about these children and who had knowledge of what they are talking about. The reasons for children not to have sex are clear and easy to explain. I don't have to rely on keeping them ignorant and hoping they won't try to find out on their own.

This is Bullshit. Then again, what is the school system doing that isn't?

No answer? Nobody can tell me I'm wrong with a straight face? Yeah.

"No answer? Nobody can tell me I'm wrong with a straight face? Yeah."

I guess sometimes you have to get up from the computer too, huh?

its up to her what she does out side of school. Thats like that school that went on myspace, found all of its students and then called the cops on them and what not for any pictures of the students they found that involved drinking or drugs... people need to mind their own damn business:upyours:

What state and what public agency, please? I'd like to see the details of that case.

You do not give up your rights by accepting employment.

Do you honestly think whether or not she has posed artistically has any bearing on whether or not she'll be seen as a sex object? Young boys will consider her a sex object if she's got boobs and she's under 75. That's what young boys do. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that until a teacher was stupid enough to allow students to bring up the site in school that it was affecting her classroom in any way. All evidence points to the opposite, in fact.



For your own sake, please become more informed about the world you live in. Your employer absolutely can use information not germain to the job to fire you:

“Flight attendant Ellen Simonetti and former Google employee Mark Jen have more in common than their love of blogging: They both got fired over it.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/tech/main678554.shtml

“For the second day in a row, a Marion County Sheriff's deputy has been stripped of his badge. The latest officer was fired over a personal Web site posting, WESH 2 News reported.”

http://www.wesh.com/news/9400560/detail.html?rss=orl&psp=news

"All good things must come to an end, including the chance to post lascivious photographs and diary entries on the Internet without repercussions."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/19/opinion/edonline.php

As to being fired for tattoos, Walt Disney World is just one company that has a policy of not hiring any employees with visible body art. If you get it after you are hired you will be fired.

And if you really think this teacher will not lose the respect of her students because her boyfriend posted her nuddies (this wasn't a modeling job), well, I guess you have never been at the front of the classroom.

Hmm. If someone were to hack into GW Bush's personal computer and found a bunch of gay porn, could the President be impeached?

For your own sake, please become more informed about the world you live in. Your employer absolutely can use information not germain to the job to fire you:

“Flight attendant Ellen Simonetti and former Google employee Mark Jen have more in common than their love of blogging: They both got fired over it.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/tech/main678554.shtml

“For the second day in a row, a Marion County Sheriff's deputy has been stripped of his badge. The latest officer was fired over a personal Web site posting, WESH 2 News reported.”

http://www.wesh.com/news/9400560/detail.html?rss=orl&psp=news

"All good things must come to an end, including the chance to post lascivious photographs and diary entries on the Internet without repercussions."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/19/opinion/edonline.php

As to being fired for tattoos, Walt Disney World is just one company that has a policy of not hiring any employees with visible body art. If you get it after you are hired you will be fired.

And if you really think this teacher will not lose the respect of her students because her boyfriend posted her nuddies (this wasn't a modeling job), well, I guess you have never been at the front of the classroom.

Speaking of informed. It was her GIRLFRIEND. And who you are modeling for does not change whether it is art or not.

And let me see, is Disney or an airline a public agency? You do realize the employments requirements for government agencies is not the same as for private companies. Oh, of course, you knew that. You're INFORMED. So informed you don't even know what we're talking about in this thread.

Now to the on-topic example you gave, the ONE you gave. That ONE was a deputy who was posting to MySpace using a picture of himself IN UNIFORM and was terminate while he was still in the probationary period. Quite a bit different than a teacher of several years. But you knew that, right, Mr. Informed?

Oh and since you're not following along with the conversation -
Public employers cannot punish you for actions that have no bearing on your job? I guess that depends on your definition of "bearing on your job." Certainly, there are examples of employers firing employees for getting a tattoo.

What state and what public agency, please? I'd like to see the details of that case.

Your answer: The famous public agency - DISNEY

There have been numerous examples of people fired for things they have posted on their MySpace.

What state and what public agency, please? I'd like to see the details of that case.
Your answer - A deputy who posted himself in uniform talking about things a county employee in uniform should not be publicly talking about. He was IN UNIFORM. That affects his job.

Your further examples - The famous public agency Airlines and Google. Brilliant.

I just want to point out, that the elders tell us that adults didn't shield children from sex...it was a natural part of life, and kids knew from an early age what it involved. Kids would 'practice', but it rarely actually led to anything. You see the same thing in other tribal societies. Sex is not taboo, and not something that necessarily happens behind locked doors, and it's not like our seven year olds were having sex.

Talk to rural kids, growing up on farms, if they know what sex is all about. Chances are, they've seen the bulls going at the cows, the dogs going at the bitches, and the rabbits going at one another constantly...kids aren't stupid...if they were, you wouldn't be so damn concerned about 'hiding the truth'.

Puritanism is the worst thing that ever happened to Western society.

The Adult Conspiracy is there for a reason - until a certain age, kids just aren't equipped with the maturity or the intelligence to handle something like the details of where babies come from or what's a 69 position or "Why did I see mommy with beads in her bottom last night?" - that kinda thing is strictly for adults, because they can handle it. Most can handle it, at least.

Kids are stupid. Too early of knowing certain things in the wrong conditions will lead to preteen pregnancy happening much more often than it does now. "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" becomes more interactive when they actually know what to do.

I am absolutely certain that kids are emotionally equipped to handle the sight of breasts. They all manage it just fine as babies, and they'd continue to manage it just fine if, post-weaning, they weren't taught that breasts are OMG dirty evil sexual things instead of perfectly ordinary body parts.

You've demanded logical explanations of others in this thread; please, provide me a logical explanation of how a woman's bare chest is any more inherently sexual than a man's bare chest - unless, of course, you believe that children are also emotionally incapable of handling the sight of the latter. :)

Catholic schoolgirls aren't denied access to the information - they're given the information, then they're given death threats and promises of lakes of fire and brimstone if they do anything like what they were told. Who the fuck is gonna take that seriously? They're given the information, and are put in a bad situation of doing so by creating a backwards environment of superstition and illogical demands by people they probably resent anyway.

Dude, I was a Catholic schoolgirl, and my school's sex education was as follows:

1. God made Adam and Eve.
2. Men and women are different in special ways. Very special. So special we can't possibly tell you what they are.
3. When you reach a...special...time of your life, your body will undergo....special...changes, which are also so special that we can't possibly describe them in any way.
4. Let's go back to talking about God some more!

That was, quite literally, all we learned for several years. Then my school had the good fortune to hire a sixth-grade teacher who insisted that the girls should at least be instructed in how to use a tampon and so forth, which plan was eventually approved despite a good deal of grumbling from the school board, presumably about how acknowledging the existence of periods would make us all become dirty sluts. We never even discussed how exactly babies were made, let alone how to put tab A into slot B.

I left that school after sixth grade. When I was in ninth grade, I learned from an ex-classmate that four out of the twenty-ish girls in that class already were or had been pregnant. Yeah, not giving kids any information about sex works just wonderfully.

Puritanism is the worst thing that ever happened to Western society.
You know, it actually wasn't Puritanism but Victorians? They blaimed the Puritans, but those guys were all for the idea of sex as long as it was done between a married couple.

Then my school had the good fortune to hire a sixth-grade teacher who insisted that the girls should at least be instructed in how to use a tampon and so forth, which plan was eventually approved despite a good deal of grumbling from the school board, presumably about how acknowledging the existence of periods would make us all become dirty sluts.
Er... if they didn't teach that before, what were the girls doing then?

Er... if they didn't teach that before, what were the girls doing then?
the point is that the student body educates itself which is bad because it begs for misinformation and a OMG thats sooo dirty, hehe, boobies. kind of enviorment.

Er... if they didn't teach that before, what were the girls doing then?

Heaven knows. I'd like to hope that most of them had sane parents to teach them what they needed to know, but I greatly fear that wasn't the case for a lot of students. I'm still pretty baffled by my school's previous sex ed policy, since you'd think the need to explain basic puberty-related stuff to kids approaching and going through puberty would kind of be a no-brainer...

Heaven knows. I'd like to hope that most of them had sane parents to teach them what they needed to know, but I greatly fear that wasn't the case for a lot of students. I'm still pretty baffled by my school's previous sex ed policy, since you'd think the need to explain basic puberty-related stuff to kids approaching and going through puberty would kind of be a no-brainer...

You can't teach chidlren about their bodies or they'll be 69ing each other. Haven't you been reading the thread?

You can't teach chidlren about their bodies or they'll be 69ing each other. Haven't you been reading the thread?

Oops, silly me. I forgot all about the giant Catholic-schoolgirl orgy we all had immediately after learning about our own anatomy. Because, y'know, once we understood what a vagina was, there just wasn't any logical reason not to have wild lesbian sex with all the other vaginas in the room.

Ah, those childhood memories...

:p

I can tell you you are wrong with a straight face Szanth.


Here is what I would tell my "hypothetical child that was caught 69ing with a classmate at age 10" inspite of their "it feels good and no harm will come" argument that you seem want to espouse:


You are not ready to handle the responsibility of sexual relations.

If pressed further I would explain to him/her that sexual relations do not belong in the school especially at that age. It is very difficult to control one's sexual impulses and engaging in that behavior will inhibit your education at school (And if this sort of thing is occurring out of school, then I would state how it will interfere with studies and would inhibit normal socialization in this society).

The "It feels good" argument fails miserably even if it doesn't hurt anyone else. Kids should not be having sexual relations while their brains are still forming.


In General:

I'm all for explaining about the origin of babies and the de-sexualization of the human form, but knowing about the body and having sexual relations are two widely disparate things.


NT

It's crap. Teachers have a freedom of speech just like every other American. I can see how some actions are disruptive but this is imposing a moral code that really can't be seen as anything but a violation of freedoms.

I can see if a teacher was involved in amateur porn or something as it creates some issues with the learning environment, but the idea of calling artwork porn for having nudity has been rejected soundly as a violation of freedom of expression.

Yes, her freedom was exercized in the signing of her contract, which limited her freedoms under moral-standard clauses.

Her firing was for violation of the contract she had previously signed.... Her freedom is not infringed upon on a personal level... She is free to continue to produce such art... She just will no longer be allowed to teach.

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.



So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?

Me thinks tis be bollocks.

She was weightlifting, not beaver-splitting, right?

Let her be unmolested.

You know, it actually wasn't Puritanism but Victorians? They blaimed the Puritans, but those guys were all for the idea of sex as long as it was done between a married couple.
Actually, you're right...and I remember being 'schooled' in this topic very convincingly a while back here on NS...I apologise for perpetuating a stereotype:)

A standard clause in any teaching contract I've signed is "will uphold the dignity of the profession".

Now, under human rights laws in my province and nation, you can not be fired for simply being gay, of a certain colour, married or not, etc, etc, etc...BUT as with all such things, other reasons are generally invented to let you go, and it's awfully hard to prove that the reason was actually an illegal one.

Add to that some 'proof of deviant or improper behaviour in public' and you've got less of a chance to defend yourself against the ethical code you are bound by.

A standard clause in any teaching contract I've signed is "will uphold the dignity of the profession".

Now, under human rights laws in my province and nation, you can not be fired for simply being gay, of a certain colour, married or not, etc, etc, etc...BUT as with all such things, other reasons are generally invented to let you go, and it's awfully hard to prove that the reason was actually an illegal one.

Add to that some 'proof of deviant or improper behaviour in public' and you've got less of a chance to defend yourself against the ethical code you are bound by.


I'm sure that you can find a top-flight job in the housekeeping or food service industries if you're not interested in "upholding the dignity of the profession".

I'm sure that you can find a top-flight job in the housekeeping or food service industries if you're not interested in "upholding the dignity of the profession".
No, I'll just switch to a profession in which there is no dignity....law:p

Though to restate this...I take no issue with this clause, or the expectations that I comport myself in a way that does not cause the community to lose faith in me. Hence, my debauchery is committed further away from where I live, and I'm fairly discreet.

I'm sure that you can find a top-flight job in the housekeeping or food service industries if you're not interested in "upholding the dignity of the profession".
If the fact that I have boobies, or the fact that sometimes my boobies may not be covered by clothing, is perceived as a failure to uphold the dignity of my profession, then you're right...I need a new profession.

Happily, my profession is full of people who play with insect gonads, film rodent mating behaviors, and dump sex hormones onto hot, raunchy cell cultures. So my boobies aren't considered cause for concern.

No, I'll just switch to a profession in which there is no dignity....law:p

Though to restate this...I take no issue with this clause, or the expectations that I comport myself in a way that does not cause the community to lose faith in me. Hence, my debauchery is committed further away from where I live, and I'm fairly discreet.

Well, there is something additively erotic about discretion in debauchery.

If the fact that I have boobies, or the fact that sometimes my boobies may not be covered by clothing, is perceived as a failure to uphold the dignity of my profession, then you're right...I need a new profession.

Happily, my profession is full of people who play with insect gonads, film rodent mating behaviors, and dump sex hormones onto hot, raunchy cell cultures. So my boobies aren't considered cause for concern.

My kids are fairly well acquainted with the biology of sex, and when we were at the pool, my five year old son was watching the dragonflies mating in the air. He shouted, very loudly, "LOOK! THEY ARE MATING!"

To him, it was a moment of wonder, and a demonstration that what he had been told was actually true. But to some of the shocked parents at the pool, they thought he was some kind of junior deviant.

Well, there is something additively erotic about discretion in debauchery.


*pokes DK*

Perv!

*pokes DK*

Perv!
Actually, not a perv. Master of debauchery, perhaps.

Actually, not a perv. Master of debauchery, perhaps.

You mean Ueberperv?

You mean Ueberperv?
I'm probably the only bisexual Pentacostal Christian you'll ever meet who is a married swinger.

I'm probably the only bisexual Pentacostal Christian you'll ever meet who is a married swinger.


*is left speaking in something that might be mistaken for glossosallia*

eurlghr...bmrhm :confused: :eek:

Yes, her freedom was exercized in the signing of her contract, which limited her freedoms under moral-standard clauses.

Her firing was for violation of the contract she had previously signed.... Her freedom is not infringed upon on a personal level... She is free to continue to produce such art... She just will no longer be allowed to teach.

Yes, that's the argument they used to use for firing women for getting pregnant while teaching. Here's a question - does it still work? I'm betting it won't in this case, particularly since they didn't sanction the other teacher for bringing the site up in class.

You're INFORMED. So informed you don't even know what we're talking about in this thread.



It seems you are just out to score debating points, which is what most people do in this forum and is fine. My response was not confined simply to public employers, but to all employers in general. Public school employers actually have more restrictions when it comes to the conduct of their employees than does the private sector. Teachers are expected to abide by a morals clause which most private sector employees do not. But, I'll concede that your extensive experience posting your opinions on message boards trumps my nearly 20 years in the public school system when it comes to being familiar with the job requirements.

You win.

Have a cookie.

No, I'll just switch to a profession in which there is no dignity....law:p

Though to restate this...I take no issue with this clause, or the expectations that I comport myself in a way that does not cause the community to lose faith in me. Hence, my debauchery is committed further away from where I live, and I'm fairly discreet.

But this woman was not engaged in any debauchery. It's absurd to fire a person for having breasts and engaging in artwork. If I would her I would go the sexual discrimination route. I'm quite certain that were she male and topless that this would be a non-issue.

Bah. I've painted one of my teachers nude before. I don't see how this is any different.

It seems you are just out to score debating points, which is what most people do in this forum and is fine. My response was not confined simply to public employers, but to all employers in general. Public school employers actually have more restrictions when it comes to the conduct of their employees than does the private sector. Teachers are expected to abide by a morals clause which most private sector employees do not. But, I'll concede that your extensive experience posting your opinions on message boards trumps my nearly 20 years in the public school system when it comes to being familiar with the job requirements.

You win.

Have a cookie.

Ah, yes, your unconfirmed experience means anything on an internet forum. Oh, wait.... Last I checked you don't know what my experiences are, nor do I know yours. What I do know is what you've posted and I've shown how what you posted does not apply to the discussion. People who have to pull out the unconfirmed "but *whine* I'm much more experienced than you *whine*" card, pull it out because their arguments have failed. Show how what you say is true or sit down.

Meanwhile, last I checked you were the one who suggested that someone become educated about the topic while talking about a topic you couldn't be arsed to read the fifteen sentence article on.

For your own sake, please become more informed about the world you live in.

For your own sake, before you embarrass yourself, at least educate yourself on the topic and try, just try, to actually offer evidence of a point you made with ACTUAL evidence of the point YOU made.

Public employers are members of the government and as such are governed by stricter guidelines in terms of hiring and firing practices. But you knew that, right? In the private industry, when you come to work and when you use my services you are on private property engaging with private citizens. In public industries, when you come to work and when you use the services you are on public property engaging with the government. As a private entity there are many discriminatory practices that are permitted under law that are not so in the public arena. That's why you can have a Catholic private school but not a Catholic public school. But you knew that, right?

As such, the firing practices of private industry has little to say about the firing practices of public industry. And which were we talking about? You made the specific argument that public employers can fire people with tattoos and then used a private employer as an example. That's not just bad debate that's simply bad logic.

You made the specific argument that public employers can fire people with tattoos and then used a private employer as an example. That's not just bad debate that's simply bad logic.

No, YOU confined the discussion to public employers. I said employers in general can dictate all kinds of non-work related activities. Although the thread topic is about this teacher in Texas, many people posted the opinion that what a person does in their off time is their own business. My response was that is not the case in any area of employment, public or private. My further point is that public school teachers are usually held to an even higher standard for non-work related activities.

Why the attitude?

No, YOU confined the discussion to public employers. I said employers in general can dictate all kinds of non-work related activities. Although the thread topic is about this woman in Texas, many people posted the opinion that what a person does in their off time is their own business. My response was that is not the case in any area of employment, public or private. My further point is that public school teacher are usually held to an even higher standard for non-work related activities.

Hmmm... I did mention public employers (since we're talking about a public school), but last I checked you gave tattoos as an example after claiming that public employers can do as they like. Let's see if I'm right...

Public employers cannot punish you for actions that have no bearing on your job? I guess that depends on your definition of "bearing on your job." Certainly, there are examples of employers firing employees for getting a tattoo.

You weren't replying to many people. You were replying to me. Who do you think you're fooling?

Amusingly, every example you've given thus far was of someone doing something that affected that not just in their off-time but also at work (besides the fact that you utterly failed to respond to the point I ACTUALLY made). Last I checked, if a tattoo is in a place not covered by my work clothing then it's visible *gasp* at work. Meanwhile, it says nothing about the public sphere and their view on tattoos to tell me what Disney thinks.

Are you actually claiming that the fact that this school was public is not a factor? So can a public school not hire me for being Jewish? Can a Catholic school? There is a difference between the two spheres. It's a bit sad that you refuse to admit that difference exists.

EDIT: Why the attitude? Hmmm...

For your own sake, please become more informed about the world you live in.

*snip* Furthermore, I don't think that people should get all fussy over a woman's breasts like they do. They're not even included in the act of sex. Their original purpose was to feed babies.
Then you aren't doing it right.;)

A school can fire you for writing a letter to your congressman.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=43403

A school can fire you for opposing interracial marriage.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/067825.htm

A teacher was fired for making a porno movie 11 years before becoming a teacher.

http://www.wlky.com/education/9158826/detail.html

A teacher in Texas (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html) has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.



So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?

Making art is not a 'moral' standpoint.

This case has nothing to do with 'morality', and everything to do with 'politics'.

Making art is not a 'moral' standpoint.

This case has nothing to do with 'morality', and everything to do with 'politics'.

But....but......the human body is immoral! Didn't you know?

Just one more mention of this. The teacher in the OP was topless, but at no time did the lens capture titty. Get that? No boobs were shown (at least not in the pics I saw). Janet Jackson showed more nipple than Ms. Hoover. The debate over whether an immoral teacher who acts out outside of the entire school community is all well and good, but the troubling thing to me is describing what Ms. Hoover did as "immoral" in any way, shape or form.

This obsession with "damaging" kids or teachers who are "bad role models" is legitimate only when damage can be shown. No damage, no problem. As a former public school teacher, this kind of Crucible-esque horseshit is why I chose to leave my beloved high school and teach at college...at a reduced salary, I might add. I decided my sanity was more important. I don't have nude photos on the net, but I do have strong opinions. Despite support from dozens of parents, my justifiably paranoid administrators listened to the whinings of one, that's ONE, parent and began placing letters in my permanent file. No discipline beyond that, but that was enough for me to see that my personality was not going to fly in a district that anal.

And why are they anal? Why are administrators paranoid? Lawyers. That's a whole 'nother rant -- but tell me, who's going to win in this whole dust-up in Austin? The lawyers.

A school can fire you for writing a letter to your congressman.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=43403

Yet another article you didn't read.

One - "The elementary school teacher who wrote a letter disparaging Hispanics and other minorities resigned Tuesday."

Two - This absolutely affected her work on the job.

Hall had gotten high marks from principals over the years, but some Hispanics in her classroom have complained about how they were treated.

...

"I'm tired of fooling with them. I'm sure I can go to work in a private school in another county," Hall said Tuesday.

This woman was battered by a student, apparently a hispanic student, and this was an escalating problem that was evidenced by the letter and even then they tried to allow her to keep her job

The district offered several options, including teaching homebound students, if she apologized and met with a psychiatrist.

You really should work on this offering evidence thing.

Meanwhile...

Heard of Pickering v The Board of Education

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=391&invol=563
1. "[T]he theory that public employment which may be denied altogether may be subjected to any conditions, regardless of how unreasonable, has been uniformly rejected." Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 605 -606 (1967). The teacher's interest as a citizen in making public comment must be balanced against the State's interest in promoting the efficiency of its employees' public services. P. 568.

...

The statements are in no way directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in [391 U.S. 563, 570] contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or harmony among coworkers is presented here.

The difference between your example and Pickering is that the teacher you listed made comments that were, in the end, about her students. It IS "directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher."

But maybe I should get educated about the world around me, no?

But this woman was not engaged in any debauchery. It's absurd to fire a person for having breasts and engaging in artwork. If I would her I would go the sexual discrimination route. I'm quite certain that were she male and topless that this would be a non-issue.
SPOT ON, brother.

Yet another article you didn't read.

One - "The elementary school teacher who wrote a letter disparaging Hispanics and other minorities resigned Tuesday."

Two - This absolutely affected her work on the job.

Hall had gotten high marks from principals over the years, but some Hispanics in her classroom have complained about how they were treated.

...

"I'm tired of fooling with them. I'm sure I can go to work in a private school in another county," Hall said Tuesday.

This woman was battered by a student, apparently a hispanic student, and this was an escalating problem that was evidenced by the letter and even then they tried to allow her to keep her job

The district offered several options, including teaching homebound students, if she apologized and met with a psychiatrist.

You really should work on this offering evidence thing.

Meanwhile...

Heard of Pickering v The Board of Education

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=391&invol=563
1. "[T]he theory that public employment which may be denied altogether may be subjected to any conditions, regardless of how unreasonable, has been uniformly rejected." Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 605 -606 (1967). The teacher's interest as a citizen in making public comment must be balanced against the State's interest in promoting the efficiency of its employees' public services. P. 568.

...

The statements are in no way directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in [391 U.S. 563, 570] contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or harmony among coworkers is presented here.

The difference between your example and Pickering is that the teacher you listed made comments that were, in the end, about her students. It IS "directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher."

But maybe I should get educated about the world around me, no?
Game, set aaaaand match.

Why can't you be female and less than 100 miles from my house?

A school can fire you for writing a letter to your congressman.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=43403[/quote


Since you added more. She didn't get fired. They didn't threaten to fire her. They actually tried to get her help. Meanwhile, you're being dishonest. She didn't just write a letter. She showed discrimination in class against hispanics and her mostly hispanic class was directly the subject of the letter which was about hispanic immigration.

[QUOTE=The Ogiek People]A school can fire you for opposing interracial marriage.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/067825.htm

She was accused of making comments to parents about the interracial children AT THE SCHOOL being unclean. That's hardly the same thing. Are this dishonest to your students or is it just on internet forums?

Parents and students said Loeffelman also said mixed-race students came to school dirty and are never accepted by society.

A teacher was fired for making a porno movie 11 years before becoming a teacher.

http://www.wlky.com/education/9158826/detail.html

This case has not seen its day in court. I suspect it will be overturned. It is no more evidence than the case in the OP. The fact that they can TRY to fire someone for this is not proof they CAN. Meanwhile, a 'fuck flick' and photographs where she is topless taken by a photographic ARTIST when you are an ART teacher is not even remotely the same thing.

Hey, it only took six articles before you found one that was on-topic. You suck at this.

Making art is not a 'moral' standpoint.

This case has nothing to do with 'morality', and everything to do with 'politics'.

This woman is going to get her day in court. Pickering is going to be used to tear this decision apart. Meanwhile, they have yet to address the fact that a teacher who had a personal vendetta acted inappropriately in the classroom and showed this site to her entire class. She may not have known the content of the site but given that the students were suggest the site's content could get the other teacher in trouble why would THIS teacher think bringing it up in a classroom full of students would be acceptable. If there is a terminable offense, it's right there, folks.

This woman is going to get her day in court. Pickering is going to be used to tear this decision apart. Meanwhile, they have yet to address the fact that a teacher who had a personal vendetta acted inappropriately in the classroom and showed this site to her entire class. She may not have known the content of the site but given that the students were suggest the site's content could get the other teacher in trouble why would THIS teacher think bringing it up in a classroom full of students would be acceptable. If there is a terminable offense, it's right there, folks.

I'm hoping you are right on this one.. but I've watched 'celebrity' beat justice hands-down in US courts just too often. If this case is 'famous' enough - I'm worried our topless teacher will suffer the wrath of the Right.

But....but......the human body is immoral! Didn't you know?

Mine's not. :(

I'm hoping you are right on this one.. but I've watched 'celebrity' beat justice hands-down in US courts just too often. If this case is 'famous' enough - I'm worried our topless teacher will suffer the wrath of the Right.

What she should do is get as many male teachers in the school as she can to pose for the same poses in the same or similar clothing and then she should make sure it's posted in the same place. Then if she gets fired and he doesn't it's sexual descrimination.

A school can fire you for writing a letter to your congressman.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=43403[/quote


Since you added more. She didn't get fired. They didn't threaten to fire her. They actually tried to get her help. Meanwhile, you're being dishonest. She didn't just write a letter. She showed discrimination in class against hispanics and her mostly hispanic class was directly the subject of the letter which was about hispanic immigration.



You're a funny little person, with your 11,000 posts. I guess I should feel flattered you work so diligently reading mine (I must confess, I've only read 2 or 3 of yours and, as you have taken such pains to point out, not very closely). The Jan Hall case, in which the teacher was fired for the letter to her congressman took place in my school district. This case, like the teacher in Texas, created a firestorm in this area. She did NOT show discrimination in her class (she actually had good reviews). She DID write a letter to her congressman, which somehow made its way to a local Hispanic newspaper.

You apparently only know what information I've given you. She was put on suspension by the county and resigned before being fired. The county certainly did NOT try to assist her.



Meanwhile, a 'fuck flick' and photographs where she is topless taken by a photographic ARTIST when you are an ART teacher is not even remotely the same thing.

Hey, it only took six articles before you found one that was on-topic. You suck at this.

Why on earth should there be any difference between a porn film and nude pictures? Isn't sex natural? Isn't eroticism part of human nature? This occurred 11 years before she was a teacher. How can you not defend her right to do something that is legal in this country that has no bearing on her ability to teach?

Or are you telling me that there is some legal conduct that a teacher could engage in that, in your opinion, would make her unfit to teach? Perhaps you are merely arguing about where in the sand the line should be drawn?

This woman is going to get her day in court. Pickering is going to be used to tear this decision apart. Meanwhile, they have yet to address the fact that a teacher who had a personal vendetta acted inappropriately in the classroom and showed this site to her entire class. She may not have known the content of the site but given that the students were suggest the site's content could get the other teacher in trouble why would THIS teacher think bringing it up in a classroom full of students would be acceptable. If there is a terminable offense, it's right there, folks.
Now I'm just going to speak from the standpoint of the Teacher's Association I belong to, but I know that aside from taking her case against the people trying to get her certificate revoked, had this case happened here, the Association would likely also be investigating that other teacher for a breach of professional conduct. At no time are you supposed to attempt to get another teacher fired...and if you take issue with them, there is a set protocol to deal with that...a face to face meeting being the first step. I agree that in this case, the only real offense was committed by the teacher with a grudge.

You're a funny little person, with your 11,000 posts. I guess I should feel flattered you work so diligently reading mine (I must confess, I've only read 2 or 3 of yours and, as you have taken such pains to point out, not very closely).

Yes, see, when I say things, I like to know what I'm talking about. I don't argue to hear my voice. I prefer to be correct when I speak, something you are essentially admitting is not high on your list of priorities.

The Jan Hall case, in which the teacher was fired for the letter to her congressman took place in my school district. This case, like the teacher in Texas, created a firestorm in this area. She did NOT show discrimination in her class (she actually had good reviews). She DID write a letter to her congressman, which somehow made its way to a local Hispanic newspaper.

She also wasn't fired. She resigned. She was offered a chance to continue to work and her response was that she was tired of dealing with 'these people'. She didn't like hispanics. She made that very clear. How one could argue that doesn't affect her job TEACHING HISPANICS is beyond me.

You apparently only know what information I've given you. She was put on suspension by the county and resigned before being fired. The county certainly did NOT try to assist her.

I apparantly only know what you've given me? I gave you a ton of information. Information you were wrong about. She was NOT fired. She was offered continued employment provided she apologize and seek councelling for her racist views, views that are kind of germaine to a teacher who is teaching hispanics.

Why on earth should there be any difference between a porn film and nude pictures? Isn't sex natural? Isn't eroticism part of human nature? This occurred 11 years before she was a teacher. How can you not defend her right to do something that is legal in this country that has no bearing on her ability to teach?

Um, you don't know the difference between sex and a naked body? I can walk around naked in front of my children (I don't actually HAVE children), but I cannot have sex with them. In Texas, she could legally be topless in the town square but she certainly cannot have sex there.

Meanwhile, I didn't say her firing was right. I actually said she has not yet had her day in court and I think, I hope, that she will be protected.

Or are you telling me that there is some legal conduct that a teacher could engage in that, in your opinion, would make her unfit to teach? Perhaps you are merely arguing about where in the sand the line should be drawn?
Or perhaps I'm talking about the things she does that do not directly affect her classroom should be sacrosanct. In fact, I think I've expressly said this woman's rights should be protected. Replying to posts you haven't actually read just makes you look absurd. Please take the time to read before you reply, becuase you're making me feel like a bully.
This case has not seen its day in court. I suspect it will be overturned.
I do defend the woman who did porn. I simply said they are not equal.

Don't they require an ability to read where you teach?

EDIT: Whatever you do, don't respond to the post that has the SCOTUS case that pretty much makes you look like you have no clue on this issue.

Now I'm just going to speak from the standpoint of the Teacher's Association I belong to, but I know that aside from taking her case against the people trying to get her certificate revoked, had this case happened here, the Association would likely also be investigating that other teacher for a breach of professional conduct. At no time are you supposed to attempt to get another teacher fired...and if you take issue with them, there is a set protocol to deal with that...a face to face meeting being the first step. I agree that in this case, the only real offense was committed by the teacher with a grudge.

No question. But apparently I don't really know what I'm talking about because rather than claiming 20 years of experience teaching I've been posting Supreme Court cases and actually reading the articles about this rather than skimming them and saying things that are provably inaccurate.