Austin art teacher being fired for posing topless:

[jread]

Sorry, but I think this is ridiculous... especially for Austin. Everyone who has posted comments on the news site also feels like she should not be fired.



District looks to fire Austin High art teacher
Teacher, who posted nude portraits online, can appeal decision to begin termination proceedings.

By Raven L. Hill
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, June 13, 2006

An Austin High School art teacher who posed partially nude in photographs posted on the Web could soon be out of a job after the school board voted Monday to begin termination proceedings.

The teacher, Tamara Hoover, 29, has been on paid administrative leave since May 19 because "inappropriate material" was posted on a Web site, according to the district. A student notified school officials about the site's content, namely several portraits that show Hoover nude from the waist up.

Austin High School art teacher Tamara Hoover says the photos of her posted online are 'artistic photography,' not pornography. This photo was among those on a Flickr Web site, a site some students looked at during class last month.

The district's attorney, Mel Waxler, said he could not comment, citing personnel and legal concerns.

Hoover defended her actions in a blog by saying that the pictures are not pornography but "artistic photography" and that she neither knew nor had any control over which photographs were posted by the photographer.

The school district's policies regarding employee behavior include a moral turpitude clause that prohibits "base, vile, or depraved acts that are intended to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the actor."

Hoover may appeal the board's decision, with the board making a final decision in August.

Although Hoover has declined commenting on the matter, she protested the district's decision on her blog entry dated June 9. "They are firing me for pictures of me being on a website . . . and claiming the website is pornographic," Hoover wrote. "The district isn't even asking to hear my side."

Louis Malfaro, president of Education Austin, a 4,000-member group that represents teachers and staff members, said he thought the district's handling of the matter was inappropriate.

"Teachers need to be cautious because they are held to a higher standard," he said. "However, I think it's outrageous the way Tamara has been treated, and I'm glad she has herself a good lawyer," he said. "You can walk into most art galleries in this town and see the kind of artwork that was depicted on that Web site."

The pictures ? hundreds of photos of Hoover posing clothed and partially nude, alone and in company ? were posted on a photo-sharing Web site that does not require a password.

"I never told kids to 'go see me' at the web site," she wrote.

The blog also contains Hoover's account of the events leading up to her removal:

"That morning a fellow teacher was talking poorly about me to her class. A student said, 'Well, if you really dont like Ms. Hoover, you should check out the website she is on.' . . . So she told the student to pull it up. He did so in front of a class full of students."

Hoover said the district is pursuing criminal charges and determined that she was an ineffective teacher.

"I have been recognized by the board year after year (2 weeks before May 19 board recognized me again) for outstanding achievments as an art teacher," she wrote. "A report came back from the investigation saying that I am well liked on my campus and have a good reputation of being a caring teacher who tries to help each student find their own artistic voice."

Hoover was recognized during a May 8 school board meeting after one of her students won first place in a statewide competition. Another student, who did not give a name, posted an encouraging message Hoover's personal Web page.

"You do not deserve this," the student wrote. "It was my grandma's dying wish that I did something in the arts. . . . I feel like me being in your class would've made her very happy, and I know it made me very happy."

Hoover has taught at the Central Austin school since 2000.

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/09/86/90/image_3790869.jpg

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/00/90/90/image_3790900.jpg


http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/13artteacher.html

[Nighthawk]

Yet another attempt at legislating morality. Sometimes I wonder if we live in a theocracy.

[bergenski]

There's nothing the matter with engaging in artistic posing outside of her professional time, but when it becomes posted on an extremely public Web site that students easily access, then her professional position and representation of the school district are now in question. She should have been a lot more cautious in how the photos were handled, and I could understand it if the school district has to look at her employment. That said, I don't know exactly how good she was, if this was an ongoing thing with her, etc., but I could understand them wanting to take a hard look (ah hem) at whether to continue to hire her. Anyway, if she does get dismissed I am sure she will have no trouble finding another position, especially if she is as good as she says she is.

[sbw]

every time a female teacher gets in trouble its a blonde.

Scott

[kendoiwan]

T'cha T'cha tell me how you do it...

[Rhu]

"Hey there, Bubba. I was sittin in class and I got to thinking. You know that purty teacher of ours?"

"Yeah, Clem?"

"She probably got boobies."

"Oh sweet Jesus, Clem, I gotta go barf!"

The only way I would find this offensive is if she had boils, hairy warts, and tumors all over her asymetrical, multicolored, hotcarled chest.

Otherwise, it really isn't anything that the kids probably haven't figured out already.

[jread]

"Hey there, Bubba. I was sittin in class and I got to thinking. You know that purty teacher of ours?"

"Yeah, Clem?"

"She probably got boobies."

"Oh sweet Jesus, Clem, I gotta go barf!"

The only way I would find this offensive is if she had boils, hairy warts, and tumors all over her asymetrical, multicolored, hotcarled chest.

Otherwise, it really isn't anything that the kids probably haven't figured out already.

Bubba and Clem? You've obviously never been here before.

[Rhu]

Bubba and Clem? You've obviously never been here before.

I... I just couldn't think up a retarded sounding name that started with an A! Arty and Bubba doesn't quite have the image I was going for.

I'm sure there's no conservative white trash at all in Austin, of course. Everyone there is an ahead-of-his-time thinker or postmodern science fiction author. Or active in the music scene, or a hipster who pretends he is.

I mean, I know for a fact that there are only people like that in the small northeastern town I grew up in. I was just projecting my life experience with the frightened and unskilled into a magical and pure place where it didn't belong.

[attila_the_hunny]

When did Jenna Elfman become a school teacher?

[sbw]

after she stopped getting work.

Scott

[KuJo]

after Greg was executed for doing a sci-fi movie, that ripped off an old chinese movie called "monkey with 72 magic", yes you read that correctly, "MONKEY WITH 72 MAGIC". i sadly have the old film and its hilarity, but it makes no sense. since greg died........ i dont know where im going with this. MONKEY WITH 72 MAGIC!! its a real movie, and sci-fi use the ideas from it, thats all i really wanted to say.

[attila_the_hunny]

Now look what I started.

[ApeTheDog]

It makes more sense than the opposite. Why would anyone pose topless after they had been fired? Why? Somebody tell me.

[cafe]

I don't know what the teacher thought was going to happen when she gave permission for semi-nude photos of herself to be posted on the internet . . . It surprises me that she's surprised.

[KuJo]

heres the original, and it came in a set of 12 dvds that are all equally bad, but not as funny.

:edit: nevermind, i found it. sci-fi didnt do it, they just showed it and it was under a different name. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0198779

[mgb]

I don't know. It's pretty well understood by most teachers that as a teacher you live by a different set of rules than most people. You spend your whole day with people's precious little darlings, of course they are going to get upset when you do stuff like that.

It's not fair, but it is how it works.

[PlayerOfGames]

So basically, the message is that being an artists nude model is morally depraved.

USA! USA!

[mgb]

So basically, the message is that being an artists nude model is morally depraved.

USA! USA!

No, being a teacher and posing nude will get you fired. It's how the job works.

Besides, who was the dumbass who posted her picture on the net?

[rawr]

I... I just couldn't think up a retarded sounding name that started with an A! Arty and Bubba doesn't quite have the image I was going for.

I'm sure there's no conservative white trash at all in Austin, of course. Everyone there is an ahead-of-his-time thinker or postmodern science fiction author. Or active in the music scene, or a hipster who pretends he is.

I mean, I know for a fact that there are only people like that in the small northeastern town I grew up in. I was just projecting my life experience with the frightened and unskilled into a magical and pure place where it didn't belong.


How come someone thats conservitive has to be white trash<_<

[PlayerOfGames]

No, being a teacher and posing nude will get you fired. It's how the job works.


I think there's something weird about an art teacher being fired for posing for what seem to be pretty clearly artistic photographs - artists paint nudes all the time.

I mean, does this indicate a lack of moral fibre or something? I really don't think so.

[mgb]

I think there's something weird about an art teacher being fired for posing for what seem to be pretty clearly artistic photographs - artists paint nudes all the time.

I mean, does this indicate a lack of moral fibre or something? I really don't think so.

I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. I think a lot of parents, and also school boards by extension, just freak about that stuff and don't have any sort of rational objective stance on it.

But that doesn't really matter. Chances are she signed a teaching contract saying she wouldn't do that sort of thing, probably not that specifically, but more like some sort of morality clause.

Besides, art is subjective. So is smut. As a teacher, I'd error on the side of caution in those cases.

[Rhu]

How come someone thats conservitive has to be white trash<_<

I don't know!

It could be that the comfort of being the privileged ethnicity and the favored religion and a having a decided lack of education leads them to be fearful and highly resistant to social movements and thereby leading them to urge lawmakers to pass laws that discourage changes to the world around them.

It could also be hypnosis, brain washing, drugged water supplies, or whatever.

[wildcat]

There's nothing the matter with engaging in artistic posing outside of her professional time, but when it becomes posted on an extremely public Web site that students easily access, then her professional position and representation of the school district are now in question. She should have been a lot more cautious in how the photos were handled, and I could understand it if the school district has to look at her employment. That said, I don't know exactly how good she was, if this was an ongoing thing with her, etc., but I could understand them wanting to take a hard look (ah hem) at whether to continue to hire her. Anyway, if she does get dismissed I am sure she will have no trouble finding another position, especially if she is as good as she says she is.
The admirable objective of bergenski is to understand things not people; however, as people we can only understand people.

[PlayerOfGames]

I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. I think a lot of parents, and also school boards by extension, just freak about that stuff and don't have any sort of rational objective stance on it.

We don't really disagree, I wasn't being clear - although it's not surprising that she got fired, I don't believe it's right.


But that doesn't really matter. Chances are she signed a teaching contract saying she wouldn't do that sort of thing, probably not that specifically, but more like some sort of morality clause.

Herein lies the interesting part for me - depending on the wording of the contract, and whether it specifically defines posing nude as immoral, I think this isn't cut and dried. If it's a contractual dispute, and so in court, it's out of the hands of the knee-jerk school board.


Besides, art is subjective. So is smut. As a teacher, I'd error on the side of caution in those cases.

Depends whether, as an art teacher, you believe more strongly in towing the line to keep a job, or in (inoffensive to reasonable people IMHO) artistic expression.
It's almost walking the talk, as it were.

[jread]

Here are the pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/celestadanger/sets/294392/

I am not impressed....

She looks kinda beat up for only being 29 :eww:

[cafe]

Yeah, I'm sorry. She wants to do stuff like that, she needs to go back to school and teach at a progressive university. Most mamas are not going to be happy about their baby's teacher being in nudie pics. Not in the US at least.

Edit: I suspect this might be some kind of play for national attention for whatever reason.

[booyalab]

Yet another attempt at legislating morality. Sometimes I wonder if we live in a theocracy.

1. all laws legislate morality
2. legislating morality isn't the definition of a theocracy

[KuJo]

i dont have a problem with someone teaching if they have nude pictures(that are somewhat artistic) on some internet site. its a naked body, deal with it. if it was pornographic and she was specifically directing kids to it, that might be a problem.

i seriously cant see the problem with it. maybe someone can explain exactly why its wrong.

[libertarianjim]

When did Jenna Elfman become a school teacher?

I think she looks more like Traylor Howard.

[wildcat]

i dont have a problem with someone teaching if they have nude pictures(that are somewhat artistic) on some internet site. its a naked body, deal with it. if it was pornographic and she was specifically directing kids to it, that might be a problem.

i seriously cant see the problem with it. maybe someone can explain exactly why its wrong.
They cannot explain it. Those pictures were just pictures. There was nothing in them. Not even art.
That teacher had done nothing wrong. Yet she was persecuted. The women in this forum do not defend a persecuted individual of their own sex. Instead they rave against the victim. They take a male chauvinist stand against one of their own. A poor conception of loyalty.

[mgb]

They cannot explain it. Those pictures were just pictures. There was nothing in them. Not even art.
That teacher had done nothing wrong. Yet she was persecuted. The women in this forum do not defend a persecuted individual of their own sex. Instead they rave against the victim. They take a male chauvinist stand against one of their own. A poor conception of loyalty.

Because sisters should stand together, even when one of them does something idiotic?

And since this is somewhat contentious, moved to The World.

[eyebyte_atWork]

WHo the heck are these teachers? - all of mine were old people with attitudes. No one wanted to see naked pics of them - trust me.


And to settle it - she looks like Traylor Howard's and Jenna Elfman's love child.

[Biff_Loman]

I'm not sure how to view the flickr page. It says "oops, private page".

[sbw]

me too.

Scott

[wildcat]

Because sisters should stand together, even when one of them does something idiotic?

And since this is somewhat contentious, moved to The World.
Those pictures were of bad taste. Most pictures are of bad taste. Bad taste has not to do with anything except bad taste.
Bad taste is not a crime. Taste has only to do with taste.

If you want to see good pictures, see the pictures of Raincrow. She has taste and abiity. A rare breed in this forum.

[cafe]

i dont have a problem with someone teaching if they have nude pictures(that are somewhat artistic) on some internet site. its a naked body, deal with it. if it was pornographic and she was specifically directing kids to it, that might be a problem.

i seriously cant see the problem with it. maybe someone can explain exactly why its wrong.

Wrong is probably too strong a word. In this situation, it's much more about deep-seated and unconscious attitudes than anything intellectual. People's attitudes about sex and their instincts to shelter their children and their higher expectations for those in a position of leadership and trust all come into play here.

America is prudish and repressed about sex and nudity compared to the rest of the Western world. We just are. We are less so than we used to be and I expect we will become more relaxed about things in the future, but for the time being, we are what we are. Nudity is going to get a reaction, even if only an embarrassed giggle. It makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

Also, this is a teacher. She has nearly unlimited access to children. She is popular and trusted by the kids she teaches. She has great influence. Parents (repressed American parents, remember?) want to protect their kids from the evils of sex among other things. Parents do not want to have to have arguments with their children about putting nudie pics of themselves online. They do not want to hear "But Miss _______ did it so why can't IIIIIIIIII??" They just really don't want to have to deal with all that. They also fear their children could be preyed upon and/or seduced.

Is any of this rational? Probably not. It comes to close too an area of instinct to be rational. Mama just thinks "Protect baby." And she protects baby best she can. She does not care whose throat she rips out while she's doing it. Only baby matters.

Maybe the generation of most of the folks here will not have a problem with their adolescent children being taught by someone who can be found naked on the internet. I don't think the majority of American parents my age and older are quite ready for that. She had to have known that. It can't have been news to her. That she allowed these photos to be taken and published in a public place indicates that she either does not care or that she lacks judgement. The politics involved in education are tricky and a teacher can get fired for smaller "offenses" than that.

Women tend to be, first and foremost, loyal to their own families. I see no reason to defend someone, male or female, for using poor judgement. However, were she my child's teacher and had I learned about the pics, I would have spoken with her privately to inform her about the situation. I would assume that she did not know that she had nude pics of herself posted in a public place and that she had a right to know so she could get them removed or made private. I would expect her to take steps to do one of those things. If she was unwilling to do that then yes, I would probably speak to her boss.

[bergenski]

The admirable objective of bergenski is to understand things not people; however, as people we can only understand people.
I definitely don't understand you!

[PlayerOfGames]

However, were she my child's teacher and had I learned about the pics, I would have spoken with her privately to inform her about the situation. I would assume that she did not know that she had nude pics of herself posted in a public place and that she had a right to know so she could get them removed or made private. I would expect her to take steps to do one of those things. If she was unwilling to do that then yes, I would probably speak to her boss.

What if she had taken artistic nude photos of someone else, that were online with her name as the photographer?

[Biff_Loman]

I still can't access the URL for the photos. Thoughts?

[libertarianjim]

And to settle it - she looks like Traylor Howard's and Jenna Elfman's love child.

That's so freakin' hot.

[cafe]

What if she had taken artistic nude photos of someone else, that were online with her name as the photographer?
It would probably depend on the photos. If they were in good taste, I don't think it would bother me as much. However, I'd be a catious about signing a waiver about my child's photos being taken and posted online. I'm cautious about that anyway. Even if her intentions were completely pure, I'd be concerned that she would not use good judgement or that she would disregard my preferences as a parent in the name of artistic expression.

[cafe]

I still can't access the URL for the photos. Thoughts?
My thought is that someone finally had the good sense to put the photos on a private access setting after the site started getting a bazillion hits.

[PlayerOfGames]

It would probably depend on the photos. If they were in good taste, I don't think it would bother me as much. However, I'd be a catious about signing a waiver about my child's photos being taken and posted online. I'm cautious about that anyway. Even if her intentions were completely pure, I'd be concerned that she would not use good judgement or that she would disregard my preferences as a parent in the name of artistic expression.

Your child's photos? I'm specifically asking about the teacher having taken photographs of some other nude model. My point being, why would it be more offensive for her to have been the photographer rather than the model in a nude (artistic) photograph?
Are they not both involved in the work of art?
Doesn't the photographer have more, not less input in the creative process?

[cafe]

Your child's photos? I'm specifically asking about the teacher having taken photographs of some other nude model. My point being, why would it be more offensive for her to have been the photographer rather than the model in a nude (artistic) photograph?
Are they not both involved in the work of art?
Doesn't the photographer have more, not less input in the creative process?

I know what you meant. What I'm saying is that I'd be nervous about letting someone who takes and posts nude photos on the internet take and publish photos of my children.

It has zero to do with the creative process. That would be intellectual and conscious which this has very little to do with.

[PlayerOfGames]

I know what you meant. What I'm saying is that I'd be nervous about letting someone who takes and posts nude photos on the internet take and publish photos of my children.

I must be misunderstanding you. Where does taking photos of your child for publishing come into it?



It has zero to do with the creative process. That would be intellectual and conscious which this has very little to do with.

It has to do with the descision to appear nude, or to be involved in a nude photograph?

[AcidGoethe]

I do not understand what is wrong, even if it was porn it's her business and her private life. What's this? "Big brother" is watching you?

I'm sure if it was pictures of her giving a punch in the face of someone in the street, she wouldn't have gotten fired. That's just the way it is. Display of violence is ok today... but show a little boobie and "omg! that's immoral". Shit, it isn't going to be the last anyone sees, it's natural. Such idiocy. As if kids were going to be shocked or traumatized by this.

If she wants to pose as a model, that's her right, and it's plain wrong to punish her hobby/lifestyle by firing her. She didn't mean to show the pictures intentionally to the students anyway. Even if she did, she'd still be sending an actually interesting educational message: that of the acceptance, recognition and embracement of the beauty of nature - regardless of absurd, illogical and arbitrary draconian social norms.

[cafe]

I must be misunderstanding you. Where does taking photos of your child for publishing come into it?
My children's school has a website. The school sent home documents requesting permission to publish photos of my children along with their names on their site. (I gave permission for their photos, but not their names to be used.)

Say for example, my child's art class was doing a section on photography and a document was sent home requesting permission to photograph my child and publish their photos on a website for the class, I would be leery of signing such a form if I was aware that the teacher took photos of nudes and published them online.


It has to do with the descision to appear nude, or to be involved in a nude photograph?
Yes.

[cafe]

I do not understand what is wrong, even if it was porn it's her business and her private life. What's this? "Big brother" is watching you?

I'm sure if it was pictures of her giving a punch in the face of someone in the street, she wouldn't have gotten fired. That's just the way it is. Display of violence is ok today... but show a little boobie and "omg! that's immoral". Shit, it isn't going to be the last anyone sees, it's natural. Such idiocy. As if kids were going to be shocked or traumatized by this.

If she wants to pose as a model, that's her right, and it's plain wrong to punish her hobby/lifestyle by firing her. She didn't mean to show the pictures intentionally to the students anyway. Even if she did, she'd still be sending an actually interesting educational message: that of the acceptance, recognition and embracement of the beauty of nature - regardless of absurd, illogical and arbitrary draconian social norms.
It stops being private when it's posted on a public forum. And she is also a public employee.
And yes, she is sending a message and an important one: A spitting in the face of your employer's social norms will get your butt fired.

[PlayerOfGames]

Say for example, my child's art class was doing a section on photography and a document was sent home requesting permission to photograph my child and publish their photos on a website for the class, I would be leery of signing such a form if I was aware that the teacher took photos of nudes and published them online.

Because the fact that the teacher took nude photographs of consenting adults, or was photographed nude as part of her art means she's more likely to take photos of your children that are exploitative or inappropriate, in some kind of crazy artistic zeal? Madame, surely you jest.

[cafe]

Because the fact that the teacher took nude photographs of consenting adults, or was photographed nude as part of her art means she's more likely to take photos of your children that are exploitative or inappropriate, in some kind of crazy artistic zeal? Madame, surely you jest.
When it comes to my babies, no, I absolutely do not. I'm as rabidly protective as any mother bear and just as rational.
You can let her have your babies if you want to.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

It stops being private when it's posted on a public forum. And she is also a public employee.
The pictures are on a pictures site, everybody who encounters them knows there can be some body on them. It is quite hypocritical of whoever found the photographs to report them. I bet the pictures were meticulously examined by the board of directors before they decided to fire her.
It's much like censorship in films. A bunch of old farts frantically looking for half nipples and tufts of pubic hair. Pathetic!


And yes, she is sending a message and an important one: A spitting in the face of your employer's social norms will get your butt fired.That might be reality, but I don't agree that whoever has money gets to choose what's appropriate behaviour or not.

[Nyairj]

As a person without children (and one who is still recovering from liberalism), I tend to think about these issues primarily in terms of individual liberty. That some entirely legal, entirely ethical, entirely unrelated activity you do outside of work could get you fired seems Orwellian. The effect of this and other, similar cases is that your activities outside of work are to some extent controlled; you can't completely leave work at work. This isn't something you agreed to, and that you did nothing wrong is no defense.

However, as cafeaulaitinfj has shown, the firing makes significantly more sense from a parent's perspective. These non-work-related activites may affect the teacher's ability to perform her job if they become common knowledge among students. The things teachers do are legitimized in the eyes of the children by the fact that the teachers are adult authority figures. At the very least, children can use their example as an excuse when they mimic the inappropriate behavior at home. Whether posing nude for artistic purposes is scandalous or not, many parents would not feel comfortable with someone who does it teaching their children and it would be unfair to dismiss their wishes out-of-hand.

Ultimately, I'd prefer more personal liberty. If I ever have kids, that might change. Single people and childless couples tend to be more liberal while those with larger families tend to be more conservative; it probably isn't a coincidence.

Edit: Redundancy

[PlayerOfGames]

When it comes to my babies, no, I absolutely do not. I'm as rabidly protective as any mother bear and just as rational.
You can let her have your babies if you want to.

:wtf: Hey, there's that giant T F divide everyone's been talking about. If you truly believe that someone who creates art in the public sphere containing nudity is significantly likely to abuse children in some way, I guess there's nothing more to say.

EDIT: Typo

[cafe]

The pictures are on a pictures site, everybody who encounters them knows there can be some body on them. It is quite hypocritical of whoever found the photographs to report them.
It was a highschool student at her school that ratted her out.

[cafe]

:wtf: Hey, there's that giant T F divide everyone's been talking about. If you truly believe that someone who creates art in the public sphere containing nudity is significantly likely to abuse children in some way, I guess there's nothing more say.
And probably at least 70% of the mamas of the students at that school are Fs and it's in the Bible belt, so most of those mamas had their panties in a wad and if she could not have predicted that . . . I don't what to say.

[Wotton]

Wait, she teaches high school? By that age, shouldn't the art students she'd be teaching already have been exposed to lots of breasts through art?

[PlayerOfGames]

And probably at least 70% of the mamas of the students at that school are Fs and it's in the Bible belt, so most of those mamas had their panties in a wad and if she could not have predicted that . . . I don't what to say.

Yes, pragmatically, her problem was to fail to predict the amount of closed-minded knee-jerk behaviour she would encounter.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

It was a highschool student at her school that ratted her out.
Yes, it's absurd. "Oh my god, my teacher is on one of the sites I use to look at! How immoral of her!"

[jread]

And probably at least 70% of the mamas of the students at that school are Fs and it's in the Bible belt, so most of those mamas had their panties in a wad and if she could not have predicted that . . . I don't what to say.

I have to add that you should not assume that Austin is "churchy" just because it's in Texas. It's actually quite the opposite. It's about as religious and conservative as San Francisco.

Where did all the bitchy parents come from then? Believe it or not, Southern California. Until the influx of people from Silicone Valley during the late 90's, something like this was never an issue. The cops didn't even bust people for smoking pot.

[jread]

I still can't access the URL for the photos. Thoughts?

I'm sure it was taken down or made private due to all the visitors it's getting right now.

[wildcat]

I have to add that you should not assume that Austin is "churchy" just because it's in Texas. It's actually quite the opposite. It's about as religious and conservative as San Francisco.

Where did all the bitchy parents come from then? Believe it or not, Southern California. Until the influx of people from Silicone Valley during the late 90's, something like this was never an issue. The cops didn't even bust people for smoking pot.
How could they bust people for smoking pot when the pot smokers from California had not yet arrived.

[Ivy]

As a person without children (and one who is still recovering from liberalism), I tend to think about these issues primarily in terms of individual liberty. That some entirely legal, entirely ethical, entirely unrelated activity you do outside of work could get you fired seems Orwellian. The effect of this and other, similar cases is that your activities outside of work are to some extent controlled; you can't completely leave work at work. This isn't something you agreed to, and that you did nothing wrong is no defense.

However, as cafeaulaitinfj has shown, the firing makes significantly more sense from a parent's perspective. These non-work-related activites may affect the teacher's ability to perform her job if they become common knowledge among students. The things teachers do are legitimized in the eyes of the children by the fact that the teachers are adult authority figures. At the very least, children can use their example as an excuse when they mimic the inappropriate behavior at home. Whether or not posing nude for artistic purposes is scandalous or not, many parents would not feel comfortable with someone who does it teaching their children and it would be unfair to dismiss their wishes out-of-hand.

Ultimately, I'd prefer more personal liberty. If I ever have kids, that might change. Single people and childless couples tend to be more liberal while those with larger families tend to be more conservative; it probably isn't a coincidence.

Predictably, I'm riding the fence on this one. (Whee!) I've been a teacher, albeit not a classroom teacher, and I'd balk at the idea that my private life is the domain of anybody but me. However, it's prudent to maintain some discretion-- if I posed in the nude, I'd make DARN sure the photos would never be displayed in a place where my students could see them. Not only would it freak parents out, but it would be fodder for inappropriate student/teacher contact. I'd rather not invite my students to wank to my photos, yknow?

That's pretty much the position I take as a parent, as well. I have no issue at all with my child's teacher posing nude outside of the school context. I would question his or her judgment and attitudes on appropriate student/teacher contact, though, if the photos were accessible to students in any way. I think having them up on a Flickr account accessible to anybody counts as indiscreet.

[jread]

How could they bust people for smoking pot when the pot smokers from California had not yet arrived.

This is been a city of potheads for a very long time. Surely you've heard of Willie Nelson :)

[sbw]

This is been a city of potheads for a very long time. Surely you've heard of Willie Nelson :)

"I remember when a dime bag used to cost a dime"

Scott

[wildcat]

This is been a city of potheads for a very long time. Surely you've heard of Willie Nelson :)
Never heard of Willie. He became famous for smoking pot and had his picture in the newspaper?
In California pot smokers do not get their pictures printed. If you know what I mean.
Well, that art teacher does not surprise me then.
Austin seems to be quite a place.

[jread]

Update on the story: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/16artteacher.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52

[wildcat]

Update on the story: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/16artteacher.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52
Much ado about nothing.

[htb]

Mentally, the poor girl hasn't graduated from art school yet. She should do so, post-haste; after she moves all of the (admittedly respectful and artfully done) semi-nudes to private online galleries the local school board would be obligated, one would hope, to go ahead and return her to the classroom.


1. all laws legislate morality
2. legislating morality isn't the definition of a theocracyExactly right. Thank you.

[Wotton]

Where did all the bitchy parents come from then? Believe it or not, Southern California. Until the influx of people from Silicone Valley
Isn't that more northern California?