Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D...

[Captain X]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Then, frankly, I think that you have an unhealthy attitude to nudity. You must see it as being wrong rather than seeing it being natural.

QFT

You were obviously never a teenage boy.

I was. And you ignored my comment about my hot math teacher, I might add.

But children have different mentalities, and something like nudity could very easily be a distraction.

You act like she's going to be standing up there naked in front of them, or that they're going to be subscribing to Playboy or something. I find this amusing for a number of reasons, but the most amusing aspect of this attitude was that this is a cheerleading coach, and cheerleading is all about sexualizing teenagers anyway.

Teachers and actors come with different expectations.

Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Some men lust after girls in school uniforms, other lust after women wearing little black dresses, or even women wearing nun's habits. Should women stop wearing such clothes just because they cause some men to lust?

I think there is nothing wrong with tasteful nudity. Today, of a man really wants to lust after a naked woman he is going to pick a magazine that is raunchier than Playboy.

This reminds me of the wrong headed argument from some parents who say "since my child will get drunk anyway, I might as well invite all of his friends over to my house and then I can supervise the drinking...."

Just because they are going to do it anyway is no argument for its appropriateness.

A woman posing naked isn't harming herself at all. Its is the men who are lusting, not the woman who is only posing for a photo.

Looking at a tasteful photo of a nude isn't going to harm a child. Seeing a woman naked isn't going to harm a child. The harm only comes if someone convinces a child that the naked body is obscene in some way and if this the case the harm comes, not from nudity, but from a puritanical attitude towards nudity.

In Denmark they have bare breasted women holding up signs trying to get people to slow down in their cars. Danish child are able to take this in their stride.

Alcohol, on the other hand, can harm a teenager.

Also, giving alcohol to minors is illegal, posing for Playboy is not.

Just because everyone else does it, doesn't make it right.
I am not saying that we go lock ourselves in some closet and pretend that we have no idea what a naked body looks like, or teach our children that nudity, etc is evil. But there is a time and a place for those kinds of things, and a magazine is not one of them.

Now that we are straying from the topic, just to bring it back: I don't believe that anyone has a "right to be employed, where they want to be."
Yeah we shouldn't discriminate by race or gender, but I think people are way out of line for suing companies or schools or what have you for wrongful termination in most cases. Call me old fashioned, but I just do not believe that the courts should be involved.

If I got fired from my job tomorrow because my boss decided that I didn't like the car I drove, yeah it would suck, it would not be fair, but I don't have a "right" to work there, nor to be treated fairly.

So I say the school was right to do what it wanted.

 

[TGTheodore]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Okay, back to the original point.

SCHOOL: We want to hire you as a teacher.

TEACHER: Great!

SCHOOL: In taking this job you agree to everything that's in this contract.

TEACHER: You bet! Where do I sign?

[She signs the contract. Some time later...]

SCHOOL: You broke your word and the terms of your employment ...

TEACHER: But ...

SCHOOL: You lied to us. Your word means nothing. You're fired.

The End.

--Ted

 

[Augustus]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Okay, back to the original point.

SCHOOL: We want to hire you as a teacher.

TEACHER: Great!

SCHOOL: In taking this job you agree to everything that's in this contract.

TEACHER: You bet! Where do I sign?

[She signs the contract. Some time later...]

SCHOOL: You broke your word and the terms of your employment ...

TEACHER: But ...

SCHOOL: You lied to us. Your word means nothing. You're fired.

The End.

--Ted

Amen to that!

 

[hyzmarca]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

There seem to be three sides to this debate.

We've got the "the human body is evil" people.
We've got the "it's a contract" people.
And we've got everyone else.

The human body isn't evil, it is a work of art. No matter if you believe that it was created by God or not, this should fairly obvious. Playboy isn't about lust, it's about aesthetics. It's about beauty. To find something morally dubious about the magazine is to find something morally dubious about Michelangelo and his David.
We should teach our children to appreciate fine art, not to revile it.

And it isn't in her contract, seriously. It isn't in her contract because it isn't in any contract. Most have standard morality clauses. It's they're just meaningless boilerplate containing vague and undefined terms. None are specific, because no lawyer can think of every specific situation that might warrant such a termination.
Often, the terms "moral turpitude" and "good moral character" are used, but these have very specific legal meanings that would not apply in this case. Vaguer language generally relies on community standards, and thus is subjective but not arbitrary, and terminations on such grounds are subject to review to be sure that the activity in question really was a violation of contractual obligations.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Okay, back to the original point.

SCHOOL: We want to hire you as a teacher.

TEACHER: Great!

SCHOOL: In taking this job you agree to everything that's in this contract.

TEACHER: You bet! Where do I sign?

[She signs the contract. Some time later...]

SCHOOL: You broke your word and the terms of your employment ...

TEACHER: But ...

SCHOOL: You lied to us. Your word means nothing. You're fired.

The End.

--Ted

A contract goes bother ways. Both sides have to abide by it. If her contract says that she has to be of good moral character than it is up to the school to prove that posing for Playboy is immoral. If it isn't immoral than the school is the one who has broken the contract not the teacher.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

There seem to be three sides to this debate.

We've got the "the human body is evil" people.
We've got the "it's a contract" people.
And we've got everyone else.

The human body isn't evil, it is a work of art. No matter if you believe that it was created by God or not, this should fairly obvious. Playboy isn't about lust, it's about aesthetics. It's about beauty. To find something morally dubious about the magazine is to find something morally dubious about Michelangelo and his David.
We should teach our children to appreciate fine art, not to revile it.

And it isn't in her contract, seriously. It isn't in her contract because it isn't in any contract. Most have standard morality clauses. It's they're just meaningless boilerplate containing vague and undefined terms. None are specific, because no lawyer can think of every specific situation that might warrant such a termination.
Often, the terms "moral turpitude" and "good moral character" are used, but these have very specific legal meanings that would not apply in this case. Vaguer language generally relies on community standards, and thus is subjective but not arbitrary, and terminations on such grounds are subject to review to be sure that the activity in question really was a violation of contractual obligations.

So Playboy is just like a modern day Michelangelo's David? Yeah, I am sure that is exactly why everyone subscribes to it!!! It is just an art magazine!!!!

 

[TGTheodore]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Okay, back to the original point.

SCHOOL: We want to hire you as a teacher.

TEACHER: Great!

SCHOOL: In taking this job you agree to everything that's in this contract.

TEACHER: You bet! Where do I sign?

[She signs the contract. Some time later...]

SCHOOL: You broke your word and the terms of your employment ...

TEACHER: But ...

SCHOOL: You lied to us. Your word means nothing. You're fired.

The End.

--Ted

A contract goes bother ways. Both sides have to abide by it. If her contract says that she has to be of good moral character than it is up to the school to prove that posing for Playboy is immoral. If it isn't immoral than the school is the one who has broken the contract not the teacher.

Contract for employment standards do NOT go "both ways". The person being hired agrees to everything as DEFINED by the employer. If she didn't like it, she shouldn't have signed on. Tough being a grown up sometimes, isn't it?

--Ted

 

[Miss Chicken]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Well they certainly go both ways in Australia and Workplace Agreements here must be approved by the Industrial Relations Commission. I didn't realise it was so different in the USA.

BTW in the Australian case from last year people might be interested to learn that even though the young female teacher was fired no action was taken against her husband who posed naked with her (he is also a teacher).

The Education Department reinstated the young teacher but refused to allow her to return to her old job. Instead they offered her firstly a job that was too far away and after that offered her a job which she feels she isn't qualified to do (teaching special needs children). As I result of this she is suing the Education Department and the matter has yet to go to court.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Definitely. I would probably have a hard time learning from my teacher (especially if I was a teenager) if I knew they had posed nude.

Then, frankly, I think that you have an unhealthy attitude to nudity. You must see it as being wrong rather than seeing it being natural.

When I have a conversation with Genevieve Picot the fact that she had a nude scene in a movie doesn't stop me from having an intelligent conversation with the woman and I have no doubt that if I had seen tasteful naked photos of a teacher it wouldn't stop me from learning (not even when I was a teenager).

You were obviously never a teenage boy.

My attitude now is just fine. I've even taken drawing classes with nude models and didn't have a problem at all.

But children have different mentalities, and something like nudity could very easily be a distraction.

Well, I was a teenage boy, and I fail to see how having a teacher who posed in Playboy is significantly more of a distraction than just having a hot teacher or one who wore low-cut blouses, tight outfits, or short skirts, which we've almost all had at one point or another. I had no problem using my imagination to picture my teacher naked or involving her in my fantasies as a teen, which is about all you can do with a teacher who has posed in Playboy as well, with the exception of possibly being able to get your hands on some visual aids. So what, kids will gather around and discuss it at lunch? They do that anyway, whether they've actually seen the teacher naked or not.

Somehow I made it through school in spite of having sex on the brain constantly. Seeing one of my teachers naked was not likely to push me over the edge into failing.

 

[Davros]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Okay, back to the original point.

SCHOOL: We want to hire you as a teacher.

TEACHER: Great!

SCHOOL: In taking this job you agree to everything that's in this contract.

TEACHER: You bet! Where do I sign?

[She signs the contract. Some time later...]

SCHOOL: You broke your word and the terms of your employment ...

TEACHER: But ...

SCHOOL: You lied to us. Your word means nothing. You're fired.

The End.

--Ted

Except she did not break the terms of her employment. There was nothing in the contract saying she was prohibited from posing nude.

 

[Lumen]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

I would guess her contract said something about "behaviour likely to bring the school into disrepute" which is also fairly boilerplate but covers things that standard morality clauses wouldn't, since a lot of disreputable things aren't illegal. If you don't think a teacher posing in Playboy will bring the school into disrepute, that's fine, but the school has every reason to believe it would.

And that said, I don't think any of us actually knows what was in her contract, so we can't do much beyond speculate. It's safe to say there are any number of things that could be in her contract that would give cause to fire her for this, though.

 

[hyzmarca]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Okay, back to the original point.

SCHOOL: We want to hire you as a teacher.

TEACHER: Great!

SCHOOL: In taking this job you agree to everything that's in this contract.

TEACHER: You bet! Where do I sign?

[She signs the contract. Some time later...]

SCHOOL: You broke your word and the terms of your employment ...

TEACHER: But ...

SCHOOL: You lied to us. Your word means nothing. You're fired.

The End.

--Ted

A contract goes bother ways. Both sides have to abide by it. If her contract says that she has to be of good moral character than it is up to the school to prove that posing for Playboy is immoral. If it isn't immoral than the school is the one who has broken the contract not the teacher.

Contract for employment standards do NOT go "both ways". The person being hired agrees to everything as DEFINED by the employer. If she didn't like it, she shouldn't have signed on. Tough being a grown up sometimes, isn't it?

--Ted

No, she agrees to everything as defined by the plain language of the contract. When there is some dispute about the meaning of the language, it is up to a court or an arbitrator to decide, not the employer unilaterally.

Furthermore, some clauses are illegal and thus are unenforceable.

 

[hellsgate]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

She should have gotten a 'written warning' as a lot of places are QUITE conservative, but unionized. She should have been disciplined, yes. Suspended for "X" days without pay and required to talk to students about why it may have been inappropriate. If she were a private instructor at a Health Club, okay. But it wouldn't be considered an appropriate (and very public,) extracurricular activity as a Public School-employed Cheerleading Teacher.

There should've been a hearing, rather than a knee-jerk firing. Okay, she may have used poor judgement in using her real name as there are loads of crazies out there with sufficient resources to follow it back to its source, and put a black mark on her career.

Plus, how do the P.T.A. & District Board of Directors know she didn't pose for a specific student's benefit? Perception Is Reality, People. Stupid though it may be....these are valid reasons to be upset in The Bible Belt of The United States.

Plus, she should have taken into account the beliefs of the people in her State/County over things like "Sexting" & how kids are ending up on Sexual Predator sites for re-circulating private camera-phone material for a girlfriend or boyfriend's own private eyes.

Plus, taken into account how the fairly recent High Profile Teacher-Student Affairs in the news and how posing in light of these recent emotionally-charged situations might touch-off a political debate as she *is* (or was,) a TEACHER.

However, Some "Conduct" rules/guidelines stipulate that you can be put on probation for first time breaches of etiquette.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Back to the religious right rant again.

No rant. That's what this is all about.

You keep accusing me of changing the subject. This is about a person who gets fired for breaking the terms of their legally binding contract. What thread do you think it is?

I think this is the Thread about whether this cheerleading coach did something harmful enough to warrant termination. As you yourself said, we don't know what was in the contract, so it can't be about that.

But harm is not just physical harm. Mental, emotional or spiritual harm are just as real, if sometimes less obvious. You can not with a straight face tell me that exposing yourself to satisfy the lusts of men the world over does not take something out of you, does not leave you less than you were and does not put you in less control than you had before.

Of course I can, since all that is ridiculous and unsupportable.

Some women (and men) say that it leaves them feeling empowered or free in some way.

Imagine.

But in reality they kid themselves as Cain did after slaying Abel, that he found the secret, that he could kill and get gain, kill and be free.
Playboy is not murder, don't get me wrong, I am not comparing the two, but I am comparing the attitude towards it: that often in doing something wrong we convince ourselves that we are somehow freer or better for having done the thing.

Again, religious beliefs. Inappropriate to this situation.

 

[Gertch]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

That's what this is all about.

No, simply common decency especially when it comes to working with children. No religious right or secular left.

I think this is the Thread about whether this cheerleading coach did something harmful enough to warrant termination. As you yourself said, we don't know what was in the contract, so it can't be about that.

We do know that it was enough to breach the contract since they did terminate her.

 

[sidious618]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

We do know that it was enough to breach the contract since they did terminate her.

No, we don't. They could've fired her for something else and just blamed it on something else. We really don't know anything.

 

[Lindley]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

The thing is.....the opinions of those who think this was perfectly okay just don't matter. The school doesn't care about those. What the school has to decide is how much they care about the opinions of those who do think this is an issue. And apparently, they care more about those people than about one teacher. Which doesn't surprise me.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Back to the religious right rant again.

No rant. That's what this is all about.

You keep accusing me of changing the subject. This is about a person who gets fired for breaking the terms of their legally binding contract. What thread do you think it is?

I think this is the Thread about whether this cheerleading coach did something harmful enough to warrant termination. As you yourself said, we don't know what was in the contract, so it can't be about that.


Of course I can, since all that is ridiculous and unsupportable.

Some women (and men) say that it leaves them feeling empowered or free in some way.

Imagine.

But in reality they kid themselves as Cain did after slaying Abel, that he found the secret, that he could kill and get gain, kill and be free.
Playboy is not murder, don't get me wrong, I am not comparing the two, but I am comparing the attitude towards it: that often in doing something wrong we convince ourselves that we are somehow freer or better for having done the thing.

Again, religious beliefs. Inappropriate to this situation.

I would respond to your argument, but after reading it again, I realize that there really isn't one.

 

[hyzmarca]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

The thing is.....the opinions of those who think this was perfectly okay just don't matter. The school doesn't care about those. What the school has to decide is how much they care about the opinions of those who do think this is an issue. And apparently, they care more about those people than about one teacher. Which doesn't surprise me.

The people who don't think it is an issue can sue the crap out of the school just as well as those who think that it is an issue, and that's what they're worried about.