Just when you think things couldn’t get any wackier in Texas, see this thread…

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=0&#entry189865

they do.

Austin is one o the more “liberal” cities in Texas, but…



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/14842437.htm

If this had been done on a school computer, then that would be a different matter. These apparently were done on the teacher’s home computer.

Questions for Debate:

1. Do you think the Austin Independent School District was correct in firing Hoover? Why or why not?

2. Do teachers have an obligation to follow a "higher moral standard" in their private lives. If yes, how far does this obligation extend?

3. What does this action say regarding privacy rights of teachers.

4. Do you think Hoover will get her job back through legal action? Perhaps that “blasted” ACLU will take her case.

The school was entirely in the wrong. If kids bring it in the school, then they should be in trouble for bringing in material that has nothing to do with their learning. Whether it's their art teacher topless or a Vogue magazine, none of that stuff has to do with the task at hand. The teacher was not engaged in any illegal activity and I'd say the gestapo school district needs to reassess how controlling they need to be of teachers. This isn't the school house on the prairie any more folks.



I believe that teachers need to be allowed to live their own lives and retain their jobs, as long as the activity is legal. Where does this stop? Do you fire a teacher for being a cigar smoker? How about if they are seen buying a six-pack at the small town grocery? Students, while seeing these things, need to know that not everyone is the same and that people are free to live their lives as they deem fit.



It says that it doesn't exist and it tells the students that the right of privacy doesn't exist when the boss man says so-which is very unfortunate.



I hope that she is reinstated through legal action-I for one, will be pulling for her.

1. It seems to me that this was something of an excessive reaction by the school administrators. I can understand their concern, and this could have been expressed to Hoover in a confidential way. Although I do not believe at all that Hoover did anything immoral, it's easy to see how this sort of thing could lead to inappropriate behavior on the part of her students.

2. I would say that any behavior which would have a direct, negative influence on students should be discouraged. It's very hard to say exactly what is immoral behavior; it may be a little easier to say what is unwise and inappropriate behavior. As I said, the school district did have a legitimate concern here, although they may have acted too strongly.

3. This doesn't really say much about privacy, per se, as it does about the relevancy of one's life outside the workplace to one's profession. Hoover made her photographs available to the public, and does not seem to be ashamed of them in any way, so it's not really a matter of privacy. The big question for debate is the degree to which employers should mind their own business about matters which are not directly relevant to the job.

4. I rather doubt it. The prevailing culture in the United States seems to be that anyone can be fired for any reason at any time. The fact that this is a government position may change that a little bit, but not much.

Victoria

You are right to an extent.

By private, I mean that she posted the information from her own private computer, not one owned by the school. If she had posted this from a school owned computer, I don't have any doubt the school district would have had legitimate grounds for firing her.

With all the video cameras now around, very little is completely private. Would the school district have acted the same way, if students video taped her buying the 6-pack Nebraska mentioned?

1. Do you think the Austin Independent School District was correct in firing Hoover? Why or why not?

Her employer should ask one question about this: will it negatively impact her performance as a teacher? and Will it negatively affect the kids' education?

That is what the school should be concerned with.

The answer here is that yes, indeed, this will have a dramatic negative effect on her ability to teach as well as the kids in her classroom's ability to learn. She should be removed for that reason and for no other.

What Ms. Hoover does with her free time is entirely her business. But when her private activities affect the classroom, everything changes.

In the case of "what if she was buying a six pack?" the answer would be: everyone in Texas buys six packs. Nobody would be shocked or even give two thoughts to the matter. But when it becomes: "Hey Jimmy, did you see Ms. Hoover's pictures? <giggle> <snicker>" "Yeah, I downloaded the whole set. She's..." Well, we can imagine the conversations going on.

2. Do teachers have an obligation to follow a "higher moral standard" in their private lives. If yes, how far does this obligation extend?

They have the same obligation as any professional: don't do anything in your private life that will affect your performance at work and won't reflect badly on the company. They should not be held to a lower standard because they are unionized professionals or government professionals. What are the chances of Susan Davis or Stephanie Herseth being reelected if similar photos were put on the web (by the Representatives themselves no less!)?

What if the pictures were of a man? Would that change anyone's view? I'm sure a man with nude pictures on the web would last about 1.2 nanoseconds in a classroom.

3. What does this action say regarding privacy rights of teachers.

This has nothing to do with privacy. Hoover put this information in the public domain. It was a stupid thing to do. The fact that she did this voluntarily is a strike against her because it demonstrates that she lacks proper judgement.

4. Do you think Hoover will get her job back through legal action? Perhaps that “blasted” ACLU will take her case.

I hope not. She isn't a role model I would want teaching my kids. Again this is less about what she did, but the indiscretion about revealing it to the world.

Sticky situation...

Consider the notion that this teacher now has exposed herself to anyone with internet access in the whole school, and the childrens' education is now compromised indefinitely due to this situation.

I don't think drinking is nearly as socially impassable as being nude for the world to see. What if the teacher worked part time at one of the city's gentleman's clubs? How would that fare? Would that be any better or worse? hmm...

The real question is what the school had in writing. I'd have to say that I wouldn't want a teen age son of mine going to school with visions of "sugar plums dancing in his head" about a teacher he has to see 5 times/week. However, if there wasn't a contractural agreement in reference to her personal contact outside of the confines of the school, then I think this school district is in for it. I know that most schools do background checks and have pretty strict guidlines for dress, what you can say, etc while in the class, but I don't know about after 3:00 (or whenever teachers leave). This is a rough one. On one hand you have to consider what it would be like facing the parents of these kids, then on the other you have to consider personal liberty... this is gonna be interesting.

1. Do you think the Austin Independent School District was correct in firing Hoover? Why or why not?
They are totally in the wrong. That should be selfevident to anyone who believes in freedom of the individual.

2. Do teachers have an obligation to follow a "higher moral standard" in their private lives. If yes, how far does this obligation extend?
No, teachers has no such obligation, unless they commit to one when they are hired for a job. If the teacher in question have a contract that says she can't post nude pictures of herself online (or anything similar), then of course the school are in the right to fire her, but I doubt this is the case.

3. What does this action say regarding privacy rights of teachers.
Well, I don't see this as a breach of the teachers privacy rights. The pictures were posted online afterall, and not meant to be kept in private. However, what we choose to do in our private life, should, if it is legal and not in conflict with any contract you have commited to, have no influence on your job. An employeer shouldn't be able to fire a worker simply because they don't like how they conduct their personal life.

4. Do you think Hoover will get her job back through legal action? Perhaps that “blasted” ACLU will take her case.
I certainly hope so. Nobody deserves to get fired for something petty like this.


Why do you think this effects the teachers ability to teach? Does she suddenly become a worse teacher, because there exists nude pictures of her? I don't see the logic in that argument.

And if the kids ability to learn are effected, then how is that relevant in firing the teacher? Shouldn't you address the kids learning ability then? If their learningability are severely affected, because they saw nude pictures of their teacher, then I would suggest telling their parents they should get their kids act together. But thats probably just my scandinavian liberal side talking - nudity is not frowned upon in our country, and I have yet to see any negative effects of that, quite the contrary in fact.

Yes, she suddenly becomes a worse teacher. Not for her actions, but for her publication of her actions.

Have you ever been in a classroom with high school teenagers? (I will assume the answer is "yes" here.)

Then you understand how easily distracted they are and sex and sexuality is the number one distraction for high school kids. Now that the object of that distraction is the one attempting to instruct them, they will have lost their interest in the subject at hand (which, admittedly is only art, but some people consider this to be an important subject). These kids will never look at her the same again, will never respect her in the same way.

The kids have not lost their ability to learn because of something the kids have done, the teacher has done that to them.

I do remember not so many years ago when I was a teenager. I disagree that having seen nude pictures of my teacher would have affected my respect for that person, but even if that was the case, the degree of respect a studentl holds for his or her teacher shouldn't be a big factor in deciding wether or not you should fire that teacher.

What if some students don't respect a teacher because he is a member of Scientology (I know I couldn't) - should he then be fired, even though his membership of Scientology has not and does not affect his jobperformance in any way, shape or form? And how about gay teachers? Should gays be barred from teaching in very social conservative neighbourhoods on the grounds that the students "don't respect them and that they get distracted"?

This is a specific case so let's try not to be distracted by red herrings.

The school should ask one more question (beside the two I've offered): Did the teacher have a reasonable expectation that her students (either current or future) will see these pictures?

In today's internet society, the answer is an undeniable YES!! If I post a picture of me smoking dope or kissing my neighbor's wife, eventually it will surface. And there will be ramifications.

This woman is supposed to be a mentor of our youth. She should at least pretend like she knows what that means.

So because you find the fact that there is nude pictures of her on the internet morally reprehensible, she is no longer able to fill that role?
You certainly have a right to believe that, but that doesn't make it true, and unless the contract she has with the school forbids this kind of behavior, I dont see the school having a legal leg to stand on (although by that I don't mean that she is sure to win the case, far from it). I mean, if this kind of legal behavior isn't restricted in her contract, what legal right do the school have to fire her, if she otherwise performs her duties as requried?

Umm.... legally, if there isn't a clause in her contract, the school is up the creek legally, and will be undoubtedly paying out the wazoo. That's America for ya... a teacher has a porn site, gets canned, and will probably win a very large financial settlement. Go figure. I can never figure out why conservatives are trying to push family values....

We're really pushing personal liberty over the greater good. I know some occupations have accountability clauses in the contracts, but doubt that they cover personal behavior in this fashion. How could we include notions of sexual behavior? That surely opens a door...

It's sad, but in this case I can see her winning. While I applaud her initiative to explore her "world", maybe it should've been in a more discreet nature considering her occupation. I can't imagine what goes through someone's head in a situation such as this. Didn't she think that someone would stumble across it?

In the interest of accuracy and context, I'll link the a series of pictures in this shoot. The topless ones have been removed, but you can see that this is far, far from pornography. It really is art, and rather good at that.

I'm not sure of Texas law, but in most states an employee can be fired at any time, for any reason other than race or religion, so if that is the case the school is likely in the clear here. This isn't really a privacy rights issue, either, as others have said she made these photos public. I do think the photos were likely very tasteful though, and I can understand why she would think there wouldn't be a problem with posting them. One of those times when it would have been better to ask permission rather than begging forgiveness later.

2. Do teachers have an obligation to follow a "higher moral standard" in their private lives. If yes, how far does this obligation extend?

Because of the way question 3 is worded, I think we can extend this debate beyond the specific case. What does “higher moral standard mean”? Does it include specific acts, like nudity? Does it mean things that are illegal, like getting a DUI? Does it mean whatever some high ranking school official wants it to mean?


What would you include and exclude under “higher moral standard”? Should we even have clauses with such elasticity in teacher contracts?



I have a personal interest in this thread. In 1974 I had a job an in-house suspension unit in a town near the Texas/Louisiana border.

In April, I went to a black night club to see B. B. King, who was doing a benefit for a DJ named Boy Brown, who had been beaten up by the town’s police.

During the course of the night I did what people do in night clubs. I drank beer, danced, watched B.B. and listen to the music. Apparently, two of my students, who were underage, were in the club.

The next week, I was called into an assistant superintendent’s office.

I'm paraphrasing, but the conversation went like this:

Administrator

“I heard you were in __________ club Saturday night.”

Me

“That is true.”

Administrator

And you were down in front of the stage drinking beer and dancing.

Me

“That is also true.”

Administrator

“Did you realize some of your students were present?”

Me

“No, I’m legally an adult and had no idea underage people were present.”

Administrator

“How many white people were in there?”

Me

“I don’t know. I was relaxing and having fun, not taking a census.”

Administrator

“I guess you know you’re your contract isn’t going to be renewed?”

Me

“I knew that in October.”

I didn’t fight this. I am not a good disciplinarian and was not suited for the job. I had to leave town every evening and spend some time in a neighboring city. I didn’t fight the decision. I had already determined to return to Fort Worth and substitute if necessarily.

Fortunately, I found a job I loved teaching mentally retarded and multi-handicapped. I stayed with that for 25 years before retiring.

In looking at the conversation above, It’s pretty obvious what they were “really” upset about.

While I'm sure this did happen... and was an awful part of the thread of the American South... consider that it was 1974.

In reference to labor laws, what could be done in the late 90's isn't even true today. The past 5-7 years have proven to include a plethora of discrimination and wrongful termination suits that have created a precedent larger than life.



Actually, Texas is also a wrongful termination state, and between 1992 and 1996 Texas plaintiffs prevailed in 32% of cases and recovered an average of $175,419, according to the Public Law Research Institute and the University of California law school. I actually know of two wrongful termination lawyers just here in Dallas.
Right to work states are wonderful when terminating for cause, but when contractural agreements (i.e. teachers) are involved, there have to be implicit clauses that cover situations such as these.

Even if the school district wins, there most likely would be a large expense in litigation. (Which, this one seems pretty cut and dry... excepting that she had some clause in her contract covering things like this.)

BOF, I have a soft spot in my heart for teachers, as my mother is one and my Dad did a short tour as a teacher after leaving the military (2 years).

However, the reality is that in her profession, it's likely that she might've thought ahead and maybe enlisted the work of an age verified site or a password protected medium. I'm not really the type that believes that these things are the end of the world in general, but flickr.com doesn't ask any questions before it allows you to take a peek at the pictures.

Questions for Debate:

1. Do you think the Austin Independent School District was correct in firing Hoover? Why or why not?Yes, because as noted by Amlord, her behavior will interfere with her ability to teach effectively. Had she posted pictures of a different woman that she had taken, then the "diminished effectiveness" argument would be much harder to justify.

2. Do teachers have an obligation to follow a "higher moral standard" in their private lives. If yes, how far does this obligation extend? Yes, at least the teachers contracted with the Austin Independent School District do, per their contract.

Still, experts say it's a risk that employees take when posting personal information online. That's particularly true for teachers, said Bill Shaw, professor of law and ethics in business at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas.

"Schoolteachers are supposed to be mature enough not to titillate their students," Shaw said. "A teacher is more or less expected to be a guide or ... demonstrably mature. And this doesn't sound to me like it meets those standards."

3. What does this action say regarding privacy rights of teachers.
Nothing, except that folks expecting privacy would be well advised to keep their lives private.

4. Do you think Hoover will get her job back through legal action? Perhaps that “blasted” ACLU will take her case. Probably not, but she's likely to get some fine speaking engagements... However, I doubt if the district will succeed in revoking her teacher's certificate.