Our slow-burning thread on teacher Tericka Dye being fired in Kentucky for having performed in pornography years ago still gets a trickle of comments. So for those of you who like a good teacher/nudity debate, allow me to present an updated scenario from right here in supposedly-hip Austin, TX.
This is Tamara Hoover:
She teaches art in Austin, and because someone confirmed the long-held suspicion that she has breasts, she’s about to get canned.
Here’s the setup: A female teacher’s photographer girlfriend snaps tons of shots of her in medias res, including a few topless photos. Said girlfriend posts all her pictures on Flickr, including these.
From Tamara’s blog entry on her myspace profile:
on may 19 i was called into my principals office. She told me that I was being placed on administrative leave and that it was as serious as it gets.
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. (you actually have to search for pictures of me its not right out in the open) She then went to another teacher and they went to the administration.
If Tamara’s account is true, then before we discuss what should happen to her, shouldn’t this other teacher get bounced? If any teacher asks a student to locate and display photos containing nudity in class before all the other students, she’s made a pretty black-and-white case for her own dismissal.
But let’s return to Tamara. Is this porno?
Photographer Celesta Danger says anyone who considers her pictures pornographic is sorely mistaken.
“This is Tamara first thing in the morning. I ran into her room and took a picture with her face all puffy. Her eyes still sealed shut. How the hell is this pornographic?” Danger said.
Unfortunately, Celesta, there are boobs involved, and we know a lot of folks hate to be reminded about those fleshy globules of sin (unless it’s after hours on Skinemax).
Obviously, though, it seems unlikely that this was “material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.” Civilized people see nudity in art all the time, and a goodly percentage of the observers manage not to scramble off to the restroom for a quick wank. If a photographer takes a photo she describes as “life as it’s happening,” where does one get off calling it pornographic?
The KXAN article includes mixed parental reaction after being shown the photos (again, why is everyone running around trying to show off these photos?), and the Statesman piece is bloated with comment debate like this:
By Shannon
June 13, 2006 10:11 PM | Link to this
Please. If you choose working with children, then you need to be responsible. All of you can call it art if you so desire, and it may be, but not if you are a teacher and mentor to children. Yes, she needs to be fired. With the predators we have these days, I can see one of her students thinking it was okay because “teacher did it” and this predator was only interested in the porn factor. Get a grip people.But also the vindictive person who showed it to the class needs to be fired also.
By Lyle
June 13, 2006 11:04 PM | Link to this
Let’s review: * We come into the world naked. * AISD allows several individuals to shower together naked in the same room. * What the teacher does on her own time is not for AISD to bother with.
KXAN published the school system’s take on the issue:
This afternoon, AISD issued a statement saying: “Please know that AISD has no intention of infringing upon a person’s legitimate rights to free speech and expression. However, public school educators are legally held to a higher moral standard, in order to protect the young lives they influence.”
If Tamara Hoover had:
-shown students nude photos
-actively encouraged students to be photographed nude
-told students where to go to see her nude
-gotten nude intentionally in class
-had hawt sexx on her desk
…then I think you could argue she failed to live up to proper “moral standards.” As it stands right now, I can’t see it.
What if she caught and ripped her shirt on something in class and was exposed? What if students spied on her showering somewhere? What if a student simply walked in on her in the bathroom? Would she be fired for any of these accidents?
Because that’s what we’re talking about here. An accident. Somehow, students found out her breasts were exposed on flickr, and the whole thing blew up. The KXAN piece notes “she never gave permission for the topless pictures to be on the Web for everyone to see,” and it’s clear this was never intended to fall into student hands. If anyone who’s ever been snapped topless by anyone else in their entire lives is now banned from teaching on the off chance the pic gets digitized someday, we’re going to face much greater shortages in the classrooms than we already do.
This isn’t really about her taking the photos, though. It’s about them being seen. After that, we can no longer pretend this person is an asexual Teach-a-tron 3000 — we all have to admit she’s a full-blooded woman with real woman parts. And it’s really about the institutionalized shame we’re all supposed to feel over those parts, like you have to make up for having tits by doing everything you can to pretend it isn’t true.
Once the no-tits myth has been revealed as a lie, though, they have to fire your ass, even if you were commended by the board not two weeks before this incident (which Tamara was, on May 8th). God forbid we have kids exposed to a woman who isn’t embarrassed by her own body in her own home on her own time. What kind of example is that?
The sad thing is the students probably only knew about it because the teacher is young and pretty and therefore her male students were probably searching the internet high and low for her stuff. But instead of being cool about it, they, hyped up on male entitlement and anger that there are boobs out there that aren’t automatically theirs to grab at, decided to tattle on teacher. How dare she have breasts and not hand them over!
And the school, by firing her, is reinforcing the belief that other people are allowed to take out their jealously and sexual frustration by punishing women.
I’m surprised that they didn’t throw a fit over the box shot!
Really, though, this photography is gorgeous. So not pr0n.
http://flickr.com/photos/celestadanger/tags/tamara/page15/
Well, to be fair, teachers are paid a shitload of money… professional quarterback-type money… so they should have their private lives closely scrutinized by Puritan assholes.
It’s great that while the administration is struggling with standardized test madness and decaying facilities and bloated bureacracy, they’re busy punishing art teachers for being arty. I guess the legacy of the Bush family and the Bush Administration have lingered long after Barbara and Jenna left Austin High. Go forbid firing incompetent teachers.
“A female teacher’s photographer girlfriend snaps tons of shots of her”
And
“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.”
Perhaps the real issue is that a female teacher has a Girlfriend. Unless I’m misreading “Girlfriend” Ms. Hoover is gay. Which is a good reason to badmouth colleagues to students among bigots everywhere. The fact that she’s both gay and occasionally naked is just icing…
Yeah, but, I mean, do you suppose all our teachers had boobies back when we were in school? If that’s the case, they really shouldn’t be pulling down all that money. Because breasts make you not do anything right.
Clearly teachers are not allowed to have bodies in the classroom. This explains the red apple applique sweaters and denim jumpsuits. God forbid a teacher packs genitals in their undies.
yep. without plausible deniability of teachers’ bodies and the resulting assumption that they _do_ something with them, how will we ever convince children to never have sex?
i never saw her myspace profile before this all started but… if the same pictures and accompanying text were there before, she should probably have realized that her students would find the nude pics. she has the name of the website on several myspace photos -all you have to do is add .com.
and i think the argument that she never agreed to the photos being posted on the web is pretty weak considering the person who posted them is her girlfriend. i’m pretty sure she knew they were available.
she shouldn’t be fired. i’m just saying that maybe she could have covered her tracks a little better. i bet you can’t find the nude pics of me
I agree with Carrie; you don’t have any expectation of privacy on the internet.
But what the hell was another teacher doing talking trash about her in front of her class in the first place? Never mind the showing of the photos to the class.
This isn’t a privacy issue. This is an issue of holding things that shouldn’t be controversial against her—her sexual orientation almost surely, and her modeling in non-pornographic pictures.
Ms. Hoover is a wonderful teacher who inspires all of here students to do well and creates a very comfortable environment. Her pictures are far form pornographic and firing her would only cause the students to fail. If the school system cares so much about their students they would keep/ hire more teachers like her. She is the best and could never be replaced. EVER!
Here’s the problem, people, with all of your arguments.
1.) The argument that this was not “supposed” to fall into students’ hands is simply ridiculous. Flickr.com is a completely free website. If you post something on the web you forfeit your privacy, unless it’s password-protected, which this wasn’t.
2.) This is also not an issue of male dominance, or female suppression, or even gay bigotry. Are you people serious? The simple fact is this: if a school did nothing when they found out that a teacher had half-naked photographs online for students to see, then their asses would be on the line and they’d have more voicemail from angry parents than you can imagine. It’s not really a matter of whether or not she violated any sort of moral ethics code, or if she has a girlfriend. Don’t assume that just because it’s Texas they’re all homophobics (because that is just as close-minded). The school has to do something, and it’s not like they’re going to give her a spanking. I mean, it sucks, and I personally don’t think she deserves to lose her job over this, but if I were in the school’s shoes I wouldn’t really see any other option.
To continue:
Look, this is an issue that I find arises when I talk to people about things like this: most people are too hopeful. Yes, it’d be nice to think that the world is a place where people can get naked and nobody cares, but let’s face the REALITY: it isn’t. Sure, George W. could pose nude in an art project, and that’d be morally fine, but it probably wouldn’t sit too well with a whole lot of people. And he’d probably lose his job. I don’t mean to come off as somebody who is anti-progressive, or simpleminded. I just try and remain realistic. The face remains: no matter how many times you guys make passive-agressive, psuedo-sarcastic comments such as “God forbid a teacher packs genitals in their undies,” parents will never want to send their kids to school with a teacher that has half-naked photos posted on the internet. Simple as that.
Collin, your “let’s face the REALITY” sentiment is commendable, but it also ignores the main issues at the core of this case.
1) She didn’t post the pictures. Nor did she give permission to post the pictures, according to her attorney.
2) The first amendment issues. Does this fall under the legal definition of pornography? No. An art teacher engaging in art (even risque art) is certainly acting within her rights. School teachers do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates.
I understand both those points. For the first, I think that’s reaching, considering that the photographer was her girlfriend (although they’ve since been removed from Flickr.com, interestingly enough, considering her stance of “I’m in my rights!”). Secondly, just because she didn’t violate any sort of constitutional laws doesn’t mean she gets to keep her job. Comparably, she would legally be within her constitutional right to walk around the school’s grounds cursing loudly, but it probably would cost her her job, yes? This isn’t a matter of moral right or wrong, or even legal right or wrong. The school board obviously has to give a tangible reason for her dismissal–she violated a higher moral code of ethics, or whatever–but it still gets back to the parents. You can do many, many things that are legally okay but publicly frowned upon, she just had the unfortunate position of having those things accessible to minors.
w00t! More Boston!
And again, while I appreciate your thoughts, I think it’s quite an overstatement to say that the pictures were ‘accessible’ to her students. Do you have ANY idea how hard it was for me to find those pictures? Well, it was really really hard. To me, that doesn’t exactly constitute ‘accessible to minors.’ I don’t even know how her student found them!
Sorta like the Kentucky kid who was digging through his dad’s pr0n.
I mean, I don’t see how that can be an overstatement. They were on the internet: people could access them if they wanted. Accessible. Ability to access.
It doesn’t matter just HOW accessible they were. On the internet, it’s all or nothing.
This is also not an issue of male dominance, or female suppression, or even gay bigotry. Are you people serious? The simple fact is this: if a school did nothing when they found out that a teacher had half-naked photographs online for students to see, then their asses would be on the line and they’d have more voicemail from angry parents than you can imagine.
So it is an issue of male dominance and female suppression. It’s being exercised by the parents as well the school.
I think I know what you’re saying, though. I remember high school all too well, and back then, I probably did need to be protected from the fact that my teachers had sex parts to have any hope of paying attention in class, and a number of my peers likely did as well. That doesn’t mean I think an adult woman should lose her job to protect fragile teenage sensibilities, because whatever, we would have gotten the fuck over it eventually. The problem is that our society is already run and policed by people with the sexual attitudes of teenagers, so until the parents themselves stop quaking at the sight of boobies, they have no call to smack their kids on the back of the head and tell them to grow the hell up.
What the hell ???? Why couldn’t the school simply say “Remove the pictures so that they aren’t accessible to the students because they are causing a disturbance”. I think firing a, as far as I can tell by the reporting, perfectly good art teacher over something like this is ridiculous, and completely reeks of caving into the stupid puritanic attitudes held by overly-religious ass-clowns that call themselves parents. As for Texas, well, let’s just say that there is a reason that we hear about so much backward-ass shit in Texas, Florida, and other southern states. Once or twice may be chance, but thousands of times is a pattern. We need to face facts, folks. There are many people that are raised from children to adults to believe that the human body is “sinful”, and this is never going to end until we stop playing along with them. The photography is obviously artistic in nature and not pornographic. Any person that says otherwise is either an idiot or a ideological liar, especially the school administrators. And these types of blanket reactions to issues that require a case-by-case response are the reasons we have stupid-ass laws like “3 strikes and your out”. We’re teaching our children that being an adult doesn’t require anything more than simple black-and-white answers, and we’re producing vacuous adults in the process.
Considering the volume of nudes that I’ve noticed coming out of the local community college’s photography classes, and the fact that a lot of high school students attend such classes, and the fact that I’ve noticed at least one instructor post nudes of herself, I suspect these kids are not the first high school students to ever see a snap of their teacher’s breasts.
I think the “she didn’t give permission” argument is valid, but not particularly needed. She didn’t do anything wrong. More importantly, it’s not problematic that minors can view this, since it’s not pornography. Last time I checked, you didn’t need valid ID to get into a photo gallery which included nudes.
One of the knuckle-draggers at the linked article says something along the lines of “if I was an art student would it be OK for me to pose nude??? get a grip.” Well, yes. Nudes of youth (especially prepubescent youth) are pretty commonplace. The naked human body is a beautiful thing, and the mere display of it is not wrong.
The issue isn’t that the teacher made it possible for kids to view breasts. First of all, it’s not wrong for them to view breasts in that kind of context. More importantly, if they took about five seconds to go over to Google Images to search for “big booobies!!!11″ they’d see a lot more. The teacher did not contribute in any way to the delinquency of the students (in the legal sense).
If they suspect the mere knowledge of the contours of Ms. Hoover’s breasts will cause discipline problems, they need to be ready to discipline the brats who make a big deal over it. Period. Don’t punish the teacher for the student’s moral turpitude.
Finally,
This is a high school teacher. If any high school student has ever seriously believed that they can do something because “teacher did it,” I’ve never met him or her. High school students may be dumb (I was one until a year or two ago), but they’re no longer blind followers of authority.
Oh, and what’s with all of the pro-firing mouthbreathers saying “get a grip?” Seems that they’re the ones acting with psychotic rage at the concept of boobs.
This girl’s got carpet muncher written all over her… She’s not very pretty and the photography work is shoddy at best!
With all that said, I still haven’t seen a legit reason to fire her… I mean crud, it’s not like this stuff is all over the internet (Believe Me I Looked!) and there’s certainly no link to it on any Porn site! Now if she had conducted herself in this manner during her tenure at the school then I can see grounds for this but if it was prior to her tenure then this is BS.
I detect the unique sound of raspy breath gusting between slack jaws, punctuated by the scraping of knuckles on the ground. Hmm.
More succinctly, fuck you.
was that at steve’s comment Djur? because I was split between unmodding it or not, just say the word if it’s offensive and I’ll correct that.
Not to pile on or anything, but I’ve got a foot here with your ass’s name on it, steve.
Collin wrote: “This isn’t a matter of moral right or wrong, or even legal right or wrong. The school board obviously has to give a tangible reason for her dismissal–she violated a higher moral code of ethics, or whatever–but it still gets back to the parents.”
Actually, this is about legal rights under the Constitution. School administrators (and by extension, these hypothetical parents you’re talking about) don’t have absolute authority to let a teacher go – if they fire a teacher, it can’t be substantially due to the constitutionally-protected speech (and make no mistake, this would be constitutionally-protected speech, even if considered pornography). See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). In court, they’re probably going to have to argue that they fired her not just because of this, but also because she was a bad teacher. And from the various news sources, it appears she was an outstanding teacher…
Yeah, R, it was at steve’s comment. I’ve yet again failed to remember that the modding system can often result in posts coming in out of order.
I mean, do you guys think that if pictures of some teacher’s penis was online and students found it he wouldn’t be fired? Because if you do, you’ve lost sight of things.
If anything, I’d say the male nude is far more frowned upon than the female nude (although, as I’m sure some of you could and likely will argue, that’s only because of the Patriarchy!!!)
I honestly believe that if she has potential to teach about art, she shouldn’t really be worried about being denied the teaching. She can always start her own studio or work in a different academic area where her skills can kick ass much more than they would in a classroom.
Publicity is never bad when you’re an artist. She should take advantage of the fact she’s kinda hot and still able to switch vocations.
I know I frown more upon the male nude, but that’s just an aesthetic preference.
And, uh, Steve? . . . . oh, nevermind.
Wow, american schools sure can make a fuss out of nothing. I’ve seen my tutors gaydar pages, and they are way more explicit, and with far more provacative pictures than OMG! Boobies! And the only one the school has every got riled up about was the one of the head master (in a dress, with three scantily women) snorting cocaine he’d convicated off a pupil. And the nudity/cross-dressing was never brought into it.
Vk, I need your school information immediately.
Colin,
I don’t believe we’re talking about boobies flying around everywhere here. More like the side of a breast or bit of a nipple.
Certainly there should be no presumption of privacy, but SEARCHING for someone’s myspace to FIND A LINK to their flickr and then BROWSING through that to find a fucking nipple is a bit different than Ms. Teacher flashing the class.
Just curious, but if your photographs were published on the net and they included a few shots of live models, would/should you be banned from all official contact with children? By your lights, should you even be allowed to have kids?
Well yes. Who’s the audience, Colin? Not exactly conspirational stuff here, buddy.
[...] Since our hit count has skyrocketed thanks to the obsession over Tamara Hoover, I figured a saucily-titled follow-up would ensure maximum pr0n addict traffic thanks to the power of google. [...]
I had a myspace profile over the summer. I taught early childhood music. Never mentioned my name, my job, where I lived or where I worked. It was for my family and friends, and was not for children. Yes, I had some pics, but NONE even close to pornographic. Someone sent the link to my superintendent and he fired me, saying I was “vulgar and not indicitive of what they want as a teacher.” I live in a small town in West Texas, primarily straight-laced Republican. I think he liked the pics, jerked off, prayed about it, then fired me anyways. I had another one up in like 5 seconds.
Just goes to show you don’t have to show your boobs to get fired. He made us sit thru a 5-6 minute prayer at a school function, then got up there and said he didn’t care what “they” say (senate), we should pray in school, we need God in schools. Amid the thunderous applause, I sat silent. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones….
Also…what’s done in the dark eventually comes out in the light….
Right?