I walked into this thread undecided, and this was the post that resolved the question in my head. I’m with the teacher for the reasons that Lightnin’ mentioned above. What’s to stop the Texas public school system from firing her for appearing fully clothed but at a pride march? This definitely has a Taliban style morality lurking pretty close to the surface, and I believe that can lead to bad things in a public school system.
Now if she can no longer take control of her class (doubtful), and if she can no longer teach art effectively, then fire her for being ineffective. Otherwise, it’s none of Texas’s business.
Note that if she were teaching at a private religious school who fired her for this, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, although I wouldn’t agree with it. But I do agree with those here who say it’s a first amendment issue, and I would add that it’s also a common sense issue.
[Left Coast Liberal Cynic’s Hat on]
Could be that that is the real issue, and the nude photos are just an excuse.
[LCLCH off]
I saw her g/f’s photos on flickr. There were some good photos there. Some looked like snapshots. I found many to be rather pretentious. But I would say that as a whole the collection was ‘art’. That is, the intention was not to titillate, but to depict the human form (mostly clothes, a few unclothed) in an artistic manner. Making art or being the subject of art is a legitimate activity for an art teacher.
But there are those who would put boxer shorts on David or hang a curtain so the delicate Public won’t have to see marble breasts.
And I always thought Austin was the most “liberal” city in Texas. :dubious:
Has there been any cases where public school teachers have had nude photographs of themselves published on the internet, either intentionally or un-intentionally, without getting into professional trouble when those photographs become known at the school level?
Why would this matter? This woman did not show up to work naked for a class or in any other public location; she posed naked for some artwork that had nothing to do with her job.
What’s to stop someone who gets bent out of shape over a teacher’s nude photos get enraged at the fact that she’s an out-of-the-closet lesbian and try to get her fired?
Don’t get me wrong. I really don’t think what they did was necessary for the mildly erotic, artistic nude photographs. But I don’t think that a public school teacher in Texas would get away with it regardless of his or her sexuality.
Can she drink beer in public if a student might come in the restaurant? Can she buy condems at the local grocery store if a student might carry her bags to her car? Can she go to a pro-marijuana rally?
What, specifically, about the photos makes them objectionable? It’s not enough to say “She’s NUDE. On the INTERNET”. Is it that she’s corrupting kids? If so, what specifically are those photos advocating that is so objectionable? Is it that she’s sexual? Should we go back to the days when pregnant teachers had to stop teaching when they started to “show”, as that was inappropriate? How is that different than this?
I’m not 100% certain, but I think that she may frequent the same health club that I go to. If I do see her I will give her my support. That she may lose her job over some photos is ridiculous.
That is really an unfair statement. Austin is quite different from the rest of Texas. However school boards, no matter where they are located, have often shown bad judgement.
We are talking about a public school teacher in Texas. I think that most public school teachers with common sense would advoid having identifiable naked pictures on the internet. I look at amateur porn fairly often. Many blur faces for the very reason that being naked on the internet can cost them jobs, friends, and community standing. She can argue that it’s unfair. But the actions of the School District seem pretty normal.
What if the last picture taken of her nude sold for a million dollars to the Guggenheim Museum of New York, where it will be displayed in the publicly next to several works by Van Gogh? And that further, the museum had posted a shot of the photo on their website?
Do you think she would still be getting the same treatment?
I should probably clarify here that I am a public school teacher in Texas. There are no naked pictures of me on the internet, for whatever that’s worth. There are lots of statements on this message board where I cop to having a sex life, to favoring a reform of marijuana laws, etc. Is that wrong of me?
According to This link , the actual clause in the contract being used by Austin ISD is:
I am just not seeing that in these pictures. They aren’t “base, vile or deprived.”
And it’s not enough to say “It’s common sense. She’s NAKED”. How is that differnet from “It’s common sense. She was DRINKING” or “It’s common sense. They were CONDOMS”? All of those come down to evidence that she, in her private life, behaves in ways that are contrary to the morals of some members of the community. What makes artistic nudes–unobjectionable by the moral codea of many, many people–worse than buying beer or condoms?
It’s really a stretch to call those pictures amateur porn. They aren’t posed or lit in such a way as to be intentionally arousing. They’re art nudes (not very good ones, imo, but that’s not terribly relevant). The school board may or may not be within their legal rights here, I don’t know and don’t much care, but firing an art teacher for having posed for artistic photographs is just stupid.
If one was a public school teacher in the state of Texas, I expect that a nude photograph on the internet could quite possibly cost one their job regardless of it being in some fancy museum or gallery.
I never called it porn. I think that two on the blog depict mildly erotic bondage (spiked collar and the ‘cuffed’ hands) though. I’m just saying that it is normal for people to endure professional and personal trouble for haveing naked pictures of themselves published on the internet. A public shcool teacher in the United States, especially in Texas, shouldn’t be suprised by this.
