So how do you as someone outside the classroom evaluate a teacher’s effectiveness?
Whenever our society’s body-shaming is getting to you, Chiquita have the answer.
Hello, ladies!
How do you determine your own satisfaction as a consumer in anything you buy? Apparently it is impossible, according to you.
How are you a consumer of what a teacher does? You are avoiding the question. Tell us how you evaluate a teacher or in your words what do you want a teacher to do to satisfy you as a consumer.
I’ve notice that when those in this thread argue against the the teacher and are asked questions requesting specific information they either don’t answer at all or use equivocation to not answer with specifics.
Yup, not really the right fallacy. It’s the Slippery Slope fallacy Wolfpup that really wanted. Problem is it’s not the Slippery Slope fallacy either.
What it is is an reductio ad absurdum and given what’s readily available in multiple threads with posts about what conservatives/Republicans are trying to do to LGBTIQA+ people it’s actually an reductio ad realityum.
ETA,
One could make the accusation that what’s being done here is, maybe, a False Equivalence fallacy.
I.E. Your argument is wrong because their argument is wrong.
When what’s being argued is (IMHO),
Your argument is wrong and their argument is wrong.
Which isn’t fallacious!
Curious about a different scenario:
Ms. Offerman has an Only Fans account. Her teenage son Arthur goes to Prudential High School. A bunch of other boys find out about her account and start teasing Arthur mercilessly, calling his mom a whore, passing around videos from her account, and so on.
Mr. Torrance, a teacher at the school, overhears. He calls the tormentors into his class and chews them out and assigns detention based on their bullying.
“But Mr. Torrance!” they protest: “Arthur’s mom IS a whore, and we have videos to prove it!”
“Whether she’s a sex worker or not is immaterial,” he says. “Sex work is not something to be ashamed of. It’s perfectly legal, so if she’s engaging in it, it’s an acceptable way to make a living.”
You may agree or disagree with Mr. Torrance’s final statement. However, we’ve seen people in this thread arguing that the teacher from the OP should be fired because she’s setting a bad example, and kids who learn of her account may get the message that sex work is acceptable, and nothing to be ashamed of.
In my hypothetical, Mr. Torrance isn’t implicitly giving that message: he’s giving it as clearly as he possibly can give it.
Should he be fired?
As a bonus: if another teacher tells the boys, “I don’t care what Mr. Torrance says, Arthur’s mom is being shameful, and there’s nothing acceptable at all about doing porn,” should that second teacher be in the clear?
Yes or reprimanded depending on policy & contract. Teachers should not be discussing sex-work with students. His infraction is direct as opposed to the teacher in the OP that was indirect.
No. Reprimanded or fired for same reason as above.
Ha, that surprises me. What if, instead, the mom was a garbage worker–would everything he said be okay in that case, if he said it about garbage workers?
From my perspective, he did not bring the issue up, the kids did: and his defense of a job would be totally acceptable. The teacher who condemned the work being done by another student’s parent would be clearly in the wrong.
How about the teacher says “don’t taunt someone for what their parents do—he has no control over what his mother is or isn’t.” I don’t see how it would be necessary or appropriate for the teacher to weigh in on how to think about sex work. I’d say reprimand, don’t fire.
I think this is correct. In general the teacher should not be weighing in with moral judgments one way or another. Even if the parent is a convicted murderer, the child isn’t.
And the teacher was entirely appropriate while saying stop bullying. It was when he went beyond that and actively said it was OK to be a sex worker that he went beyond the line. Just not appropriate.
Nope. Don’t comment on a student’s parent to other students. But it just deserves a reprimand and tell the teacher that is their one and only warning.
Uh, no, not at all. Where did you get “unique psychological trauma” out of my much more moderate “weird and uncomfortable” characterization?
If you have to exaggeratedly caricature the reasonable point I was actually making—namely, that once a schoolteacher is publicly “outed” as a porn performer with available online videos, that will almost certainly prompt a lot of gossip and curiosity-viewing of said videos among the teacher’s students, and the experience of seeing the teacher naked and sexual will subsequently make it seem somewhat weird and uncomfortable to interact with the teacher as a teacher—in order to rebut it, I think that’s an indication that the rebuttal is weak.
Would it be nice if our society was so free from sexual hangups of all kinds that students finding out their teacher was a porn performer mostly just didn’t think anything of it? Sure. Does that sound like a more realistic outcome, under current real-world conditions, than a tsunami of schoolyard giggling and gossiping and a perpetual stream of salacious nicknames and jokes about the teacher? Not to me, it doesn’t.
Of course, the mere existence of a scandalized response involving disparaging gossip and giggling and lewd remarks certainly doesn’t mean such a response is fair or right. As many posters continue to (validly) point out, the same sort of scandalized response used to be (and doubtless in some places still is) common upon discovering that a teacher is gay, too.
But there’s a difference between arguing that we should simply repudiate that scandalized response among students because it’s morally wrong to hassle or shame a teacher for doing something they have a perfect right to do, and trying to suggest that the scandalized response about a teacher being active in porn just won’t exist or will be NBD. The latter position is not persuasive, IMHO.
Furthermore, I think it’s a bit of a strawman to suggest extrapolating from what I actually said to the exaggerated inference that anyone who has ever made a porn video can never be a teacher.
Nor, by the way, have I said that I necessarily support firing teachers for making porn videos even when it’s an ongoing side career. But I do think that a teacher maintaining an ongoing porn-video side career alongside their current teaching employment is way more likely to be “outed” than a teacher who, say, made one sex tape sometime in the distant past.
Yes, when i was in highschool there was disparaging gossip and giggling etc. because the students believed the band teacher was gay. And in retrospect, he probably was gay. Also, despite the giggling, he was an effective band teacher.
Thirty years ago, my uncle’s synagogue discovered that their fabulous assistant Rabbi was gay. They fired him. Technically, they fired him for breaking his contract, which says he had to live within walking distance of the temple, and although he maintained an apartment within walking distance (and probably spent Friday night there) he had mostly moved in with his boyfriend.
But despite the fact that it was really inappropriate for them to fire him for being gay, that’s a stronger case then the school teacher. Because you actually DO hire a Rabbi to teach morality. Whereas you usually hire a school teacher to teach stuff like math and English.
Related, i have a friend whose mother was a sex worker. Not a “posts video of having sex with her husband” kind of sex worker, but a prostitute who had sex with men for money. Her bio-mother’s partner was another woman, who was also a university professor and a radical lesbian feminist who hated men. My friend grew up in the closet, because being a lesbian was illegal. Eventually her moms split up, and my friend is really grateful that the courts didn’t recognize her bio-mom’s partner as her parent, because she would probably have been placed with the respectable college professor instead of the hooker. But the hooker was the better mother, and didn’t have hang ups about interacting socially with men.
Sweeping generalizations about what makes a good role model are probably wrong as often as they are right.
I think I’ve been pretty clear in this thread that, no, I don’t think it’s right.
I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a person would willingly make a video of themselves having sex, and willingly post it on Only Fans, but blur their face because they’re ashamed of their sexual activities. Whereas it’s much more plausible that they just don’t want their identity to be known because they know it could put their profession in peril.
And regardless, it’s a long way from knowing it’s wrong. So I’m hoping we can agree to disagree about shame.
Complete tangent, but when I was in junior high in the late 70s one of our science teachers drove a VW bug that was completely painted up as an ad for Salem cigarettes.
Those were different times.
My view is that it would be weird and uncomfortable for a few days and then everyone would get back to work.
Much like any controversial pit thread here calms down after a few thousand posts, yeah no.
It will always come up as long as the side gig is in play and the salacious gossip may continue long after the current student body graduates.
Sorry if that yucks your yum.
Two very effective teachers in my high school were sleeping with their students. At least, they were according to the “salacious gossip.” Nonetheless, we were able to complete our assignments and eventually graduate.
People pushing the edge for thrills is a tale as old as time. People have affairs for the thrill of it. The affair is more thrilling than the actual sex. The sneaking around, the double life. Why do people do this when they can just have sex with their existing partner? For the thrill.
Having the double life was thrilling, intoxicating, scary, disgusting. Loads of emotions. She wanted that. Likely more than what she has now. Everybody knowing is a relief in some ways, but the thrill is gone.
I am not surprised at all that someone would do this, and want their face covered. People have lived double lives forever. They will continue to do so.