So, a teacher with 28 years’ experience is possibly going to lose her job because her students saw nude figures on a trip to an art museum.
The principal and the school board are now, of course, claiming that her suspension and the decision not to renew her contract arise from longer-term performance issues, and that the concern they had with the museum trip was not the nudity, but the fact that it was poorly planned.
I only hope that the people in the community fight for her. It looks like some of them are backing her up, but if you’re going to defeat recneckery in Texas, a forceful campaign is necessary.
Here’s an editorial on the issue from the Houston Chronicle.
Did she know about preponderance of nude art prior to the trip? If so, it was quite foolish for her to not think that trouble could arise, especially since her students are in elementary school. I know that sexual morality and modesty is often frowned upon on the Dope, but alot of people adhere to it, especially when concerning elementary aged children. It seems that Frisco TX has some of those people.
It would have been foolish if the principal did not approve the trip, maybe. It’s the principal’s job to intercept and anticipate these complaints, espeically when a teacher has submitted an activity to the principal for review. If the principal did not investigate the presence of nude statuary in an art museum, but then suspended a teacher for going on an approved trip to said art museum, the principal is an idiot.
Yes the prinicpal shares some responsibility. That goes with leadership. Not as much as the teacher IMO. But if the nude art was a complete suprise to both teacher and prinicipal, then this type of discipline seems far to harsh for what would be a mistake.
What is sexual about a nude statue that is not sexual about a naked 5th grader when he is taking his bath? Or the family dog when he is laying on his back getting a belly scratch? Do the complainants demand their kids look away when bathing or playing with their pets? Were these statues/paintings in a state of arousal? Doing the deed?
The principal doesn’t share some responsibility: the principal is where the buck stops. The entire point of getting a field trip approved is to make sure you’ve CYA.
If the teacher was secretly planning on taking the students to an exhibit of erotic art and left that out of the approval-seeking process, then sure, the teacher maintains responsibility. But assuming that wasn’t the case, the teaching’s total responsibility is to check in with the principal to make sure that the trip is acceptable.
The teacher may not have mentioned that the museum had nude statues. If the principal didn’t assume that an art museum has pieces of art showing naughty bits, the principal is unfit for the job.
who the hell doesn’t suspect that there would be nude figures/paintings/statues in an art museum? Including the parents. don’t want your kid to see nudes? don’t let 'em go to the art museum. all parents have to sign a permission slip.
crap, there’s nude statues all over the fucking place - don’t y’all remember the one the Atty General had draped?
It wouldn’t even have to art designed to be erotic for this to be contrary to many parent’s moral views when concerning young minor children. I still think that, if this wasn’t an accident, it is primarily the teachers’ fault here. Though I can see disciplinary action taken against the prinicpal as well.
There are no nude public statues where I live (in Texas). None of the art exhibits that I’ve seen recently here in Texas and New Mexico have had any nudity. It is not suprising that a safe assumption could be made by parents with similar experiences that nude art would not be seen by young minor children under their teacher’s guardianship when on a field trip.
I don’t think “preponderance” means what you think it means.
According to the article i linked:
According to Webster’s, “preponderance” means:
Four pieces in a large art museum hardly constitutes a preponderance.
As far as the teacher’s responsibility to know that “trouble could arise,” i direct your attention to the Chronicle editorial that i linked:
Exactly. Any parent who allows their child to go on an art museum tour, and who doesn’t realise that art museums contain nude sculptures and paintings, is an idiot. Do you think that there is a single major art museum in America that doesn’t have a nude figure in its collection?
Actually, the Chronicle’s editorial got one thing wrong—the parent in question isn’t a “latter day Victorian.” The Victorians, despite their reputation for prudery, generally had no trouble with artwork that represented the human figure, especially if the art in question was of classical or renaissance origin.
And if you really think this can be equated with the students having a “mass nude bath,” then you’re an even bigger idiot than you appear, which is quite an achievement. I guess you’re one of the people “on the march” that i referred to in the thread title.