Statesman Op-Ed Weighs in on Tamara Hoover case

Oops - link didn't show up in comment above, here it is http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/08/art_teacher_tamara_h.html

The problem is not naked photos of teachers but in poor teaching methods in public schools. As I point out in my blog post art teacher Tamara Hoover resigns job, we are manufacturing morons who cannot name even one Supreme Court Justice. What is needed is more naked teachers if that's what it takes to get students' attention.

What people don't understand is that tamara hoover should not be a teacher because she crossed the line. It doesn't matter that she is gay. It doesn't matter she made sexually erotic naked photos of her simulting oral sex with another girl and has the words "FUCK ME" written in blood on her belly. It doesn't matter. Your right. What she does in her private life is her private life, I agree. BUT SHE POSTED THESE NAKED PICTURES OF HERSELF ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB!!!!!! This is the issue. Her students were exposed to these photos.Please don't tell me you believe her when she says "OH, my long term lover who I live with and we are so intimate and close, put them on the web, and uh.... I didn't know she was going to that. Oh please! If you were close to someone like that, don't you think they would share everything together. Don't you think she would get permission from her honey to see if its ok to post them on the internet. Especially because she has a job that deals with children? Her lover could of kept the photos in her portfolio of her art.The bottom line is that she didn't think that she would be caught. But she was.Unfortunately most people didn't see the hard core naked pictures of tamara. They pulled those off right away when this went public. All thats left are a few soft nude photos of her and holding a puppy and stuff like that. Good move on Tamara's part for someone who did "NOTHING WRONG." But I was one of the unlucky ones to see the hard core naked photos of her and it made me sick. I couldn't believe that this is the same woman who walks into a classroom and teaches children. The bottom line is that Tamara is not mentally mature enough to be a teacher. She acts like a teenager herself. If she likes to do pornographic art why doesn't she go into that profession full time then. She just has this attitude of " I don't care." Well, students need a teacher who cares. When they asked her if she felt sorry that her students saw the hard core naked photos she said,"No." Believe me, we don't need teachers like her. Giver her position to another more worthy.

The pictures allegedly came to the attention of another teacher who had an ongoing dispute with Tamara over art supplies. Apparently after some venting in the classroom, as I understand it, a student in the other teacher's class told him or her about the photos. This gem of an educator apparently then used a school computer, in front of the students, and asked them to find the site, and viewed the photos there with the students.

To all those who make the claim that teachers should put the children first, be held to some unelucidated "higher moral standard," and set a living example for their class, I ask you this: Which teacher taught a better lesson? The one that participated in a perfectly legitimate photo shoot in support of an artist she personally believed in? Or the one who showed the students that the way to get what you want in life is to cowardly dig up "dirt" on your rivals, and have them punished by higher authorities?

The sad thing about this that its the ones who are afraid of what they are, who cant accept the beauty of the body and dont feel its ok for others to express that beauty in any way, shape, or form who cant cope with it themselves. Instead they think that since they beleive its not ok that they have to make it not ok for everybody whether everybody wants to have it made that way or not. Tamara Hoover has all my well wishes and support in her fight.

Jerry, people may give up certain rights when they sign a contract, but it can be far from black and white when the contract itself is worded in such a way to be open to interpretation. i.e. - I doubt there was a "don't show us your boobs" clause in Tamara's contract. If the contract had a general "moral standards" provision, one person's high moral standards may not be anothers. Question is, did her contract explicitly allow the school board to be the final arbiter of what "standards" the district's teachers are held to, if so then she's SOL otherwise she's got a valid case.

What kids were doing in the 1950's is the same as what Clinton was doing...I wouldn't argue that. It was having the POTUS stand up and say it was okay and to hear him say that oral sex isn't sex...in a public and legal setting...that made it more accepted as okay among youth.

I am no prude...I like women and boobs and sex...a lot. However, I consider interface between genitals and any other person for the purpose of pleasure a sexual activity and therefore, to keep it simple in where the line is drawn, sex. As a dad of 4, I know that when the president or any respected public authority figure (even a 'respected' teacher) says something then it becomes a much more complicated issue. That is why we elect school boards instead of leaving it all to the schools to decide on their own.

Also, teachers sign contracts...contracts that usually flat out tell the teacher that they are expected to uphold a 'higher moral standard'. Ms. Hoover knew the expectations of her when she was getting her degree, then agreed to live by them when she signed her contract, and then she chose to break her agreement (assuming she told her partner it was okay to publish the photos on the web).

1 + 1 = 2 here. It isn't about Pres. Bush or politics or the Constitution...it is contract law 101 in a contract designed to protect students from themselves, as well as help those parents trying to raise their children to believe in 'traditional' values.

Brenner:

Gun Shy = Lethal Weapon III times Krull

The Constitution, or at least the pre-Bush interpretation of it, protects a person's right to freedom of speech (and expression), *including* unpopular speech. Most of us in this forum appear to popularly agree that if Miss Hoover wants to take photos of her boobs or anything else it should be a non-issue, so it is a no brainer. Question is, should that same right be denied to someone who's personal expression is strongly *disagreeable* (racist, anti-gay, etc.) and if it should be denied how so and by whom? I don't have an answer and I'm geniunely curious what people think. Anyone, including Peter Parker Lennon, care to offer an opinion?

Waitaminute. Bill Clinton pioneered the whole "oral sex isn't sex" thing?? Huh.

Then what was going on when I was in middle school (well before the Clinton years), when we had the concept of "bases"? And we all knew that certain bases weren't *really* sex...? (Admittedly none of us were getting to any of these bases, but we still knew damn well what they were.)

And, hmmm, in high school, what did the term "all the way" mean? Why was it that girls who were pros at backseat wrestling still prized their preserved virginity? Clinton hadn't showed up on the scene yet to clear things up for us, but we still figured out that "all the way" was sex, but "not all the way", well, it really wasn't.

Give me a break. The age at which kids are physically maturing gets younger all the time. Average age of onset of menses is going down; many girls now start in elementary school (practically unheard of when I was a kid).

It's illogical and frankly offensive to claim that Bill Clinton's romp with an intern 8+ years ago has anything whatsoever to do with the problems the public school system is seeing with kids & sex.

Yes, Edward-my-bonny,

I am the one who will decide.

I have already, in fact, decided so many things,

like: racism is bad;

like: nudity and sexuality are good;

like: if gay marriage isn't right

then straight marriage isn't right;

like: kolaches, whether sweet or savory,

are better when they're warm;

like: GUN SHY is a damned fine movie

but ANALYZE THIS probably not so much.

You may be addressing the question of what is legal.

That's not what I'm addressing.

Hell, you may not actually be ADDRESSING anything yourself.

Or you may be attending to the ADDRESSING as a secondary sort of concern. Or, at most, a SIMULTANEOUS concern.

Multitasking, you know?

Since you're also concerned with BAITING,

as you appropriately term it,

so that I or someone else will "go" for the "bait"

and then you can enjoy

a small chuckle of satisfaction

with which to bolster yourself

against the vicissitudes of life.

This can be fun, of course.

More fun, I imagine, than I'm having

in addressing the judgments beyond those

which are merely legal.

More fun, I say, because we all toil

within the bounds of what is legal,

or are anyhow affected by those bounds;

and so what I'm addressing

is a much less practical thing to address,

admittedly, than the legalities you're addressing

whether you're simultaneously baiting or not.

I suppose I must have been bitten

by a radioactive John Lennon

on some field trip when I was a teenager.

In any case, you carry on,

my dearest of Edwards,

and I'll go see if the Kingpin

has a pair of white shoes I can borrow for Friday night.

No, really: GUN SHY.

You wouldn't think a guy who'd previously

written and directed only rather lame TV fare

would be able to create such a terrific movie.

But he WAS able to.

And, sure, having Liam Neeson and Oliver Platt

as the lead actors helped a lot ...

But, damn, that movie as good in SO many ways.

College students wanting to become teachers are instructed from day one on the expectation of being a role model and how to behave. This is not rocket science or politics. In small communities, just living with a boy/girlfriend, fiancé, r whomever in a heterosexual relationship will get you fired. Drinking in public is something that many teachers have to be careful of doing. It is about being a role model, and unlike professional athletes, teachers CHOSE to be role model for our children. The impact is huge and accepted discretions shape young minds. Remember Bill Clinton…oral sex is not sex…that set a precedent that found its way into school and led to ‘rainbow parties’ and the acceptance of the practice as not being ‘sex’.

Now we want to allow teacher off time to be solely theirs to do whatever they want with? Where is the line drawn…sadism, masochism, participation in hate groups…hey, it is their off time and as long as they are good teachers it is okay? As long as teachers are paid with tax money, the community and their elected representatives have influence over who is in the classroom with our children and what acceptable behavior and ‘higher moral standards’ should be enforced.

Brenner, calm down boy. Not surprisingly, you've obviously missed the point again. My comments had nothing to do with Hoover or her specific case, on which we appear to agree. More power to her in my book. The point I was making is that this incident raises the bigger question of who decides what is appropriate personal behavior for a teacher, or any professional for that matter? In the intentionally extreme example I proposed, you went for the bait and claim that exposing evidence of the racist expression of a teacher would be the "BEGINNING of the SOLUTION to the problem". If someone is professional and well-respected at their job, why should *anything* legal that they do in their personal life be a professional problem at all, regardless of how popular or unpopular it is? If somethings should and somethings should not, who appoints themselves the PC police and decides which is which? You?

No, Edward, you silly twit.

The PHOTOS of a teacher engaging in "blantly racist activities" wouldn't be the problem. Because that would be the BEGINNING of the SOLUTION to the problem. Because it would be the "blantly racist activities" themselves ~ that the photos provide evidence of ~ that would be the problem.

Whereas the photos under consideration here? THOSE photos gave evidence of nothing other than that Ms. Hoover has a body and sometimes uses that body for sex or other, um, sexually-related program activities.

And if that fact or especially the evidence of that fact is disturbing to you?

Then hold on while I bolster my meager vocabulary by searching www.urbandictionary.com to find a more appropriate term.

Because "twit" wouldn't be strong enough.

Love & kisses,

BRNNR

Yeop,

Lot's of what I read here is in alignment. We fight it in the game industry all the time:

Naked bodies or sexual reproduction are the devil.

Blowing things up and shooting each other is ok.

Of which, I would say I think there is always a middle ground and that it is never black and white.

However, after looking at the photos and hearing she was fired...

Shame on them for EVEN THINKING THEY SHOULD DO THAT...

Her photo's are all perfectly fine for ART. Opinions on the art etc aside...

The human body is normal... now donkeys, midgets, and a kid pool full of green jello... that is just a little too much and would be considered "too different" for the younger generation to understand...

For Christ sake, you have to at least be old enough to DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY before you can even think about that.

Come on, everyone knows that on the evening of your 18th birthday the special part of the frontal lobe that can handle such things as baseball bats, leather thigh highs, and the first starting string of a baseball team.

Personally, I think we need to reset our society...

Anyone know where the reset button is?

Not surprising that this was lost on a Chroncile editor, but liberal dad's superlatives do raise an interesting question that transcends this case itself and is worth asking. Are there any perfectly legal outside activities that *should* be an issue in a teacher's professional life? If you agree that there might be, photos of a teacher engaging in blantly racist activities perhaps, then who should draw the line? The District? Parents? Students? The Press?

hello yes, i am new to this country. i like to have freedom but for to see breasts this is better. i am want to trade individual freedoms for the viewing of breasts. i have come far to live in American.

You parents who support her temination (especially the "liberal" ones, with your disingenuous defenses) are so prude it makes me giggle.

Then I cry a little. Because you're squandering my ever-rising property taxes on this bullshit.

dfgn

Hi-ho there, "liberaldad."

It's curious that all your comparatives use hatemongering groups as their subject:

"How many of her defenders would be similarly incensed in a situation in which a teacher was fired for being photographed in Nazi regalia, or wearing KKK robes? Or in a situation in which a teacher is fired because, in his off time, he serves as a spokesman for an anti-gay group?"

Are you, perhaps, INCAPABLE of finding a subset other than hate groups for comparing? Or is it that you just naturally and possibly exclusively equate the activities of such groups with the activity of displaying naked human flesh?

Mercy sakes, I certainly hope it's something other than either of those two reasons.

Because the former is sad. And the latter is horrifying. Especially if you really prefer to think of yourself as, um, "liberal," dad.

Why is she being fired? They are only tits, boobs, breasts, mammary glands, titanic orbs of bouncing fun flesh, whatever! Tits are in the movies all the time. She should get another job anyway, screw them!

Why is she being fired? They are only tits, boobs, breasts, mammary glands, titanic orbs of bouncing fun flesh, whatever! Tits are in the movies all the time. She should get another job anyway, screw them!

Good piece raises the salient issue at this point. Regardless of the artistic merits of the photos, can Ms. Hoover continue to maintain control over a classroom fuls of hormone-raging teenagers after this controversy? Probably not, but she seems like a good teacher and I hope she finds employment in another district.

I don't really think the issue at hand is nudity or society's view of it... The issue is a breach of the teacher/student relationship boundaries which leads to the question of whether she can still lead a classroom effectively. Ms. Hoover had a myspace, where many students of hers have accounts, which linked to the flickr. The flickr had many lurid and erotic photos (most of which have now been removed, due to the controversy - seems a bit of a whitewashing to sway public opinion). I'm not sure if she thought this would be a good idea, or if she was thinking at all. Either way, a bad judgement call.

The generated controversy and publicity is far more damaging to her career than the photos themselves are. Students seeing erotic art of their teacher is no longer the issue, but rather the judgements about her that have been formed by students and staff which inhibit effective teaching. Discussing this with other teacher friends of mine, they all question whether she could continue to lead an effective classroom in the eyes of students and staff after all this, regardless of what actually led to the controversy.

Hopefully she'll be able to find another teaching position somewhere.

Our government is sponsoring terrorisms of liberation abroad while people squabble over Victorian notions of self and propriety. All the while, as a culture, we massively consume and promote images that are far more pornographic than that which this artists is accused of manufacturing while proclaiming our supremem freedoms of expression and action.

No job can require that someone's artistic, sexual or personal life reflect a certain moral framework. Clearly our alcohol chugging, cocaine snorting president is exempt from such judgements.

Anyone who dare criticize an artist for her work while happily paying tax dollars to promote an alleged democracy (except for the many voters in Ohio and Florida who were barred from voting), needs to consider the many similitudes between this morally conservative Christian censureship and that of the Taliban. Both seek to silence, control and ultimately stifle life.

I did not read the Statesman piece, but apparently Ms. Hoover's problems go beyond the pics of her boobies on the Al. Here's the form-email I received from the Board of Trustess after I emailed them, opposing her firing. Perhaps y'all did the same and got the same reply, but for those of you who did not:

Dear Chris,

On behalf of the Board of Trustees, the District provides the following

response:

Thank you for your email regarding the proposed termination of a teacher at

Austin High School that was very much in the news earlier this week. As

you are aware, feelings run high on the issues identified in the media, and

no matter what your position, we appreciate your taking the time to share

your thoughts and feelings with us. Please also be advised that what has

been reported in the media to date does not appear to encompass all of the

evidence which was before the District when it considered this matter.

Regrettably, by law the District is not permitted to discuss active

personnel matters with members of the general public. As noted in a recent

letter to the media from the District’s General Counsel, District personnel

must protect the privacy rights of our employees, even when he or she has

been accused of wrongdoing.

Once again, the District asks for your patience and understanding until

this pending matter is concluded.

Mitzi Boyles

Secretary to the AISD Board of Trustees

512/414-2413

thanks for the clarification, kenneth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed

i always thought it stood for opinion-editorials, thinking they were on in the same, but i guess the Op-Ed part is generally reserved for columns doing as you say.

so here's my question: why do people all of a sudden care about education and the qualifications of teachers? oh, right. cause boobies are involved.

maybe if anyone cared about the state of the public education system before last week, people would have a right to say that teachers are held to a higher standard. i'm currently working with a perfectly capable 10 year old girl who made it through the austin public school system without being properly taught what vowels are, and thus, how to read. children are being left behind here, people. and i think it might have something to do with the teachers. leave the tits alone. fire teachers based on effectiveness, not on sexual orientation, petty grudges between teachers, or the presence of nice racks.

I think that the post by goodpiece nails it on the head. This is a teacher who has to work with teenage boys. Maybe the pictures are art, but most teenage boys won't see them that way. I know, because I *was* a teenage boy once, my daughter dated several of them and my son is one.

By making these photos publicly available and easily accessed by her students, Hoover sets herself up not only to be objectified by the kids, but disrespected. Yes, "smart" kids can be brought to understand the artistic nature of the photos. Alas, not all kids are "smart."

Displaying the photos puts her in a compromising situation and weakens her ability to lead in the classroom. That's my problem with the photos -- not that they are salacious.

I'm curious. How many of her defenders would be similarly incensed in a situation in which a teacher was fired for being photographed in Nazi regalia, or wearing KKK robes? Or in a situation in which a teacher is fired because, in his off time, he serves as a spokesman for an anti-gay group?

Should Hoover be fired? I don't think so -- reprimanded for poor judgement, yes. By the way, the other teacher who showed these photos in class should similarly be reprimanded, as such displays violate district policy.

Hate to be a Ned Flanders, but that was an editorial, NOT an Op/Ed. The latter term stands for "opposite the editorials" and refers to the page next to the editorial page reserved for syndicated columnists, political cartoons, guest columns and the like.

BTW, I've read it twice and still can't figure out if the Real-Estatesman is for or against her firing.

When I was a 15 year old high school student, I can't imaging seeing one of my teachers stradding a bed, topless but for a spiked collar and handcuffs (as some of the pictures, probably now removed, showed). There were others of a similar nature on the flickr as well as more tame ones.

I'm a liberal artist myself, but any reasonable person could say that's pushing the line of what a teacher should have posted publicly on the internet where anyone, including her students, can view them. Teachers *should* have more class and decorum.

I don't think she should be fired, but reprimanded and *take responsibility* for having poor judgement. The photographer who took them is her significant other and posted many over many months of time. She was not unaware, and undoubtedly could have had the more erotic ones moved to a more private area.

Teachers should have private lives, but posting on the web is like doing it in your front yard. Its your private property, but we can all see and form opinions on you from it. That may have negative consequences in other areas of your life. Many employers these days google prospective names or look them up on myspace to see what turns up. I know I do when I get someone looking to be an assistant.

Unfortunately, this goes far beyond the issue immediately at hand.

This reaches, in fact, all the way to the question of What's wrong with looking at a naked human body?

Which further forces the question of What's wrong with having a naked human body?

There is nothing wrong with either of those things, of course.

And if people ~ adults or children ~ don't want to look at a naked human body, then, gee whillikers, they don't have to.

And if they see one somewhere? Like if they briefly catch just the slightest, totally-by-accident glimpse of one? Well, I'm sure they'll be able to eventually recover from the Immense Trauma Of Witnessing Such A Sight; and they merely need to not look at it again.

Also, people like that? Who would be traumatized by such a sight? Who would be so offended that they start freaking out and demanding that others freak out in a similar fashion and at a similar level?

I suggest that those people have their eyes gouged out.

Or plucked out, if you want to get classical about it.

And why do I suggest this?

Because I'm a kind, caring individual.

And I'd hate ~ it would really wound me, deeply ~ for those poor souls to accidentally snag a peek at their very own naked bodies lurking ever so treacherously under their clothes.

I mean, like, the horror ... the horror ...

o.O

So Ms. Hoover's got my full (but terribly ineffectual) support. But then, she'd have that support even if she weren't, as she reportedly is, such a wonderful, caring, creative teacher and person.

Unfortunately, at the far end of the line,

this comes down, as so many things do,

to the decent people versus the assholes.

And you know what?

The assholes usually win.

o.O

"Jesus wept," the Bible tells us.

And you know what?

He's still weeping.

I'm not surprised people are upset in this era of child worship, but I somehow expected more from Austin. It seems like they are just looking for a way to weed out liberal teachers rather than meet any sort of local standards.

The pictures still on flikr (http://flickr.com/photos/celes... are very tame (if a little artistically boring). They may have pulled the "questionable" material. But anyway you slice it, teachers are people too. Their out of school lives should not be under scrutiny. BTW, there are tons of "questionable" photos on Flickr. Minors are probably not a good mix with Flickr. Just like any other mature or semi-mature site.