The Naked Teacher Principle rides again!
Jerry Buell, a veteran high school teacher recently named his district’s ‘Teacher of the Year,” was suspended indefinitely by Lake County, Florida’s Mount Dora High School for posting an anti-gay marriage rant on his Facebook page. In the post, prompted by New York’s decision to legalize gay marriage, Buell said that the news made him want to throw up, that gay marriage was “a cesspool,” and that homosexuality was a sin.
He is welcome to his opinion. He has an absolute right to it. However, he does not have a right to be allowed to teach students, several or many of whom may be gay, after voluntarily allowing it to become public knowledge that he is disgusted by gays and considers them sinful. The school is right to remove him from his teaching duties, and it will be right to tell him that he will not be permitted to teach in the school again.
This isn’t a free speech question, for the Constitution’s free speech guarantee only means that speech can not be punished and restrained by government action, not that it is insulated from the consequences that result from it. The Buell saga is yet another variation on The Naked Teacher Principle, in which a teacher’s sexualized photographic images become available to his or her students, permanently interfering with the student-teacher relationship. We might call it the Natalie Munroe Variation, in which open contempt and hatred of a teacher’s students is substituted for photos of the teacher vamping naked, stripping, doing a lap dance, or painting with his genitals while wearing a paper bag over his head (my personal favorite.)
Reportedly Buell hangs signs extolling ethical virtues in his social studies classroom, and his #1 value is “Respect.” It tells us a lot about the fanaticism of homophobic zealots that Buell could not see the disconnect between his duty to be fair and respectful to his students and his Facebook condemnation of their sexual orientation, suggesting that allowing them to have the same rights as heterosexual Americans caused his gorge to rise.
I do not believe that the government should or can tell employees what they may do or say in their personal lives, nor is it the government’s proper role to insist that certain opinions, political or social, must conform to some consensus or norm. It can and should insist, however, that what teachers do and say do not undermine their ability to teach all students, or the ability of all students to trust in their good will and unbiased regard. Natalie Munroe forfeited her right to teach by announcing online that she hated her students. Yes, it’s true that her cowardly and irresponsible employers allowed her to return to the classroom, but we should all hope that Mount Dora High has more sense.
If Buell had written that most girls were dumb, that Hispanics made him angry, that blacks made him fear for his life or that over-weight kids made him sick, nobody would be claiming that he had a constitutional right to keep his teaching job. In addition to the burden his hateful opinions placed on students who might be gay, they also are a threat to encourage bigotry on the part of his non-gay students.
Explain it to Mr. Buell this way, in terms of his favorite ethical virtue, respect:
“Those students who still respect you are more likely to adopt your bigoted views. Those who don’t respect you because of those views cannot be effectively taught by you. And those who read your words to mean that their teacher has no respect for them, will either regard you as an adversary, or lose respect for themselves.”
As with Natalie Munroe and the naked teachers, Jerry Buell has crippled his ability to teach. There is no way back.
Ethics Alarms 
“If Buell had written that most girls were dumb, that Hispanics made him angry, that blacks made him fear for his life or that over-weight kids made him sick, nobody would be claiming that he had a constitutional right to keep his teaching job.”
Surely you know better by now. There would be puh-lenty of people with the same kneejerk reaction – like the Natalie Munroe supporters.
No, I doubt it, because gender stereotypes, racism and ridiculing appearances are over the line for virtually everyone. Munroe gets defended because she was so broad in her diatribe, so no politically incorrect or constitutionally suspect groups were targeted. Anti-gay marriage rants still have credibility because of their religious underpinnings.
They shouldn’t, but they do.
So it is OK to punish people who disagree with us as long as it is politically correct? Soon people will be getting fired if they say they dislike incest and animal stuff.
OK, now that I’ve read your second comment, it is quite clear that you are a dolt. That is not remotely what the post said. You have reached your idiotic comment quotient. The next one gets deleted. Learn to read.
“If Buell had written that most girls were dumb, that Hispanics made him angry, that blacks made him fear for his life or that over-weight kids made him sick, nobody would be claiming that he had a constitutional right to keep his teaching job.”
I would. Or, well, possibly not constitutional right (the reason I think so isn’t really related to it being an expression of opinion) but I would still be against firing him.
You should not fire anyone for things they do off the job that are not related to the job, period. Had he said this in class absolutely he should be fired; however until this actually affects his ability to do his job it shouldn’t get him fired*. You can’t and shouldn’t fire someone for their opinions no matter how awful they are.
Incidentally I would also be against firing a teacher whose naked pictures were floating around the internet. In fact that’s the exact kind of example I’D use to defend MY position, so I’m really baffled that you’ve flipped it around.
*: Fair argument that being a bigot affects your ability to do your job, but I’d want to actually find evidence that he was being a bigot in the classroom rather than assume that based on stuff he wrote on Facebook.
Well, you’re missing the key point: teachers have to be respected, be seen as authority figures (not sex objects) and be perceived as fair. Private conduct and opinions that become public knowledge affect the ability of a teacher (and other professions) to perform. You seriously believe that a teacher who professes white supremacy and the intellectual inferiority of blacks isn’t unable to teach, regardless of the attitudes he or she appear to be conveying in class? You seriously believe that naked pictures of a female high school teacher don’t negatively affect the image and credibility of that teacher in class?
Published opinions and conduct (which is what the internet does) have public impact. You can deny it if you want, but it does, and an employer should remove any employee who allows his or her image to reflect negatively on her, the employer or the profession.
You say teachers shouldn’t and can’t (or they have to be fired apparently) be seen as sex objects? And you have no idea that my experiences in 75h and 8th grade with a certain female teacher (who, by the way, did not dress or act inappropriately she merely was pretty) make this an impossible standard?
I’m with BlackHumor here. One of the reasons that private behaviors (and you probably know that sometimes pics surface of activities that took place many years prior) have such power is that people like yourself give them that power. And as for this teacher you seem to be applying a “guilty until proven innocent” standard even though, as far as we can tell, he’s not only been a good teacher but a far above average one. I’m almost never in favor of pre-emptive punishments or judgments and you certainly haven’t convinced me in this case.
I barely understood what you were trying to say.
Explain to me how a student who is aware that his teacher regards him as disgusting can trust, admire, or expect to be fairly treated by such a teacher. Your “pics’ have nothing whatsoever to do with that student’s problem, not of his making, and unfixable as long as the student has to be in that class.
Teachers can be bigots, pigs and homophobes, but they had better 1) not show it in their teaching and 2) not display it for the attitudes to either undermine their relationship of trust, or just as bad, validate and give status t their beliefs. There is njothing “pre-emptive’ about declaring a self-announced bigot unfit to teach. The bigotry is the harm. You don’t have to wait for proof of actual discrimination, any more than you have to wait for a teacher who was a sex offender to actually abuse someone.
Mr. Marshall:
Arguably everyone in this world has some bigotries including you. That your bigotries are not announced doesn’t really matter to me : if we are going to apply a “no bigotry” ethical standard to things you are hereby disqualified from being an ethicist.
I will take this second to note that you skipped over the fact that I mentioned that one of my female teachers was pretty much nothing but a sex object to me for two years in high school through no fault of her own. I will say it points out the impossibility of standards you are tying to set: one can be an “object” through no fault of one’s own.
Now Mr. Marshall I’m not aware that
A. Mr. Buell has stated that he finds all gays disgusting. That seems to be you putting words in his mouth or possibly assigning him motivations that he does not possess. It is possible to be against gay marriage and not be anti-gay. I can easily think of scenarios in which this is possible. Do you doubt this?
B. He has ever done any of the harm you are sure he MUST do as a consequence of his bigotry.
More to the point, it’s the undeclared and hidden bigot that is most dangerous. Someone who declares they don’t like homosexuality can be monitored to ensure they don’t let their bigotry interfere with their teaching, someone who hides this belief can far more easily get away with discrimination.
Lastly, as everyone is a bigot of some type (we all have prejudices about something or the other) what you are really demanding is either the teacher who covers up the bigotry or the robot teacher. Well, automation is improving rapidly – maybe eventually you will get your wish.
Everyone has biases. Everyone is not a bigot, and your comment leads me to think that you don’t know the difference, which rather disqualifies you on this topic.
The teacher denigrated gay marriage as disgusting. There is no way that is not an insult and an expression of enmity toward all gays, whether they are married or not, just as the statement that letting a black man marry a white woman is disgusting insults all blacks of either gender.
Sure a hidden bigot is the most dangerous….but your conclusion, like the rest of your comment, makes little sense, A secret arsonist is more dangerous than an open one, but that’s not an argument for hiring an arsonist—or waiting until he burns down your place of work before you decide he’s a bad risk.
Actually no:
The thought of gay SEX disgusts me, but then I am straight. I could personally care less about what gays do in their bedrooms nor do I even care if they hold hands or kiss in public. That being said, I am sexually disgusted by the idea of gay sex because I am straight. It is very possible he was more or less thinking of the sexual aspect of the marriage then you give him credit for.
I support gay marriage. But because I find gay sex disgusting (not merely “it’s not my thing”: like most people I have certain sexual squicks that is, things that I not only would never do but that actively repulse me ) I must be a bigot and hence could never be considered for any teaching jobs right?
As for bigotry you seem to be confusing it with homophobia.
No, wrong, and you do not comprehend what bigotry is, nor, apparently, to you understand the nuances of the English language.
Buell said that 1) gay marriage (not the act of homosexual sex) made him want to throw up; 2) that gay marriage was a cesspool, and 3) that homosexuality was a sin. That goes far beyond saying that homosexual sex holds no appeal for him persoanlly, which makes no value judgment about people who are gay at all. (If someone is disgusted by oysters and I think they are delicious, that only means that he and I have different tastes. The cesspool comment is an insult, and clear bigotry. If allowing gay people who want to get married to do so makes one “want to throw up”, something about withholding basic rights from gays appeals to you, and this is also colorable bigotry—marking someone as less that equal because of their member ship in a group that consists of people with essential characteristics rather than people who have made conscious choices. The sin comment is a staement of moarl judgment that indicates disapproval of an individual’s character based on who he is. Note that it does not say “homosexual sex is a sin” but that homosexuality is. Maybe he mis-stated…it doesn’t matter.
All three opinions could conceivably be held by someone who would treat students fairly and equally, including gay students, though I’d doubt it. If I were gay, I would nt trust such a teacher, if these opinions were known, and if you find me a gay person who says that he would be comfortable being taught by a teacher who has stated such opinions, I will be duly impressed. No responsible parent would want a closeted gay child to be taught by such a person, as he or she would feel that the teacher objects to his sexual identity on a persoanl level.
Thus a responsible teacher with bigoted opinions—who genuinely and reasonably believes that they would not cause him to be biased in his treatment of gay students would not make such feelings public, as Buell did. It was irresponsible to do so, and strong indicia that he is NOT able to overcome his bias. No student should be required to sit in a class taught be someone whom he knows or reasonably suspects regards him as less than desrving of respect and all rights of a citizen.
Homophobia is a form of bigotry, just as xenophobia is a form of bigotry.
Your arguments appears to be that a person who publicly expresses the opinion Buell did is not reasonably judged anti-gay, and that a gay child should have no problems being required to sit in the classroom and be subject to the authority of someone who hates and reviles what he is. You have said nothing that supports either argument, both of which are counter intuitive and illogical, as well as counter to common experience and human nature, other than to just assert them, and play semantic games about the definition of bigotry. Unless you can do better, I’ll just leave you to your fantasies.
Mr. Marshall:
For one, you are the one who appeared to care so much about the definition of “bigotry” that you said I should be disqualified for “getting it wrong”. I’ve mostly declined to play any dictionary.com games with you. I personally could care less whether he was bigoted or not, the only question in my mind is has he acted adversely towards gay students in his classroom based on these beliefs?
Having read what he said IN CONTEXT, I now believe he has not.
This link is my final response to you.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/08/20/jerry-buell-doesnt-deserve-to-be-suspended/
And for a guy whose over broad expectations of teachers appear to be humanly impossible, I find it hilarious you throw “human nature” at me.
Anyway this isn’t as “obvious” to me as it seems to you, but it’s obvious that you’ve gotten upset about it. But then your job requires you to handle disagreements, and if there is one thing that people do disagree on its ethics. Sorry if I upset you.
You have inflated concept of your own influence. If I was upset about every individual who seems to be unable to comprehend basic ethical concepts, like bias, conflict of interest, fairness, responsibility and respect, i would be perpetually upset.
My favorite silly comment in your latest on this topic—and if it is your last,hurray—is that my “over broad expectations of teachers appear to be humanly impossible.” And yet, amazingly, the vast majority of teachers manage not to portray themselves over the net as biased, cruel, sexually promiscuous or hateful. Impossible—yet remarkably easy, for responsible professionals. What a puzzle!
“This isn’t a free speech question, for the Constitution’s free speech guarantee only means that speech can not be punished and restrained by government action….”
I do have one nitpick with this statement: The school that Buell worked for is, in fact, a government owned-and-operated entity. So there needs to be some sort of explicit, existing policy that he has violated and a proper due-process procedure.
If it is a private school, then I withdraw my objection.
–Dwayne
No, it’s a public school. And public school teachers have to be fit to teach. If some judge rules that a public school can’t fire an outspoken bigot, and I wouldn’t put it past on of them, then parents need to pull their kids out of his classes. Assaulting the character of school children in public, which is what this rant does to every gay/maybe gay child he teachers or may come to teach, is conduct, not speech.
I think you’re right, assuming that his Facebook post was public or might as well have been (e.g., he had students or parents friended, he had 1000 friends he didn’t necessarily know personally).
If it was intended to be private to a smaller group of people, then I have more mixed feelings. I wouldn’t want someone who hates and is disgusted by gay kids to be teaching, but I understand the mental gymnastics you can go through when your religious beliefs contain bigotry and you still want to be a decent person. That’s where “hate the sin, love the sinner” comes in. I know that has its own issues, but you can hold bigoted religious beliefs without being hateful toward that group of people.
If it was posted publicly, or might as well be, then that’s disrespectful in and of itself, and worthy of firing.
I really don’t think his intent matters. Anything on Facebook is subject to being made public, and the problem is that once the information is out that a group of his own students “disgust” him, he has alienated and denigrated part of the group he is pledged to serve. Buell is reinstated now, and crowing about it—I think the result is wrong, but schools have unions to contend with.
I assume, Mr. Marshall, that you would be just as adamantly against Mr. Buell continuing to teach if he had instead posted something like this:
“I want to throw up every time I hear a supposed “Christian” say that having gay sex is a sin—I’m a Christian, and I don’t believe in that idiocy. These fundamentalist bigots make me SICK!!!”
Well, let’s look at the check list:
Is he expressing hatred of a class of person that might be in his classroom? Check.
Is he denigrating individuals based on group membership rather than opposing a point of view? Check.
Is his statement sufficient to make some one who comes from a Fundamentalist upbring eel that he or she is hated or regarded as “bad” by his or her teacher, based solely on religion. Check.
Guess so!
I applaud your consistency, but I think it will lead to rather extreme (and untenable) results. Not to belabor the point, but one more example should suffice; say the post was instead:
“I want to throw up every time I hear a white supremacist say that blacks should still be slaves—I’m a white man, and I don’t believe in that idiocy. These neo-Nazi bigots make me SICK!!!”
This also checks off all the items on your list.
Yes, but it adds a new one. As a society, we have determined that white supremacy is unwelcome, condemned, and rejected by American culture.as wrong, an unequivocally so. It is appropriate for these values to be condemned in a school context, and appropriate that children holding those views should know it, so that they may resolve to change.and accept the US cultural standards. Religion, on the other hand, is an area where the culture and society dictates tolerance and freedom. So is sexual orientation.
From your response, it is clear that your argument is based on a relativistic standard; that is why I disagree with it.
Except that I am not a relativist. It’s just that absolute standards always break down eventually. I am willing to apply absolute standards, but in ethics, as in math and physics, every rule has its anomalies. Theoretical ethics and practical ethics are separate in this respect. Theoretical ethics is useful, but only if one understands that it is a tool, not an end in itself.
As a gay-rights advocate, I agree that his comments were wrong. I can see both sides to the firing debate, and I think your position is well-articulated and logical. As a student, I would have found him obnoxious and bigoted. (However, I still might have learned some decent academic lessons from him.) As a parent, I would be disturbed by having an outspoken bigot near my children and their friends.
However, I take some exception to the “teachers must be authority figures and not sex objects” thought. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. It’s time we rethink the notion that any instance of an adult’s sexualtiy being expressed in a semi-public or public setting is inherently wrong or makes them just a sex object, unworthy of respect. Furthermore, the label of “sex object” is applied very disporportionately to females in our sexist society. And as another commenter tried to say (I think), all many teachers have to do is be attractive and a student will see them in sexual light. They may still respect that teacher’s authority, though.
I’m not at all advocating for teachers putting their sexuality out there for students, but I don’t understand the collective shock and handwringing that comes when society discovers a teacher was, for example, once a stripper. Our puritanical society seems unable to comprehend that one can be a good teacher and also have done erotic things in semi-public spaces meant for adults. I see both sides of the issue, certainly. I’m just advocating for a little less puritanicalism and a bit more nuanced handling of the issue. Adults sometimes express their sexuality in semi-public or public ways, and I don’t think that’s inherently a bad thing.