It’s 2014, and time for the first Naked Teacher Principle controversy. As it happens, this one may be the standard against which all others are judged.
Kaitlin Pearson, a Fitchburg, Massachusetts elementary school teaching assistant in the special education department at South Street Elementary School, was exposed, wait, no…busted….no, sorry, not that, er..outed as a well-publicized nude model when someone sent an anonymous package containing her “elegant implied nude” photos to the principal. (That’s the first thing that jumped into my mind when I saw the photo above, I can tell you; “Now there’s an elegant implied nude photo!”) She’s on paid leave now, and you never know what those wacky school administrators will do, but Kaitlin is most down-the-middle-of-the-alley example of the Naked Teacher Principle in action as I’ve ever seen:
1. She’s a teacher…
2. At an elementary school…
3. Who has her photo taken in mostly naked and sexually suggestive poses…
4. Has them posted on the web, where they are easily accessed under her name….
5. Has posted many of them herself….
6. Never alerted her employers to her alternate vocation, and in particular,
7. Didn’t explain this practice and its inevitable results when she was interviewing for the job.
Primary school students (and secondary too) should not have to reconcile their educational instructors and role models with sexual images and provocative behavior, and a teacher who intentionally places them in that position is irresponsible and untrustworthy. This is especially true when teachers unions are opposing reasonable policies to weed out sexual predators in the schools, of which there are too many. (One is too many.)
Naturally, there are plenty of ethically-stunted critics like Inquisitr’s Patrick Frye, who can’t seem to fathom why fourth graders shouldn’t be seeing photos of their teacher looking like, say, this…
…while being taught geography. He also appears to adopt the Bob McDonnell position regarding appropriate conduct—if it’s not illegal, it’s OK—together with the Alec Baldwin theory that one’s conduct outside the workplace shouldn’t have unavoidable workplace repercussions. Before the internet, people who never learned the basics of life, responsible behavior, professionalism and the workplace didn’t have the means to confuse and mislead so many: it was probably from spending too much time with people like Frye that led Kaitlin to think she had no obligation to let potential employers know that they could look forward to angry parents barging into their offices and throwing down photos like, say, this one…
….and saying, “I found this photo of YOUR TEACHER on my 11-year-old son’s computer!” Of course. then she wouldn’t have gotten the job, which is the issue. Frye asks, deceitfully, “Should school professionals have to choose between a modeling career and working with children?” Yes, that’s certainly the way to put it to slant the answers, Patrick: you should work for Gallup. The question really is, “Should schools take reasonable measures to see that their teachers aren’t sexualized in the eyes of their students?” Or: “Should schools feel deceived when a potential teacher neglects to tell them about her out-of-school activities as sexual surrogate, a porn star, or a nude model for men’s magazines?
In every respect, Kaitlin Pearson is the perfect embodiment of the Naked Teacher Principle and its ethical implications.
She’s not bad looking, either.
_______________________________________
Sources: International Business Investor, Inquisitr, Telegram, Instagram
Graphics: Nething Cars, Rave Ex
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1106252/nude-photos-get-elementary-ta-kaitlin-pearson-suspended/#1jozBMdVDVQlPTIW.99
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1106252/nude-photos-get-elementary-ta-kaitlin-pearson-suspended/#1jozBMdVDVQlPTIW.99
Ethics Alarms 
[quote]She’s not bad looking, either.[/quote]
Understatement of month. (…and by logical extension, the year.)
I suppose, but I do want to make sure it’s understood that the particular graphics used in the article were essential to support the points involved, and had no other purpose, and I resent any suggestion to the contrary.
We could use more graphics to reinforce the message.
Then I guess you had better prepare to be resentful. Because as I read this comment my attention was distracted, by the large herd of pigs flying in V formation past my front room window. Honking.
And I am not amused.
This turned ot to be a false alarm – apology offered
Please, tell me that your wife walked by as you were compiling this post…
Do you think I’m insane?
I was embarrassed when I walked by…
I just wonder how you got it done without her seeing it and making you sleep on the couch.
Damn she is beautiful, I can see your words but can’t make out any meaning to them…….now her image will be stuck in my head the rest of the day and I will get little done. I can’t imagine how productive an 11-14 year old would be after checking those out and having the real thing standing in front of them all day, bending over to assist with school work and the like.
Now if she was homely looking woman and did this the impact may not be the same but the principle would be. The ethical implication is based on impact or potential impact, if that impact doesn’t exists due to the offenders lack of attractiveness does the beautiful one violate it because impact but not the ugly one or both for fairness sake? Or is it the act of exposure itself regardless of the potential impact?
Maybe this in one of the reasons Chris Christie is calling for longer school days. Boys just can’t concentrate any longer 🙂
Oh, boys are capable of intense, focused, indeed obsessive concentration. On just these sort of photos, for example.,
Becuase I know you love internet slang I will point out that the lack of a NSFW tag. Just had had two guys go by and now we are discussing nothing related to work…….or ethics….the rest of the day is shot
At this moment, the thought of a “wacky school administrator” grosses me out…
…but it doesn’t get any better after forcing myself to hope they won’t act like jerks…
…worse still, after suspecting that they might blow off the best interests of the students…
Small quibble. She’s not a teacher but a teacher’s assistant. Somehow I don’t think a career in education was her ultimate aspiration. Anyway “girls just wanna have fun!”
The last teacher’s assistant that did this in our school district was given a full time teaching job the following year. There goes that theory.
Why the teaching profession has abandoned, or is in the process of abandoning, all vestiges of professionalism is an interesting topic for inquiry. Did it start with teachers unions? Are unions antithetical to professionalism? I wonder.
I don’t think there is any correlation to profession. Our society is simply suffering from a serious character drought with very few role models to “turn the tides.”
I think some of the warped interpretations of feminism have contributed. Megyn Kelly, a lawyer, accomplished journalist and obviously substantive person, has photos like this up on the web…which might trigger the NTP, if she were a teacher. Why?
“Are unions antithetical to professionalism?”
Yes. Despite the claims that “unions will police their own and internally increase quality”, the truth is that “unions will protect their own, especially when internal quality has decreased”.
“Are unions antithetical to professionalism?”
No. They are indifferent/inert with regard to professionalism. They will typically defend their members, good or bad. Where professsionalism of a work group can be claimed as part of that defence it will be overclaimed. Unions are cold blooded and calculating, not actually evil. A bit like employers. This impartial and undiscriminating defensive motive may be most noticeable when internal quality is unacceptably low but it acts all the time.
Or perhaps teachers need money?
Duh. Yes, that should have been on the list, perhaps #1. Thanks.
If only we didn’t trick these poor young people into becoming teachers without also telling them how little it paid…
Oh, wait…
Wow. You really like your naked teacher posts … perhaps a little too much. If elementary students are viewing porn though, I think the administrators have bigger problems than the fact that their teachers are posing for it in their off-time. The teacher is an idiot obviously, but where the %&@#% are the parents here? Your naked teacher posts resonate a bit more for me when we are talking about 6th through 12-graders.
Beth, I was starting to agree and then thought: all it takes is one kid whose older brother carelessly left the picture around, and boom, it’s all over the school the next day.
She’s soft porn at most. But believe me, you are behind the times, unfortunately. The sexualization of our kids begin well before sixth grade.
It amazes me how often this scenario recurs, and also how so many commentators see nothing wrong with their kid’s teacher’s naughty bits being so accessible. I made the mistake of raising the NTP at a teachers ethics seminar once. No sympathy at all. They all thought it didn’t matter; well, the female teachers didn’t.
Surely it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t arise. If you are teaching you shouldn’t have a second job as any position that might diminish the kid’s respect. Or bring the profession into disrepute. This case is no less and no more than breach of contract, like the PR exec and the racist tweet or the actor and the anti-immigration campaign.
Why the special category of the naked teacher? The only reason I can think of is that nudity can be a hobby as well as a job and gets mixed up ethically with a controversial issue (sex) as a separate subject. But so can and so is flying a swastika flag in front of your house, book burning. chaining oneself to railings outside the White House, punching a cop, urinating on a war grave, flag burning and a lot of other mis-behaviour. A professional life cramps your lifestyle. One must choose.
As the woman in question is a non-professional assistant her obligations are lower and her employment protections are, I assume, weaker. Same result. She’s gone.
It’s a special category, because MOST professions have easily identifiable causes to terminate related to unprofessional behavior. This profession has the clear special circumstance, that the product in question (that is, an educated person – specifically educated boys) is directly effected by the nature of the relationship with the professional and the professional’s out of work behavior.
The real rule you are looking for, abstracted, is this:
If Professional X engages in behavior outside of Profession Y which directly decreases the ability of Professional X to perform in the profession and produce products to an appropriate standard, then Professional X doesn’t get to complain when Employer of Professional X terminates them.
Good response. But that rule would apply to anyone delivering a relevant relationship based service. Nurse, Doctor, criminal defense lawyer, politician (regarding work for individual constituents), Airline cabin crew, Cop, Soldier, engineer making prostheses or custom wheelchairs, bespoke tailors, public servant responsibly in contact with the public,….)?
That is correct. And if any of those professions engaged in behavior that impeded their ability to perform to their employer’s standards, the employer is right to fire.
The reason the NTP is a specially discussed case, it no one seems to realize why this behavior (posing naked and publishing said images) is a big deal in regards to this profession (teaching children).
So naked cops, tailors and the rest would also be featured on the NTP category? That is iif their breach of contract was serious enough to warrant a firing? If so that’s ok then. Yes I see now, its the Naked Teacher PRINCIPLE, not the NAKED TEACHER Principal.. I thought for a while it was something about teachers and sex and the sexual young specifically, some darkness of the educational soul or other that was somehow in denial and needed forcing open by the blog. Glad I was wrong.
Good distinction, and yes—it was not intended to apply to only teachers, and in fact I have applied it in various posts to other professions, like here. I think it also applies to parents, except that they have no options if they are in certain fields.
Whoops. Wrong again. You said very specifically that the Naked Teacher was a special case. Sorry. I’ll have to read this fifteen times to make sure I’ve got it straight.
Bringing in the NTP in original form Jack said :'”I articulated “the Naked Teacher Principle,” which is simply this: a responsible high school teacher has a duty to take reasonable care that her students do not see her in the nude. It is not too much to ask.
For “in the nude,” substitute drinking, bar-hopping, playing drinking games, driving with one’s feet, having sex, …and painting pictures using one’s butt.”
Which I now read as specific to Teachers, but not to their nudity. (Before I thought the Principle was any breach of anyones contract. But no). The reason teachers are different from the others is? – The others are not in a position of example regarding children? So the level of trust is greater -,up to the level of influence. So the effort and self discipline to maintain that trust is proportionately more burdensome.
I’m nearlly there but not quite, i feel.
Teachers are in loco parentis, entrust with children’s welfare during the day to serve as educators, role models, authority figures and care-takers, none of which roles are compatible with that of a sex object. Every case is different, which is why I liked the most recent one, as it almost perfect, having all of the elements that make the teacher’s loss of job appropriate. (She was a teaching aide rather than a teacher.) If you search for “naked teacher principle” you will find more examples and variation, including some other occupations, than you could possibly feel like reading, including links to the original post on the topic, on The Ethics Scoreboard.
Thanks. I have been thinking and searching and I saw the examples of DeWeese and Buett and the others. And I note your statement. But NTP is still evading me slightly.
I thought ‘in loco parentis’ but for example you could hardly ask a child in a happy married family not to notice that mummy and daddy sometimes like each other a lot. So acting as a teacher for the general populace, self-expression in femininity and masculinity, seems to be positively indicated within limits.
I may think again and try again tomorrow. Still not right.
Responsible parents presumably do not parade around in the nude with their kids present, or show salacious and sexually provocative images of themselves to their kids. Those who do help fill the schedules and bank accounts of analysts and shrinks, and, if “Criminal Minds” is to be believed, the case load of the FBI’s serial killer unit.
Amongst many other things kids need role models for how to be sexual responsibly. This is difficult in family life. Alice Miller (Drama of being a Child) pointed out that sex and romantic attachment that the parents share is something pre-pubescent kids are absolutely locked out of but will be very concious of and often jealous of (special hand holding, special kisses. eye contact, no matter how toned down, a healthy marriage is what it is). When the kids hit puberty they may well have problems as you say Jack. That is, they may if the examples they have been given are inappropriate or indeed absent or repressed. They absolutely will not ‘work it out for themselves when the time comes’.
I say that a vacuum of example might be as dangerous as bad instruction in this area. Nature and curious mischievous young minds notoriously abhor a vacuum, and locked doors. In that case, to ensure that kids have all the material they need without going on the internet, as a citizen you may not duck your duty to be female or male and give an example, almost always an example of discretion..Any more than a parent can duck explaining where babies come from
Teachers, cousins, siblings, grand parents, neighbours, the Disney Corporation, the music industry – a whole community is needed to give those examples. Including how to be lonely and how to be in love and how to be – sexual. Specifically examples are needed of discharging the obligation to continence, privacy and discretion in such matters, for the sake of younger kids. To put that another way, the kids have to be taught that part of sexuality is responsibility for the young. And to be taught to teach others. That’s a little speculative but I’ll leave it in for interest’s sake.
Therefore one would no more allow a sexual hermit, bullying homophobe, sexual predator, femme fatale, submissive sex victim or porn/glamour star to show their nature or preferences in shcool than you would allow a vampire in charge of a blood bank to express their freedom at work. You might, as the world is imperfect, knowingly hire a teacher who is flawed in sexual development or even one who insists on wearing a Burqa or a nun’s habit mentally or physically to their job. But if they can’t hide their past or fail to stay ‘on the wagon’ or fail to give a positive example at work, the NTP kicks in.
So the NTP is a special case of countering of an ethical Tragedy of the Commons, Social sexual health being a common good.
Wow, that conclusion was worthy of a lefty social worker. But that’s my best effort to cover all the examples with minimum hypothesis.
Certainly as long as the NTP is only a group of telling examples and every case is different there’s a gap. A Principle must have some Definition. No?
And I’m afraid my last comment was barely decipherable semi-gibberish. That will happen from time to time I’m afraid. To rescue what I can, I would ideally append that comment to the end of this one. and delete the last 3 paragraphs of my earlier attempt.
I think that the NTP is hard to apply on its own. The NTP requires respect for the teacher and the learning process. But does not say why or what the relationship between the two is. The use of the word respcect for example is two valued, there is respect as in ‘Dude, you slept with how many girls at the same time? RESPECT! High five’ and respect as in ‘Mr Smith I see your wife died recently may I say I respect the fortitude you bear your loneliness with’.
This woman’s actions could easily earn too much respect rather than too little and her capacity to lead young minds may be enhanced not diminished. The NTP doesn’t distinguish the wrong kind from the right kind of respect. I think that would make the NTP unpopular for administrators to apply in professional hearings. One would be drawn into discussing the nature of respect and it’s relevance. And that would produce only an argument that is non-trivial. Thus the school would be negligent in not teaching the woman exactly what was required.
Suspension or sacking of a teacher for unethical conduct would I think ideally be based on conduct is so blatant and obviously unethical that no specific school instruction, rule or training is necessary to forbid it. The only way to do that as far as I can see is to talk about the sex directly. That is talk directly about the natural and self evident rule that students must handle those issues with restraint, discretion and privacy for the sake of other students of whatever age and level of vulnerability. That is to be respectful of the subject, thus introducing the need for respect and the NTP.
Here’s one line of explanation that could be used to that effect:
Hmm. Why was this comment directed at me? I would have a bigger problem if she exposed her “naughty bits” (and I’M behind the times?) during class. Presumably she’s not. There are lots of ethical questions here. Why are teachers doing this? Why do we care about what adolescents’ PARENTS are looking at on the internet? And if you say kids are looking at these photos, then we should point the finger at the bad and hypocritical parents in these examples.
These situations are like ethical avalanches. Female teacher posts nude photos for money. Bad. Parents find these nude photos. (I guess they just stumbled across them — it’s not like they were LOOKING or anything.) Bad. Well-meaning and gossipy parents decide to send all the photos they can find to the class list-serve. Bad. Now everyone can see these photos even if they never would have in the normal course of their lives. Bad. Little 6 year-old Johnny somehow will be scarred so principal decides to fire the poor teacher. Bad. So it’s all bad. But I wouldn’t focus all my criticism on the teacher — he without sin and all that.
If the online naked behavior somehow translates into inappropriate classroom behavior, then I have a HUGE problem. I’ve got 2 girls — ideally I’d like every single class they have through grad school taught by gay men. Then I cross the sexual predator worry off my long list of “things mothers worry about but can’t control.”
Really Beth? You are going to criticize the parents? When a school district turns a deaf ear and a blind eye to this exact situation like ours did, the whole stinking rotten lot of them should be humiliated. That naked teacher deserves nothing more than to have every prepubescent boy see her through a different lens as she walks down the hall. She is a disgrace to the profession, and a district that condones that behavior is ethically corrupt. They should all go into (a different) business together.
Phooey. All done in the Photoshop app. Oops, where oh where did the right arm go? Ah, nothing left to slap your face with, you bad-bad boy you! And for you girly-girls, I will teach you something new: spine-knarling posture, the joys of anorexia, hypopigmented hair, hyperpigmented skin, permanently shortened calf muscle fibers, your choice of several kinds of cancer, and lots of attention, for a few years, until the men (and boys) in your life go looking, looking . . . but HEY! That is one fabulous cover design. Seriously.
She has my vote…
Now, if I weren’t an ethicist nobody would believe me, but this is true: I wrote the entire post, including the title, without ever viewing the professional photos of this young woman. My only photo was her casual, no make-up head shot from Facebook, where she looked like the girl next door, and my girl next door was nothing special. THEN I went looking for the photos, and added the last line. Her “perfection” as a NTP exemplar is unrelated to her pulchritude, but only to the features I enumerated.
It’s true. I swear.
OK I’ll believe you. I’m that gullible. As an ethicist you can be completely trusted.
Damn right.
Fair enough, I apologise. Given the further facts in commentary my initial off the chart reading on the Misogynoscope is accounted for. The 101st ‘Pigs might fly’ squadron can go back in the hangars/sties. False ethics alarm.
Someone point this comment and this post out to Jack’s wife, and record the result. 🙂
She reads the blog every day.
By the way, these Homewood Suites aren’t half bad.
Just stay away from any hotel offering hourly rates OR monthly rates.
well Kaity I am behind you 100 % everyone has a right to a second job etc your passion is modeling and i commend you for following your dream . my wife and i support you fully and it so happens she is a teacher also . once again Bravo !!!
1. (Cheap joke of dubious taste.)
2. Everyone has a right to a second job. Everyone doesn’t have a right to lie about the first job to get the second.
3. She can follow her dream very well without turning elementary school classes into a celebrity peep show from the kids perspective.
4. Yup, there are a lot of clueless teachers out there. Thanks for the data.
Yep, everyone has a right to a 2nd job. Just like every employer has a right to fire employees who’s out of work activities create a condition that keeps the employee in question from performing their work to the level necessary for success of the activity.
whose*
Ive lost count but I bet we have enough naked teacher candidates to open a private school for wayward boys. I bet THAT would make a lot of money.
I don’t understand why, if you are planning any kind of career where you are supposed to be professional, you go ahead and post racy pics of yourself online.
1. Vanity
2. Stupidty
3. Hope that it will pay off with 15 minutes of fame
4. Too much reading those who say what you do off the clock never has any legitimate application to your professional status.
if her boyfriend, does not have a problem wiht her posing nearly naked, why should the rest of the world! kudos for being a secure and confident fella! Here lots of pictures of them, they make a nice couple! http://dailyentertainmentnews.com/tv/ben-wojnarowicz-fitchburg-massachusetts-school-teacher-kaitlin-pearsons-boyfriend/
Uh. What a ridiculous rationalization—but one I probably need to add to the list. It’s the Hillary rationalization: if she doesn’t mind her husband having sex with the intern, why should the rest of the country?
Because the boyfriend doesn’t have a child in her classroom. Because his situation is irrelevant to the issue. Because what is ethical behavior is not defined by who is tolerant of it. Either stay and learn something about ethics, or go away and pollute someplace else with whatever it is you have instead. That comment was beyond belief.
Call it the “Irrelevant Opinion” rationalization. Create a related one called the “Uninvested Enabler” rationalization.
No farting around: I’m naming it after Hillary.
It’s ultimately a derivative of the “king’s pass” or the celebrity one.
“This cluster of people who like me haven’t disapproved my conduct, so my conduct is fine”
Hello, Jack,
What is the source of the Naked Teacher Principle, the premises that lead to it?
Is it the principle of having standards of dignity and decorum, that has been largely abandoned today? That principle was there for a reason and can’t be brushed off as “old-fashioned”.
Is it a matter of setting a bad example for the girls under her care? The teachers you unsuccessfully talk to about this principle might understand an argument starting from there.
Is it a matter of worry that the boys will be damaged somehow? The flip answer of “they’re damaged already” would of course be an ethical fallacy. Would it be damage from premature exposure to sexual material, or damage to their ability to understand that women can succeed while keeping their sexuality private?
(This is curiosity and not argument, if that wasn’t clear).
All of the above, as well as the assertion that professionals do their jobs and avoid distractions and other conduct that undermines the students; respect, attention, and proper emphasis and values. Parents should not be sex objects to their kids, nor should teachers to their students. Sometimes, with attractive young teachers, its i unavoidable, but the teachers duty is to make certain to the extent possible that they are not seen that way. “The extent possible” means taking care that naked photos or the equivalent are not on the web.
Too late. Nothing left for me to say!
“Parents should be sex objects to their kids” … says Jack Marshall
January 24, 2014 at 7:22 pm
??? Is there a particular reason why you would choose to highlight an unfortunate but rather obvious typo and word omission this way (fixed) rather than just alert me to it on or off site in the polite and collegial way everyone else does? Maybe this was intended benignly, but after fending with all the assholes over the child shaming website, the humor and good will escapes me right now, so I can’t say I appreciate it.
I am very sorry. My reason for doing so was thoughtless and inappropriate — at the time of writing I had not yet seen your email saying that you had indeed received mine, a message which itself included your particularly gracious (and unnecessary) apology along with the explanation.
I do respect what you do, and I admire the unfailing clarity you command in presenting your situations, arguments and conclusions, all grounded firmly in a context I had never fully appreciated before. It is that context of ethical thinking and behavior and judgement expressed in your writing — more than the conviction and passion that informs it (seeming at first so vastly different in so many ways from my own) that has challenged me to participate in some of the give-and-take of your Comment section.
I do not wish to endanger that privilege any further, so I hope you will forgive my flippancy in the face of a serious subject, a seriousness with which we are in uncommonly complete accord.
Don’t see what the quibbles about NTP are about. What is there to not understand about “unprofessional”? Maybe the word. How about “disturbing” then?
1) ANYTHING personal about a teacher causes a disturbance in the child(ish) mind. Ordinary stuff: leftover lunch crumbs in a moustache, a piece of heel-dragging toilet paper, a glimpse of a spouse, a spotting at a supermarket. The more personal, the more disturbing (the word is being used without prejudice, as the momentary trace of a pebble dropped in a pond, the peripheral sight of an iPhone light on during a performance, or the first paralyzing crack of thunder you ever heard in your life). The more a grownup tries to hide something, the louder it shouts.
2) The first thing ANYONE does when they first learn to surf a relatively uncensored Net and have a bit of privacy is to look up everyone they know: the smaller their known world — say, home and school – the more sharply pointed their curiosity and the more narrow their comparisons, the more direct or hard-wired their connections. The second and sometimes simultaneous lesson is to turn that curiosity into comparing and connecting people in their world with the simplest form of the most popular images in the outside world.
1) + 2) = 3) The biggest disturbance (in and of all senses) occurs when the youngsters connect an image that sets off a buzzer not only in their own world, but deep within themselves. Not s-e-x per se. Nakedness. Naked is to be helpless. Naked is touching, being tickled, spanked, bandaged, ass-wiped. Naked is exciting to think about, dirty, fun, despised, cold and shamed, warm and loved. Naked makes me giggle … so woozy I get sick to my stomach. Naked in public is my nightmare.
Now, Someone else, someone in authority, someone I can … gulp … sort of reach out an touch . . . Are you kidding me?
Nothing could be more disturbing — in every sense and all at once — than to have literally seen the teacher, now standing in front of the class, without any clothes on — “attractive” or not; with or without the come-hither pose or genitalia. Wanted. or NOT wanted. Fuck, the imaginations were already at work; the electronic gadgets just shocked them into overdrive.
No classroom with that naked shadow, a la Peter Pan, forever attached to the teacher in it, will be a place to learn anything. NTP rules!
I guess I’m a quibbler. And a badly expressed one. But if NTP is fundamentally about respect, then I’d still say no, the issue is really sex. So for me an NTP argument is a kind of strawman, maybe. Trying to dismiss an assitant teacher for semi-nude photo proliferation and not saying the issue is about sex and responsibility seems kind of dishonest.
It’s not about respect.
It’s about a captive audience of youngsters, especially those whose hormones are going wild and possess a notch below uncontrolled physiological inclinations. This captive audience is compelled to attend the school with the express purpose of learning.
To have before them, a teacher, who is also a self-marketed sex symbol is not conducive to class discipline, and is in fact conducive to the youngsters paying little to no attention at all to lessons and more about pubescent fantasies. That the kids already have to deal with this stuff naturally, means that any additional stimuli added to the system undermines the objective of the system. Which takes us back to the abstract rule above: any professional who engages in secondary efforts which directly undermine their efficiency in the primary profession, don’t get to complain when supervisors in the primary profession fire them.
Tex, examples and formulations I’ve seen seem to suggest that NTP is about the respect a teacher needs to function : here’s one from Ethics Scoreboard, I think.
“Naked Teacher Principle, which in its formal explication, is that a responsible high school teacher has a duty to take reasonable care that her students do not see her in the nude, and if she does not, and her students do see her in the nude, she has no standing to complain when the school deems her unable to maintain the proper and necessary credibility and dignity necessary for teaching.”
here’s the subtext from the post about an art teachers unusual brushwork: ’For “in the nude,” substitute drinking, bar-hopping, playing drinking games, driving with one’s feet, having sex, …and painting pictures using one’s butt.””
From the first I take credibility and dignity from the second examples other than sexual/nakedness. I summarise NTP as general principle rather than a specific rule as recognising a obvious need to preserve respect in order that students might credit what is taught.
A problem arises when the real reason you wish to dismiss the teacher is that the misconduct raises the teacher’s respect status and credibility with kids so they are only too willing to learn the wrong lesson and follow the bad example.
That is I can clearly see there is ample reason to sack the naked teacher, but as the NTP is written I don’t see how it can apply generally without referring to a school’s role in matters of sex and education, or art and education or what have you..That is NTP requires separate definition of good and bad, right and wrong.
So I’m quibbling.
Let me get this right, you are saying it is unethical to be a model? Is it ethical to ruin someone’s life by dropping off pictures to the superintendent because it is of the opinion of that person that modeling is unethical? I am trying to grasp your definition of unethical, is it only unethical because she is school teacher? But if she was a cashier at Walmart it’s ok? I am wondering is it because in someone’s opinion that it is inevitable that the students are going to find these pictures and then view them in a unethical way? Don’t you think that society adds to this being unethical? Why can’t we teach our children to respect other people so that this doesn’t automatically have to equal bad or sex. Why can’t we teach respect? Respect one another and this is not a problem, I see lack of respect here. She is a beautiful person. I don’t get it.
I stopped reading your comment after: “Let me get this right, you are saying it is unethical to be a model?”
That is clearly not what the post says, nor could any sane, rational person glean that from what I wrote. Try again, without starting with an intellectually dishonest accusation. Or don’t. But I’m not engaging a comment, or commenter, who plays like that.