The Naked Teacher Principle (NTP) states that a secondary school teacher or administrator (or other role model for children) who allows pictures of himself or herself to be widely publicized, as on the web, showing the teacher naked or engaging in sexually provocative poses, cannot complain when he or she is dismissed by the school as a result. Amazingly, I have not had an NTP story yet involving teachers on OnlyFans, which didn’t exist when I promulgated the NTP or the naked teacher being blackmailed. Yet the blackmailing for better grades angle is an obvious vulnerability of teachers who defy the Naked Teacher Principle. I don’t know why I didn’t think of that long ago.
I bet there are a lot of teachers on OnlyFans. There are also a lot of teachers who seduce and have sex with students, which is not just a crime but a betrayal of trust and wildly unethical no matter how hot the teacher in question may be. I mention this in passing because that self-anointed power broker Tucker Carlson, back when he took an active role in his conservative political website The Daily Caller, encouraged the pure Ethics Asshole position that male students who are victimized by sexual predator female teachers are lucky dudes, so the teachers shouldn’t be punished too harshly. Yesterday I wrote a post about how this inexplicably popular creep claims that he is going to start a new political party. I know this is a holiday weekend, when tumbleweeds usually blow down the deserted streets of Ethics Alarms, but so far that post is in the running to be the least read essay in the history of the blog.
Tough luck, Tucker. Nobody is interested in your political party. Have you considered joining OnlyFans?
Happy Fourth of July, everyone!
Ethics Alarms 
Happy Fourth to you too, Jack.
There’s another “impacted person” in the predator teacher scenario, undergraduate/graduate division: the soon to be erstwhile boyfriend. I think the sport fucking professor who either seduced or raped (take your pick but from what I’ve been able to determine, it was the former) the undersigned’s soon to be erstwhile girlfriend, ending a three year long relationship which was essentially a marriage, enjoyed devastating the erstwhile boyfriend as much as toying with the erstwhile girlfriend as if he was a cat and she was an injured mouse.
All of which I’m trying to treat in my forthcoming piece of fiction under the working title “Love in the Time of Birth Control.” (As you can tell, “erstwhile” is one of my favorite words. It’s such a ten-cent word for a penny meaning. And it was only recently I even knew what it means.)
And having been both a student and a teacher, I consider the teacher/student relationship perhaps the most sacrosanct relationship our there.
As this is a slow EA weekend, let me spice things up here by by questioning the Naked Teacher Principle (or NTP in short).
The definition of Naked Teacher Principle is: The Principle states that a secondary school teacher or administrator (or other role model for children) who allows pictures of himself or herself to be widely publicized, as on the web, showing the teacher naked or engaging in sexually provocative poses, cannot complain when he or she is dismissed by the school as a result.
At a previous post on the NTP I found the following justification offered by our host: “The NTP exists because secondary school students should not have to cope with naked images of their teachers, as this may interfere with their respect and concentration.” https://ethicsalarms.com/2018/09/07/morning-ethics-warm-up-9-7-18-movie-ethics-edition/
This justification focuses purely on the effect on the educational environment if there are nude pictures of the teacher on the Internet, and her students found out. The justification for the NTP is not based on moral grounds, e.g. wrongness of nude modeling for publication on the internet. So there is tension between the NTP (which assumes culpability) and the justification of the NTP (which does not mention culpability).
This raises the question of whether this principle applies in case the teacher in question did not allow these pictures to be taken and publicized. The following scenarios come to mind:
The stated justification for the NTP applies in these cases as well as this is independent of the culpability of the teacher; the pictures exist and have an impact on the educational environment as they are passed around by snickering students. Would it be fair to fire a teacher in these cases? My gut feeling is that it is not, as the teacher did not commit an offense.
So now we have to address culpability and morality. I am going to start with a generic statement that culpability only applies to actions that are wrong in a moral or ethical sense, or are harmful and tortuous.
Is there anything wrong with nude modeling? There may be an understanding based on certain readings of the Bible that there is something shameful about nudity based on the story of Adam and Eve, who after eating the forbidden fruit were given garments to cover themselves up. Nudity in this context related to awareness of sin. The cultural context matters to; in an environment defined by the Abrahamic religions a women could only be seen nude by her husband; women were allowed to cover themselves up in public.
Sexual morality based on the Bible has eroded after the Sexual Revolution, and is not commonly accepted anymore in Western societies. I understand that Christian and Catholic schools who are true to their principles want their teachers to live these principles are they are seen as role models; this may lead to controversial decisions to fire the unmarried teacher who got pregnant, and the male teacher who is gay. In that context I would agree with firing a teacher who allows nude pictures to be posted.
Having the NTP applied to the public school system seems like a moral anachronism, more fitting the time of the Harper Valley PTA. Given the insanity of today’s sex ed ad public schools, the transgender madness, female teachers having sex with their students, I am surprised that the mere existence of nude pictures of teachers taken in a previous phase of life is still grounds for termination. The sexuality expressed in Van Halen’s “Hot for the Teacher” (1984) is a much healthier sexuality than the queer nonsense they indoctrinate children with at public schools today.
So my question is: is the NTP still fully actual today, or is it up for revision?
All of those hypotheticals are, I believe, covered in posts about real life situations.
Not up for revision. If you are a teacher and you have naked pictures of yourself stored electronically, you are accountable if they get out. Simple as that. If you are in a position of trust, don’t take naked pictures. If you have naked pictures out there, don’t accept positions of trust, or blame no one but yourself if you do have them and you lose that position because of them.
Easy-Peezy.
Speaking as a former student, yes, it would be distracting to the point of inducing in me a trance-like condition that we be hard for factual information on a blackboard or spoken verbally to break. Dilated pupils, sweaty palms, fidgeting and nervous laughter… and that’s if the teacher were 90 years old, edentulous, and ugly. Imagine if she was a young hottie!!! Yeah, and I wholeheartedly endorse whatever Young Bill said in his first paragraph. I have no idea what he actually said, but I want to be on the right side of history so I endorse it fully. As to the point by CVB, if someone is a victim whereby a picture was taken and posted online inappropriately where the victim attempted to protect their privacy prudently, i.e., safeguard their secrets shrewdly, i.e., defend their data discreetly, then I don’t think they should be fired. Otherwise, Jack’s nailed it.
All of those hypotheticals are, I believe, covered in posts about real life situations (Jack Marshall).
I would appreciate it if Jack provides some links to ancient EA posts covering these situations.
As to the point by CVB, if someone is a victim whereby a picture was taken and posted online inappropriately where the victim attempted to protect their privacy prudently, i.e., safeguard their secrets shrewdly, i.e., defend their data discreetly, then I don’t think they should be fired. Otherwise, Jack’s nailed it. (kawaii65c843be72)
That indicates that moral judgement about the conduct of the teacher is implied when applying the Naked Teacher Principle. The distraction caused by the nude pictures is by itself not sufficient reason to fire the teacher; there has to be an element of culpability.
Yeah, and I wholeheartedly endorse whatever Young Bill said in his first paragraph (kawaii65c843be72).
Young Bill’s statements are about sexual relationships between teachers and students. Which is a form of sexual abuse, and unrelated to the Naked Teacher Principle.
Well, I hereby appoint you sacred internet gatekeeper of the Naked Teacher Principle, or in my case, the Naked Teacher Principal. You are hereby accorded all rights, honors, and privileges appertaining to a NTP gatekeeper in good standing, inclusive of the understanding that your leadership itself represents the highest attainable of all ethical enlightenment states.
PS: Jack nailed it.
You keep projecting a moral judgment on the NTP. It is nothing of the kind. People can be naked, give blow jobs, get blow jobs, prance around and shake their ta-tas and naughty bits: I don’t care. Teachers are role models and authority figures, and their students, who are children, are not mature enough to resolve the conflict between seeing their teachers as respected and honored figures of authority and sexually provocative objects of ridicule, lust or confusion sufficiently to keep the teachers effective at their jobs—which is teaching, not titillating. Again, preventing the conflict is easy: don’t circulate naked photos of yourself to others or online, or if you do, recognize the risk and accept accountability if it goes horribly wrong. If a parent would object if a teacher were to strip naked in class, then allowing students to see their teacher naked is inappropriate and damaging to the educational process. Teachers are not supposed to damage the educational process. That isn’t a moral judgment but a pragmatic one.
As I am working the DAR/SAR booth at the America 250 celebration in Washington County Md it is hard to get too upset at the idiots that are part of our citizenry today. The fabric that makes the nation what it is often stained with the behaviors of others who in some small way make us focus on being better people. You cannot have good without evil so we must just guard against normalizing those stains.
Happy 4th everyone
Ah, good stuff. I’m taking careful notes for future reference:
Washington County, Maryland
Self-control
Negative feelings
Idiots
Stains
The people
Even better people
Good requires evil (naturally it does, and explains the ghost peppers in my pudding)
More Stains, which should not be normal, lest bad things happen…
Got it! I’m sure I’ll be able to reconstruct what all this means at the crucial moment.