Student, Denied Degree For MySpace Photo, Sues 823
gwoodrow writes "We've all heard the 'fired because of MySpace' stories, where a simple blog or picture gets someone canned. But now one of the targets is fighting back. (The offending picture in this case was a snap from Halloween 2005 of the student in a pirate outfit drinking from a cup.)" From the article: "Teacher in training Stacy Snyder was denied her education degree on the eve of graduation when Millersville University apparently found pictures on her MySpace page 'promoting underage drinking.' As a result, the 27-year-old mother of two had her teaching certificate withheld and was granted an English degree instead. In response, Snyder has filed a Federal lawsuit against the Pennsylvania university asking for her education diploma and certificate along with $75,000 in damages."
umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:umm (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. The cup was clearly full of liquid LSD, which is a federal felony.
I just don't get the human race. It just seems clear that no matter what century it is, there is some kind of witch hunt or persecution of somebody for something. Is there anybody that has read something about this human phenonemon? Is there going to be a time when humans just don't do this kind of thing?
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
no
Re:umm (Score:5, Funny)
Die of dehydration? (Score:4, Interesting)
I keep thinking that Rod Serling is going to step out from behind a door and say, "A quiet campus in a quiet town becomes the stage for tragedy when teetotalers go on a witch hunt, in the Twilight Zone."
Re:Die of dehydration? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Die of dehydration? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:umm (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
You already understand that humans are utterly self-centered. Yet many of them have that irresistible desire to control others. It's a paradox, but still frighteningly logical...
Humans seek to control in others what they wish they could control in themselves.
They hate it when other people are having more fun than they are.
And they will cling to their moral rules even after those rules have lost their basis. (Certainly the mutual enforcement of morality is justifiably important in any family, tribe, or society, and certaintly this is an unending chore. But still: moral rules exist to maximize something; they are not divine ends-in-themselves.)
The current war against birth control illustrates all three phenomena of control:
You: "But birth control ends that risk; therefore, there is no longer any basis for condemning promiscuous behavior. Your moral rule is obsolete."
Them: "Then to protect morality, we must ban birth control."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current war against birth control illustrates all three phenomena of control:
You: "But birth control ends that risk; therefore, there is no longer any basis for condemning promiscuous behavior. Your moral rule is obsolete."
Them: "Then to protect morality, we must ban birth control."
Isn't that what they call a straw man argument... I mean look at number two, you are invoking your opinion on why people believe certain things (it must be that they aren't getting any, so they don't want me to). You have put those with different opinions than you in a box, and then made up there thoughts so you can be better than them... isn't that what your post was complaining about in the first place?
Not a straw man (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. It would be a straw man argument if he claimed these were the spoken arguments against birth control. But he doesn't, he speculate that these are the unspoken reasons (at least #1 and #2).
It does show a total lack of respect for the opponents. Nothing wrong with that. The official spoken arguments for certain positions, such as alien visitors, creationism or the immorality of birth control are utterly insane. Trying to counter them with rational arguments are a total waste of time, as they are not based on rational thinking.
It is much more productive to try to analyze which emotional needs makes people hold to these irrational positions. Once you understand the true reasoning behind them, you can start working on filling the emotional need the motivates them, and the positions become irrelevant.
> You have put those with different opinions than you in a box, and then made up there thoughts so
> you can be better than them... isn't that what your post was complaining about in the first
> place?
Nope, he was complaining about people trying to control others behavior. Not about people trying to change others opinions.
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really that hard to believe that people who hold certain opinions and then attempt to force those beliefs onto others really are shittier people?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Woman (and I guess men) only care about themselves. If you want to get a woman, simply spend the whole time talking about them and stuff which concerns them. It's easy.
Unfortunately, it is also extremely boring! But that's how you get girls. simple!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm not saying that birth control is all a bad thing. My parents used birth control (but they still had 3 kids), my sister and her husband are using "natural" birth control (because she's allergic to something, I
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So I guess it's not such a bad thing that red-staters are the first to volunteer for wars
WHERE ARE THE MODERATORS (Score:4, Insightful)
This comment is way way way way way off-topic. Seriously now. We're talking about underage drinking, freedom of expression, and puritanical outlooks on life that make no damn sense.
Who is out there modding this insightful? Come over here. You're 'bout to get stabbed in the jaw.
Re:umm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:umm (Score:4, Funny)
Re:umm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
And that, right there, is what I find most terrifying. People think that an arational theocracy is OK, if the beliefs that it's imposing on others is "good" in their estimation -- meaning that it's their set of beliefs. Of course, What's "good" is highly subjective. There are a lot of people in the world who think that Sharia law is just fine and dandy, and we'd all be a lot better if we buried cheating women up to their heads in sand and stoned them to death. Once you've accepted the premise that arationality is acceptable in government, it's just a matter of degree how far you decide to go in impressing your superstitions on everyone else. You may draw the line at just telling people who they can have sex with, while someone else may go further and tell them what clothes they can wear -- there's no difference in kind there, just of degrees.
Either you reject theocracies on premise, or you have to accept nearly all of them, since there is no rational basis for presuming that any one set of superstitions is superior to any other.
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
You have missed the point of the argument. A group opposes promiscuity on moral grounds. Moral grounds are not a valid reason to pass a law, so they develop a related social issue, unintentional babies. When their social issue is ameliorated while still allowing people to partake in the "immoral" activity, they try to ban things in an effort to restore the social problem.
In any case, not everyone who has sex for pleasure is doing it as a fling. Many people in committed relationships simply do not want children, and thus partake in sex via safe means.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Moral reasons are not why we have laws; laws are passed to ensure the safety and stability of society. We prohibit theft not because taking from others for your own benefit is immoral (we actually have laws explicitly designed to take from some groups and give to others), but because
Re:umm (Score:5, Informative)
Also I think most Catholics, at least in the west, pretty much ignore the whole no condom/no pill business. I know most of my (pretty Irish catholic) extended family do.
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
It is perfectly fine for you to decided that you want to dedicate yourself to a relationship with one person. If you ask my opinion about the potential pitfalls along that approach, I'll tell you want I think [unreasonable.org], but tell you, "knock yourself out - whatever works for you".
It is not ok for you to decide that I should dedicate myself to a relationship with one person; you don't get to dictate what style of relationship makes me happy, any more that you get to decide what sort of music makes me happy. You are free to report your own experiences, preferences, even speculations: but when you attempt to tell me how I "should" love, you've left the realm of useful discourse. And when attempts are made through public policy to dicate how people "should" love, a sane society would hand those poltiicans a whuppin'.
Non sequitor. B & E is a violation of the rights of others; if my girlfriends and I decide to have open relationships, that's not a violation of anyone's rights.
What in the world does that mean, that you "have a problem" with other people's personal sexual choices? How does my choice cause you any problem?
I hear a lot more discussion and thought from the polyamoury community about the nature of relationships than I do from most folks, so charges of "shallow" fall flat. And I see honest non-monogamous models working quite for many people - certainly much better than the dishonest non-monogamous model that condemnation like yours pushes people into.
Again: whatever works for you, fine and dandy. But your opinions about the choices of others seem based on faulty data.
Re:umm - throwing the BS flag (Score:5, Insightful)
No it doesn't. There is still a 0.001% chance of contracting an STD from a gynecologist visit, a 0.0012% chance of contracting genital warts from a toilet seat, a 0.0019% chance of becoming pregnant while being unconscious and raped during any given hospital stay, etc.
The only SURE way to avoid STD's and pregnancy is a successful suicide. So I would like to encourage my right-wing religious friends to consider that as an option--if you TRULY want to remain pure, that is. It's the only way to be sure.
"Condoning" (Score:5, Insightful)
- Wearing a seatbelt is not "condoning" unsafe driving.
- Putting up a lightning rod is not "condoning" thunderstorms.
Anyone who uses that reasoning is seriously confused.Similarly, teaching kids about how their reproductive system works, and about contraception, is not "condoning" promiscuity, any more than teaching someone about locks, safes, and keys is "condoning" thievery.
Certainly, promiscuity provides a disease vector, both for diseases we know about, and ones we don't yet.
So does sneezing.
Humans appear to have a limited ability to resist either of these urges. So for one we have condoms, and for the other, Kleenex(tm) (or your elbow).
Do these same people argue that we shouldn't have tissues, because you should instead fight the urge to sneeze?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they originally thought she was 20 in the picture, and wanted to withhold her teaching certificate for underage drinking. Then when they found out she was 25 in the photo, they changed their story to not wanting anyone who has had alcohol touch their virgin lips to be teaching young children, rather than admitting they were wrong.
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
A system of formal complaints that can screw up your life must be accountable, if formal complaints are to be taken seriously then abuse of the system needs to be puni$hed.
Re:umm (Score:5, Funny)
Well the solution is simple. Adopt a drinking age of 17/18 like here in Canada. She definitely doesn't look 18.
Alcohol?? Forget the alcohol. Statistically at least half of the female teachers would be performing oral sex on their husbands / boyfriends. And they are worried about alcohol on their lips?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many years ago I went to an evangelical Lutheran teachers college for two years. Among their many amusing mores: no smoking for women, no drinking anytime, anywhere no matter how old you were, students of the opposite sex could be in your room every other Sunday from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. with your door open, all overnights were signed out, the RA would unlock your door around midnight to see that you were there Frid
Re:umm (Score:5, Informative)
That's what I though too, and since I figured at least one of us needed to actually RTFA I did. Strangely, that archive doesn't mention any other pictures:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
=_= Unless...
Re:umm (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, Conestoga Valley School District were threatening to not recruit any more teachers from her university, unless she was punished in some way.
Regardless of the picture, the School District or college have no right to amend her graduation qualifications, based on a single party photograph.
Re:umm (Score:4, Funny)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and where exactly is there any evidance that she was actually drunk?
i see a plastic cup, which no evidance that there is anything alcoholic in it and she doesn't seem to be drunk in the picture either.
Re:umm (Score:5, Funny)
I've yet to receive any taxes from my serfs...
insight in the american psyche (Score:5, Insightful)
In my country, nobody would give a rats' ass if a teacher DId say she/he got drunk the night before. What, you think pupils or students are going to get traumatised? Seems to be going on a lot of traumas, lately, including 'online rape'. For Gods' sake; when are you guys going to get a grip? Your problems mainly stem just *because* you treat youth as if they were some alien beings who can have no idea what's the real world all about. Of course, they DO know all to well, but because of the paniced reactions everywhere, they never have learned how to deal with it in a normal fashion.
To be 21 before you can sip a glass of alcohol...meh; ridiculous. In most european countries, you can drink alcohol when you're 16. and when your parents let see sip from their beers, even when you're only nine, no-one makes any fuss about it - because it isn't. the rerality is, if ypou treat drinking beer as no big deal, and you let them taste it, they usually go: "yukkie, that's awful." and don't want to try it out anymore. Also, when you drink with kids in a social context (e.g. not binge drinking stuff), they are more inclined to follow that pattern. If you treat it as something special, it gets 'forbidden fruit' status, and if they only have peers to look how to act when confronted with alcohol, that's when shit happens.
In france, kids often drink 'table-wine' (wine with moderate alcohol-level) as a normal thing, in Belgium the same with table-beer, etc. do they have more drunks and alcohol-problems there, then in the USA with its 21-year law? Not at all. In fact, the prevalence of problematic drinking (like binge-drinking) is way LOWER there than in anglo-saxon countries, where the restriction to alcohol is much more severe. The whole concept of 'save the children' in the USA has gone way overboard, to the detriment of the youths themselves.
In a reasonable country, the fact that a teacher was drunk has nothing to do with her professionalism *unless* she was drunk during the course of her work, obviously. But if she got drunk outside her professional hours, even if she puts hundreds of photos about it on the net, it doesn't say anything about her capacities as a teacher. It's the same crap and obsession of the USA with irrelevant nonsense as back with Clinton getting a blowjob, over and over again. What you do in your private life - EVEN if it comes out in the open (as long as it's legal) - DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT have any bearings on how you are treated while exercising your profession.
In the USA, I wonder if a teacher can say something which is scientifically true but socially/politically-incorrect, like stating that moderate consumption of alcohol is actually healthy. These days, especially in the bible-belt states, I think no teacher can say that without risk of being fired or being severly reprimanded. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this. That obsession of weeding out the political incorrect and having to 'cry wolf' with all the other wolves (the prevailing mentality) is sickening.
In summary:
1)Drinking is no big deal
2)Posting pics about it is no big deal
Conclusion: as long as whatever she does is not illegal and does not affect her actual professionalism in the classroom, there is no reason why she should be treated the way she was. And even if it was illegal and did affect her teachings, then still it should be determined if it was severe enough to warrant the withdrawal of her diploma.
Re:insight in the american psyche (Score:5, Interesting)
> but socially/politically-incorrect, like stating that moderate consumption of alcohol
> is actually healthy.
In certain parts of the USA, teachers may not even teach the theory of evolution, or that the earth is more than 6,000 years old!
"Somebody think of the children" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not encoureaging underage drinking, it's more of a sympthom of a society soaked in paranoia, unrealistic expectations and simplistic views of the world that clash with a modern age where a person's life and living will be more exposed and available.
So we have two choices now: a.) remove the access to insight into our lives, or restrict it radically, or b.) realise that the people that take care of your children are humans too, with all that entails. There are no saints here. It's not a bad thing.
Re:umm (Score:4, Funny)
No BS please (Score:5, Funny)
Arrr.
Obviously! (Score:5, Funny)
Students only go to uni to leech movies and music and drink underage, getting a degree is just a bonus!!!
Re:Obviously! (Score:5, Funny)
Let me correct that for you: -
only students in the US go to uni to leech music and movies and drink underage, students everywhere else go to uni to drink.
Re:Obviously! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No BS please (Score:5, Funny)
So, not for the first time, he noodled the School Board...
Don't you mean (Score:5, Funny)
Define "promoting"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
But I must be thankful that the new wave of religious moralism has not (yet) arrived here from America... But sadly, I expect it to arrive very soon...
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
So what they're saying here is... (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously ninja have infiltrated the schools administrative staff...
Re:So what they're saying here is... (Score:5, Insightful)
And whereas yes they do get 3 months a year off, most of the don't make enough to avoid needing to get a summer job. Many of them are either working on grading papers and preparing lesson plans at home, or they're putting 12 hour days in at the school keeping up with some of it. The worst part is knowing how many of them honestly want to instill that vital critical thinking nugget in the heads of kids, but then get beaten down with the fact that they have to teach to a standardized test because that's what they'll be reviewed over.
Maybe where you're at the teachers job is a cushy one, but from my observations in a non suburb city it isn't. The only teachers I know who are thriving and loving the job all teach at private schools, and there aren't enough of those jobs to go around.
Re:So what they're saying here is... (Score:4, Insightful)
A picture's worth a 1,000 words ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps some bored grad students at Millersville University, those who aren't working on OSS projects of course, will snap a few pic's of the University's administrators so others can jump to conclusions about them too.
hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not judging either way, but is it not a possibility that the 'victim' here is screaming loudly about a single innocuous piece of evidence while failing to mention any of the other relevant details or bits of evidence in the 'case'?
Re:hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
"...One of the concerns that Ms. Snyder's cooperating teacher, Nicole Reinking, expressed to Ms. Snyder throughout the semester was the importance of maintaining a professional working relationship with students and not to become overly familiar with them regarding her personal life. Among other things, Ms. Snyder had been inviting students to log onto her MySpace Web site, and Ms. Reinking counseled her repeatedly to stop doing so."
If this is the case, perhaps the school district and the university were quite well justified. In this case, the issue wasn't the website or the photo, but her conduct in the classroom and with the students related to the website. One might even say that her conduct was encouraging underage drinking not because she drank or took pictures, but because she in essence said to students, "Look, I'm cool, I get drunk at parties." That's much more nuanced than just the fact that she put the pictures up online since it involves actively promoting the pictures in the classroom.
Re:hmm (Score:4, Informative)
From Lancaster Online [lancasteronline.com], a local news outlet. In addition, the article talks about her being "unprofessional" during her student teaching, though whether that was determined before or after the picture was discovered isn't entirely clear:
Having grown up in the area (several of my friends went to Millersville; at my high school it was often thought of as the 13th grade because so many students from our district went there), this doesn't really surprise me. The stories I've heard from friends who got their degrees at Millersville generally indicated that the school was a pain to deal with on administrative issues, particularly in some departments. I guess the Ed. department is one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well the university's response is here: http://www.millersville.edu/announcements/snyder.p hp [millersville.edu]
They hint at some other problem which they can't go into because of 'federal student privacy restrictions'. I guess you'd expect them to say something like that though.
Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
What is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is the problem? (Score:4, Funny)
Not getting a couple things here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Underage hot chocolate drinking? (Score:5, Funny)
The only reason I could think of to punish her is for the bad pirate costume, and the fact that the plastic cup is out of character.
It's the cup (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's the cup (Score:5, Funny)
And by being a mother of two she is promoting under age sex as well.
Ah yes, Pennsylvania (Score:4, Insightful)
I've told people for the longest time, any time PA is in the national news, it can't be a good thing.
Personally, I don't agree with Millersville (not too far from me) since the activity took place away from school and the teacher to be, as far as I know, has never advocated to anyone that getting drunk is a good thing.
Further, as others have pointed out, how is she promoting underage drinking if a) she was above the legal drinking age at the time the picture was taken and b) we have no idea what was in her cup.
Besides, if Millersville is going after her because of something she may have done, are they going to rescind degrees from those who have graduated and are later found to be doing something similar or are convicted of other crimes? Say, child molestation, rape or robbery? What if someone posts a picture of themselves in a thong at a party (as a guy) or some skimpy, revealing outfit (for a woman)? Are they going to withhold degrees for that too?
And they know what she was drinking how? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Pennsylvania, remember (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) Arrested in the hospital for public drunkenness and underage drinking after you are taken to the hospital for alcohol poisoning a day before your 21st bday. This actually happened to a friend. I guess that it's far better to let students with alcohol poisoning choke on their own vomit than go to the hospital and risk getting arrested.
(2) Arrested for felony riot for telling a cop who had just hit a fellow student in the face at a Red Cross benefit show that he'd be better off helping clean up NYC after 9/11 than harrassing students who ARE actually trying to help. This actually happened to me a few weeks after 9/11/2001, and fucked with my life for the next few years (difficult to get a job, probation basically required for me to move out of state).
In short; to Hell with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the puritanical prigs who seem to run the government and apparently non-governmental organizations as well.
-b.
Pennsylvania (Score:5, Insightful)
The longer I live... (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes, I really dislike the behavior of some of my fellow Americans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Me too. I find myself more and more wanting to move to Australia. At least they were founded as a penal colony.
-
Digging a little deeper (Score:5, Interesting)
Which leads one to believe that the university was being pressured from the district to do something about her and let them save face. Presumably the district feels they're in a position of enough power (taking on most of their students for their student teaching assignments?) that they could do this.
However, if you look at the response from Conestoga Valley, available on their website here [k12.pa.us], they state that's untrue, and include some more information not linked in the Washington Post article, including what they claim is the offending Myspace blog post which is not the picture hosted by thesmokinggun.com which the WP article links to. It could be a little damning towards her if you believe the district that she was actively encouraging the kids to go to her Myspace page, but then, not knowing what her page is (I would imagine by now it's either been deleted or locked down anyway) it'd be hard to say whether the content therein is really unacceptable for the students to see.
One quote from their response troubles me to some degree though, from her cooperating teacher, Nicole Reinking:
Certainly that can be taken any number of ways, some good, some bad, but taking it simply at face value, it saddens me to see where education has gone these days. Growing up in rural Maine (not that there's really any other kind of Maine
Regardless, in the end I'm a little surprised and frightened that a university feels they have the ability to do this. That after someone has paid them tens of thousands of dollars for their education, and has presumably satisfactorily completed the academic requirements, they can one day before graduation tell you "Yeah, we're not going to give you the degree you wanted, have this English degree instead." What's to keep them from doing that to someone else because they don't like brunettes or people from Alaska? (Don't answer that, I know it's a stupid question.
The great minds of tomorrow (Score:3, Funny)
Carla, Brian and Phil: IP Lawyers [assblaster.free.fr]
Dental surgeons 'Be' and 'Mole' [flickr.com]
'Tone-toke': Astrophysicist [m-pi.com]
Messy Mel: Brain surgeon [pages.at]
'Liz': Senator [photobucket.com]
Wufus: Neurologist [fotologs.net]
Lighten up Millersville, sheesh
Re:She was not denied her degree (Score:5, Funny)
Re:She was not denied her degree (Score:5, Interesting)
It's lunacy -- I heard the story a few days ago and figured there must be more to it, but having read more about it now, I don't think there is. Apparently if you have any semblance of an adult life outside school, you're unfit to teach (according to the Morals Police).
Reminds me of the Sprout Goodnight Show host and her firing -- she'd been in some short PSA spoofs about sex SEVEN YEARS before she worked at Sprout (which is a 24-hour PBS Kids network), but parents pressured PBS to fire her and they did so. I guess all that matters is that someone thinks something is bad -- that's now apparently enough to make it true. Here's the Sprout story [sfgate.com], by the way. My kid didn't seem to care, but I'm sure others did.
Re:She was not denied her degree (Score:5, Informative)
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070502234811315 [bbsnews.net]
Seems she'd been reprimanded as a student teacher several times and she knew she was in the wrong. It doesn't seem to be as cut and dried as the original article would have us believe. Also, the picture posted in the original article is different than the one in the above article. Two very different images that give completely different impressions of a "teacher" if seen by students.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:She was not denied her degree (Score:5, Insightful)
So she was reprimanded, did she get a passing grade? If yes, then give her the cert, if not deny her the cert. And just because she gets her cert doesn't mean they have to give her a recommendation or hire her.
But if they pull that BS she should get enough money from the school system so she doesn't have to work, the people recall most of the school board and the superintendent is forced to resign. Its called you screwed somebody's life over, now you get to pay.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:She was not denied her degree (Score:5, Funny)
But what can you do with an English degree? It she doesn't teach, the only other thing she could probably do is open a Poem Repair shop.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Irrational harshness is a sure sign of incompetence. We don't know how to protect kids, but we'll cover up our complete ignorance of anything that might do any good by setting up anybody who comes across our desk as an example. Nobody can say we don't care if we indulge ourselves with in an appalling tantrum.
Just don't ask us to think, evaluate evidence, or have a real strategy. We're reacting here.
Let's not root out the bad or abusive teachers. That's too much work. Let
Re:She was not denied her degree (Score:5, Informative)
Excerpt: "However, school district solicitor Howard L. Kelin said Tuesday that criticism of the teachers contained in the lawsuit is unfair.
Kelin disputes the allegations the teachers, Deann Buffington and Nicole Reinking, influenced the college to withhold the degree.
Snyder was given a poor evaluation based on her performance while teaching at the high school and was warned not to direct students to her MySpace page, which contained the questionable photographs, Kelin said.
Despite being warned to maintain a professional relationship with her students Kelin said, Snyder continued to direct students to her Web page.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It'd be like the teacher having a blog talking about her sex life. Are we now to disallow teachers from copulation as well? Well we don't let kids vote either. So teachers shouldn't vote. And most kids can't drive. Therefore no driving, etc...
TEACHERS ARE NOT [supposed to be] KIDS!
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was at school our chemistry teacher used to swig pure alcohol from the science supplies, and our maths teacher took us to the pub when we were 16 or 17 to celebrate our exam results (legal age is 18 here). So the idea that kids
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Surely, it only promotes overage drinking, as the teacher in question is of legal age. Which means she's promoting an activity as legal as, say, firing off a few rounds down at the local gun club.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So she's punished for doing something legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Image is... something. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because only the truly debauched party at Halloween.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A picture demonstrating that you're not a joyless machine doesn't make you a bad teacher.
I've had plenty of teachers who dressed up in costumes from time to time, whether based on the subject at hand, or just for classes on Halloween...
As for "beer," well... She's drinking out of a cup, there's no indication whether s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know plenty of people that are just about to go into the workforce as engineers that have WAY worse photos on facebook. What if they go to work all hung over and build a building that falls down and kills a bunch people? Most people realize that those kind of activities occur after the work week is over. People need to rea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By posting this, you are leaving evidence of your "I have better judgment than you" attitude on the internet. Have you considered the impact this will have on your career? And I'm showing my "attitude", too.
It might be a good idea for all potential employers, whether would-be puritans or scowlers, to consider that any "attitude" gleaned from the web about someone could be a fictitious p