More Naked Teachers

The Instapundit links to a story out of Knoxville about an elementary school teacher with non-nude naked pictures.

Oh, no, not again!!

From the newpaper story:

Knox County Schools security officials have turned over partially nude Internet pictures of an elementary school teacher to the district’s human resources administrators.

School security chief Steve Griffin said this morning that his department scoured the Web after they received information Friday relating to photographs of Inskip Elementary School teacher Melinda England.

“We found these pictures of her at various sites,” Griffin said this morning.

England described herself as a 28-year-old woman, who has a daughter, according to her profile, he said.

One photograph shows England shirtless, her left hand covering her right breast and her left breast is in the crook of her left elbow.

Another picture shows her lying on her stomach, face down, wearing black panties. Her bare back is visible.

Human resources officials are looking into the matter.

Inskip administrators on Friday sent a letter home to parents alerting them of the situation.

The letter, written by assistant principal Patricia Moore, states that at this time, “we have no allegations or any information that would indicate that Ms. England has done anything inappropriate during school time or in her relationship with students.”

The letter also notes that teachers maintain their First Amendment rights, but there are provisions in Tennessee law that address unprofessional behavior by teachers.

“If the superintendent believes a teacher has acted in an unprofessional manner he may take any action from the level of a verbal reprimand all the way through initiating termination proceedings,” the letter states.

I have so many reactions, I am not sure where to start.

First, the fact that the Schools Security Chief is in charge of policing the actions of school employees in their private lives is simply disturbing. Given that there are real security concerns out there, surely the taxpayer funds spent on his salary and his staff could be better spent than surfing the web looking for nude pictures.

Second, this woman has not apparently violated any laws. She has probably shown more skin at the beach than she does in the photos. She has a right to live her non-school life the way she wants. What she has done is not immmoral, illegal or in any way degrades her ability to do her job.

Third, how is unprofessional defined by Tennessee law. I am sure it is pretty vague. Is drinking unprofessional? Drinking is legal (so long as the person is over 21 and not driving). Is swearing unprofessional? It is free speech. I can see a limit on foul language at work, but if a person is on the street and their car breaks down, they have a right to drop the F-bomb. Is having sex with lots of consulting adults unprofessional? Assuming it isn't happening in public, there is no law against it. Is having naked pictures of oneself on display immoral? It may be lacking in common sense, but it is not immoral or unprofessional--assuming they aren't taken on school grounds.

Fourth, who gets to determine what is unprofessional. The Superintendent? What gives him/her the power to do so? The possibility of arbitrariness is quite great.

Hey, if you want to post naked pictures of yourself, go right ahead. There may be consequences, but the problem is that it is hard to say it is unprofessional. I may be void of common sense but it shouldn't be enough to void your employment.

Really, Who Cares About Janet Jackson's Breast Anymore?

Well, I am sure the Third Circuit Court of Appeals wishes they could just move past the wardrobe malfunction.

The case is the second recent test of the federal government's powers to regulate broadcast indecency. Last June, a federal appeals court in New York invalidated the government's policy on fleeting profanities uttered over the airwaves.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia will hear arguments about the Feb. 1, 2004 halftime show when 90 million Americans watched singer Justin Timberlake pull off part of Janet Jackson's bustier, briefly exposing one of her breasts. The episode was later explained as a problem with her costume.

The FCC fined CBS Corp. $550,000. CBS challenged the fine, claiming "fleeting, isolated or unintended" images should not automatically be considered indecent. The agency noted it has long held that "even relatively fleeting references may be found indecent where other factors contribute to a finding of patent offensiveness."

While I am all for seeing more decent television, surely there are other issues more pressing when dealing with indencency on the airwaves than a 3.5 year old video of a breast fleetingly on the air.

Professors Dating Students--Constitutionally Protected

Dinesh D'Souza notes that UCLA psychologist Paul Abramson makes this argument:

Do professors have a constitutional right to date students? Professor Paul Abramson thinks so. Abramson is a 57 year old psychologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. His university, like many others, bans romance between professors and students. Abrahamson is about to publish a book Romance in the Ivory Tower that faults such policies as moralistic and outdated.

"For me this is not an issue of who's sleeping with whom," Abramson said in an interview in the current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. "It's an issue about where the power to make the choice resides." According to Abramson, the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. constitution protects what he calls "the right to romance." Intrigued, I picked up my copy of the U.S. Constitution and perused it. No such right. I tried reading the document standing on my head. Still nothing. I squeezed lemon juice and held the paper up to the light. Gee, the right to romance didn't appear anywhere.

Abramson points out that the Ninth Amendment reserves all rights not earlier specified in the document to the people. So do I have a Ninth Amendment right to take drugs? To travel without a passport? To conduct my own foreign policy? How is the right to romance different from these? Abramson goes into high lyrical gear. "We make choices over things that are exceedingly intimate: who to love, what to believe in, the character of our writing and speech. These are part of the fundamental nature of who we are." Abramson aruges that sexuality, like speech and religion, is constitutive of our identity. Yes, but speech and religion are specifically protected in the First Amendment. If the founders agreed with Abramson, why didn't they remember to add, "Congress shall make no law restricting the right to romance?"

I admit, that a "constitutional" protection in the 9th Amendment is a bit of stretch. I fully support a school's decision to put such prohibitions into employment contracts and hold professors responsible for such bevavior, even to the point of making it a termination worthy offense. But such prohibitions are a matter of contract law, not constitutional law.

I am enough of a romantic and a realist to know that sometimes, the heart can make decisions our head may not normally think are wise. With the plethora of non-traditional (read older) students on campus, an attraction between such a student and a professor is not unrealistic. Dating in such situations or dating between graduate students and professors, though should be kept very, very, very discreet and the burden for discretion must be placed on the professor more than the student.Dating between professors and undergraduate students should be strongly discouraged, even contractually prohibited. Dating between a professor and his or her current students is and should be prohibited.

D'Souza makes an brutal riposte to Abramson:

If professors had a constitutional "right to romance," then a student's refusal to sleep with them would constitute a violation of their rights. The whole concept is a legal absurdity. Professor Abramson is certainly entitled to cruise the bars of Los Angeles looking for love if he wants to. I just think should leave his copy of the Constitution behind.

Perhaps Professor Abramsom should consult the professors at the UCLA law school for a little 9th Amendment tutorial as well.

Jewish Hawaiin Surfer Dontaes Board to Gaza Surf Club

All in an effort to promote peace between Isreal and Palestinians.

Personally, I would put my money on peace breaking out because of the popularity of Israeli porn in Arab nations.

That should be the motto in the Middle East now: Peace Through Porn.

That One Way to Increase the Birth Rate

Have the Government give everyone a day off to have sex and babies:

A Russian region of Ulyanovsk has found a novel way to fight the nation's birth-rate crisis: It has declared Sept. 12 the Day of Conception and for the third year running is giving couples time off from work to procreate.

The hope is for a brood of babies exactly nine months later on Russia's national day. Couples who "give birth to a patriot" during the June 12 festivities win money, cars, refrigerators and other prizes.

Ulyanovsk, about 550 miles east of Moscow, has held similar contests since 2005. Since then, the number of competitors, and the number of babies born to them, has been on the rise.

There is no question what people are doing on that day off.

Seventh Circuit Issues Ruling in Case With and Unusual Fact Pattern

Today, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling in Sides v. Champaign (IL), a case involving a Target Store employee, a video camera, sex in a car and standing in the hot sun.

Like I said, not your normal fact pattern (as if there is one).

Hat Tip: Howard Bashman

What, No Motels Around?

an Indiana couple was arrested on indencent exposure charges after stopping in a shaded area to have sex in their car. The big problem, the shady area was in front of a day care center.

Ayers, 31, and Declouette, 43, were arrested on public indecency charges when the day care center's operator called cops after spotting the couple getting busy in public. As noted in the below Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department report, when Officer Eli McAllister responded to the scene, "I stood there for approximately two minutes, and they were so engrossed in their recreational activity that they did not notice me." Declouette explained that he had first met Ayers earlier that day and they had been "driving around town, until they found a nice shaded spot to have sex." He added that he was unaware that the chosen location was in front of Cookies Child Care.

OOOKKKAAAYYY!!!