Teacher losing job for performing in "Full Monty"

[bwaydoc]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 12:23pm

I came across this news article yesterday and thought I would post it and see what people thought. I think it's a shame that in this day and age where it's difficult to come by decent teachers a school would fire someone based on something like this.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/fl_teacher_canned_for_full_mon.html

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 12:31pm

Appallingly wrong on the school's part, but sadly, I find this unsurprising. Some of the comments on that page are a real hoot, too.

Updated On: 3/14/07 at 12:31 PM

[Magdalene]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 12:35pm

I saw this on the news this morning, and was amazed. It's not as if the teacher is performing in a strip club---he's acting in a play, for Pete's sake.

A little perspective, people...

Updated On: 3/14/07 at 12:35 PM

[Calvin]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 12:35pm

There's a similar situation here in New York right now, in which a school employee -- a physical therapist -- has posed nude for Playgirl. He had the school district's approval, so his job is safe, but some parents aren't happy.

And may I say, he certainly has the bod for it.

[gumbo2]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 12:39pm

This is terrible...no one should lose their job because of something like that. I was a little upset while reading the article, but then reading some of those comments on it got me pretty mad, so I had to post something. He's ACTING. In a PLAY. I don't see why the school doesn't understand, or how they think they're protecting the kids.

[D2]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 12:42pm

It's ridiculous.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 12:46pm

I don't know, Cal. I think that posing for Playgirl when you are a school employee is crossing a line. Now, I have no basis for my thoughts on this, so anyone's welcome to call me out on that.

In terms of The Full Monty, that's just silly. I'm wondering if the teacher will be able to sue. Sometimes it just takes too long to wait for karmic retribution, so suing may be more satisfying.

[kasim]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 2:15pm

SorryGrateful>

Only thing i would say about hte playgirl.

is you can only buy it if you are over 18, that show i IMAGINE (could be wrong) that you could go to as long as maybe 13 and above?

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 2:22pm

I see your point, kasim, but, to me, posing for Playgirl, but especially the more graphic mags, is about five steps from being in a porn. Again, I have nothing to support my opinion other than my own feelings. I just think it's kind of a cheap thing to do and I wouldn't my kids, if I ever had any, around that person if I could help it, at least in a school setting. Call me small-minded, if you will. I'm pretty liberal for most things, but that just seems too shady.

Now, in terms of the teacher in The Fully Monty, that's not himself he's putting out there. He's acting, pretending to be someone else. With a man posing for Playgirl, that is himself out there, spreading it. Of course, unless he uses a stage name and goes as Marco Dongo or something.




*edited to clarify my feelings somewhat*

Updated On: 3/14/07 at 02:22 PM

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 4:03pm

SorryGrateful, why must we act as though our bodies don't exist underneath our clothing? Why should our bodies be something to feel shame over?

So what if a school Physical Therapist posed in Playgirl? Does this somehow impact how well he does his job at school?

Americans have way too many shame issues when it comes to sexuality and nudity. We all have bodies, and trying to hide that fact is just ridiculous.

In terms of The Full Monty, that's just silly. I'm wondering if the teacher will be able to sue. Sometimes it just takes too long to wait for karmic retribution, so suing may be more satisfying.

First of all, suing is going to cost this man a lot of money. I wonder how his union stands on this. If they support him, they should pay for litigation on his behalf. It is their job to protect him.

Edited for spelling.

Updated On: 3/14/07 at 04:03 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 4:09pm

Threadjack again.

But, as stated before, Playgirl is for adults only. I would understand your point of view if he was on the cover. Then he might be exposed to the children. But, if he's only inside, then they won't have access to it...in fact, they shouldn't even know about it. Who knows what other kinky things all other ADULT teachers do that you'll never know about - we would have no teachers left if we had to fire all of them.

Full Monty - ridiculous, especially on a show that is really not about nudity at all, but family ties and love for one another.

[Shakespearean]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 4:13pm

"I'm sorry, there won't be a school play this year because we had to cut the budget to pay the judgement against us by the director of the play we can't produce... "

The real bottom line here is that this guy didn't walk into his chorus class and ask the kids if they wanted to see his costume for the undress rehearsal. Someone would have had to drive these kids to the theatre and buy them a ticket, I hope. What do they call that... oh yeah... 'parenting'. Let's say that word together... 'PAIR-uhn-ting'. If mommy and daddy are outraged, don't buy Junior a ticket.

These people don't deserve a community theatre. They should be made to wait for the touring company of Aida. Shame on them. May Harold Pinter do an artist in residency program in their school. A pox on both their trailers!

[LiTtLeDaNcEr729]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 4:15pm

I saw this production of The Full Monty last night- and he was definitely one of the highlights of the show.

Everyone I have talked to about this thinks the school board is being absolutely ridiculous. And, from the sound of the cheering and the standing ovation he was given, the audience seemed to think it was pretty stupid as well.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 4:21pm

Shakespearean, that's just a little harsh. No one should have to wait for the touring company of Aida!

This is the sort of things unions are good for straightening out. I hope there's a strong teacher's union there that will support this guy.

If he had been portraying a mass murderer or even appeared in a snuff film I'm sure there wouldn't have been any problems.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 4:29pm

"SorryGrateful, why must be act as though our bodies don't exist underneath our clothing? Why should our bodies be something to feel shame over?

So what if a school Physical Therapist posed in Playgirl? Does this somehow impact how well he does his job at school?"

I completely agree that we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies. I have absolutely no problem with what you're saying there. But I personally would feel uncomfortable if a person who had posed for what is primarily a wank mag was teaching my child. I'm not saying it makes sense, but I would be wary of that.

"But, as stated before, Playgirl is for adults only. I would understand your point of view if he was on the cover. Then he might be exposed to the children. But, if he's only inside, then they won't have access to it...in fact, they shouldn't even know about it."

And in terms of saying that only people who are 18 years or older will see the magazine, that's so untrue. I first got drunk when I was in 7th grade thanks to my brother who is eight years older than I am. We all have ways of getting forbidden stuff for which we're too young. I don't think I'd like my (imaginary) kid getting hold of that magazine, seeing his or her teacher in it, and going in to school to see that person again only to stare and wonder. What would the child think? How would I explain what Mr. Smith is doing naked and oiled up in the glossy pages? Again, I'm not saying that my thoughts are perfect or rational. But thoughts and feelings so often aren't.

Sorry for the threadjack, everybody!

Updated On: 3/14/07 at 04:29 PM

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 4:36pm

That is the biggest BS I have ever heard. I am glad he chose what he chose, it shows that he was not going to let some uptight middle-aged jerk tell him what he could and could not do.

I am sure this is not the last we have heard of this story.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 4:42pm

"I completely agree that we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies. I have absolutely no problem with what you're saying there. But I personally would feel uncomfortable if a person who had posed for what is primarily a wank mag was teaching my child. I'm not saying it makes sense, but I would be wary of that."

You're not lending your argument or opinion much validity here. You're right, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"And in terms of saying that only people who are 18 years or older will see the magazine, that's so untrue. I first got drunk when I was in 7th grade thanks to my brother who is eight years older than I am. We all have ways of getting forbidden stuff for which we're too young."

In my experience most kids who get a hold of things they shouldn't have (alcohol, porno mags, etc...) get them/steal them from their parents or siblings, even if they in turn share with friends. Again, as someone else mentioned in this thread, it's all about parenting. Don't put your laws on other people's bodies, keep your kids in line. If you're so concerned about them seeing someone half naked, then warp them so they are scared of sex and would never look in a porno mag. Seems a good American way to do things.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 4:57pm

roninjoey-- There's no need to be so dismissive of my opinions. Let me be more clear. Playgirl is a publication that is not known for its hard-hitting interviews or intelligent, witty reparte. People masturbate to it. And we're not talking about someone being "half-naked," as you say. We're talking about full-everything. Let me say that nowhere in any of my posts did I say that a teacher or employee of a school should be fired for being in it. I have stuck to saying things like, "I would be very uncomfortable."

But let's get this straight. I don't have or want kids. Maybe if I had kids I'd feel differently or maybe exactly the same. But don't dismiss my opinions or insinuate that I'm a typical American warping a generation's attitude toward sex because I certainly am not.

I think that if you're going to be a teacher, you need to set an example for students with whom you come in contact. I don't think posing for Playgirl is doing that. But that is an opinion, not a dictate.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 5:01pm

And this is also going to encourage others to become teachers how?

[jv92]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 5:01pm

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. I hope he sues and I hope his union is behind him. This right winged, closed minded school should pay the price.

[harris007]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 5:03pm

and YAY in happened in florida, WHAT a shock , ugh i truely hate living here

[popculture37]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 5:05pm

I think SorryGrateful has a valid point. It's not so much that posing for something like that is inherently wrong; I certainly wouldn't consider someone who did something like that to be a bad person. But, when you're determining what's appropriate for an employee, you have to look at how their actions will impact their job. It may be regrettable that young kids who happened to grab that magazine from their older sibling would be unable to look at their teacher without giggling because they're picturing them naked, but you can bet it would happen and that sort of thing is best to be avoided. When you're working in a school environment its important to have the respect of all students, otherwise you'll never get them to cooperate with you. I'm not saying that posing for a magazine like that should get you fired, but if I was offered a job by Playboy, I would think twice before taking them up on it so that I wouldn't risk my students losing their ability to concentrate in my class.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 5:55pm

I have to agree with Sorry-Grateful here. Playgirl is a couple steps away from porn. So if the teacher made a hardcore porn video, that would be okay also?

Sure, there's a fine line between work and personal life. But posing for Playgirl is pushing it a bit, especially when you work for a school.

[wishinguweresomehow]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 6:09pm

this is honestly upsetting that in today's society a person has to choose between their passion or their job. It's ridiculous!

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/14/07 at 6:24pm

Well, I have to disagree again.

By saying that, then you're saying that an adult's actions should mirror their day job. If this is the case, then it is also wrong that any teachers buy pornography, what if a minor in their school happens to be by the porn shop or even inside and look at their teacher? Or have sex for that matter, what if they walk by their house and the blinds hapeen not to be closed? No female teachers should wear tanktops or mini skirts on their days off, what if a student looks at them? They might be getting the wrong idea.

And although my examples may seem extremist, the only reason why I would think it is wrong for him to pose on Playgirl is that if he came to school to flaunt it, or discussed it with his students. But that mentality is centuries old, and I don't think you're so naive to not think that every teacher in America gets involved in adult activities that one or more people are aware of, you just never hear about it...are they all acting inappropiately?