Female Ky. School Workers See Strip Show

AP ^

[esryle]

COVINGTON, Ky. (AP) -- When Covington schools Superintendent Jack Moreland saw an advertisement for a Chippendales show, he thought it would be a good morale booster for his female employees. So he shelled out $420 to send 20 female staff members to a Chippendales show to see buff men strip off most of their clothing.

It worked, but it also raised the ire of at least one person, who wrote an anonymous letter to the state Office of Education Accountability accusing Moreland of using school-district funds to pay for the strip show.

Moreland said he spent $420 of his own money for the show - and faxed his personal credit-card receipt to investigators.

"I did it in fun, and they went in fun, and I don't think there was any harm done," he said.

Bryan Jones, a lawyer for the Office of Education Accountability, said he couldn't confirm or deny whether his office looked into a complaint.

The women who attended the show said they enjoyed it.

"We just laughed and laughed and laughed," said Jena Meehan, the superintendent's secretary. "It was a spectacle, to be sure, and to have all of us there was even funnier."

Chippendales is a high-class male revue that became popular in the 1980s. Well-muscled young men wearing bow-ties and bare chests strip to scanty undies for female audiences.

Moreland is the former president of the Council for Better Education, the superintendents group that brought the historic lawsuit that resulted in the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 and its revolutionary reform of Kentucky's public schools.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I agreed giving to the poor was good, but then provided balance by explaining what the Muslims do to the Jews."

You would be more dangerous to children than those teachers.

[DannyTN]

I've been on enough threads with you, Luis, that I'm not surprised you'd rather have porn addicts teaching your kids than me.

Firing teachers for setting bad examples whether on or off the clock is the way things are done in this country and have been for a long time.

The public simply does not OWE a job to a teacher regardless of what kind of example they set.

[DannyTN]

"You would be more dangerous to children than those teachers"

Why because I didn't sugar coat all religions and I told the kids the truth?

[DannyTN]

"The community already decided Danny, which is the very reason why the show was allowed to go on to begin with. "

There is a big difference between not making certain activities illegal in society and letting people who engage in those activities teach kids.

We will see what that community decided at the next election if not before.

[DannyTN]

"Danny, then get nuns to tgeach your kids"

Hey, if we put a voucher system in, I'd move my kids to a Christian school in a heartbeat. Right now, I can't afford to pay for both public education and private education. Perhaps in a couple of years I can.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Porn addicts"?

LOL!!

See Danny?

You are far more dangerous than those teachers!

Men dancing wearing bathing suits is now porn?

So, people who wear Speedo's to the beach are engaging in pornography?

Should we arrest the America Olympic Swin Team?

You would scare the crap out of second graders just to satisfy some weird need to demonize Muslims Danny?

Why?

Do all Muslims do those things you would teach to all Jews Danny?

How about your example Danny?

Teachers are to be judged differently than all other adults in town?

Why?

According to you, it's FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!

[livianne]

Oh, I get it. If I try to tell adults--say like these teachers--that what they did was immoral, that would be imposing my own morality on them. But if you, o divine, gatekeeper one, if you try to impose your morality on me by saying I have no right to tell these other adults what to do, then that is not imposing your morality on me because I still retain the right to tell my own children my own moral code.

i'm just gonna have to assume you are being intentionally dense at this point. You can tell people what they did is immoral all you want, so long as you let them walk away when they feel like it. What I said you couldn't do was insist that they had no right to teach because of going to Chippendale's. That's not a moral issue, that's an issue of standing up for their right to be individuals, something you obviously think people should give up once they become teachers. Do you have a right to tell other people what to do? Sure, technically speaking you have a right to SAY anything you want. But you do NOT have a right to enforce it simply on your say so, especially when you are not even affected by the whole issue. You don't have that right because they, as adults, have their own set of rights that you don't get to step on because you are offended.

What a double standard! You're telling me that adults like you can pre-empt & verbally whip folks like me because we're trying to infringe on individual rights. And that's not imposing any standards? Isn't that the same thing? One adult telling another adult what they can say or do?

i'm not telling what you cannot do because it's simply my moral code - i'm saying you can't punish teachers for an action you disapprove of simply because you disapprove of it because THEY HAVE RIGHTS AND THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. If they were teachers of your children you would have a say, but only ONE say in a field of many. THe only thing you have the ultimate right to do as far as a teacher goes is to remove your child from their class. That is IT. If a large enough group of parents object, then there will be sanctions for the teacher because they will have effectively voted against the teacher. Yours is one, count it , ONE vote. That's not a moral stance, and it's not a double standard. It's the way our country does now and always has worked.

Allow me to quote this standard of yours right back at you: You, livianne, cannot personally impose your standard of folks like me not being able to "impose my personal standard on a larger group" because "you don't have the right to decide for everyone (hello! "everyone" includes me and folks like me) what is and isn't ok" as to what we can say in the public square.

are you REALLY this dense??? I don't CARE what you say in a public square. What i am arguing is your contention that the teachers should be removed because you are offended. You can talk or type till you turn blue, and I can type right back. It's called free speech, and I wouldn't take it away even if I could. I never said you could or could not SAY anything. I said your opinion alone is NOT reason enough for a teacher to be punished.

Except you would take away my voice if you had a choice. You don't think views like mine should be uttered, lest they put educators like these at risk.

Why would I take away your voice? Your voice doesn't put anyone at risk. In fact, this whole discussion is and always has been purely hypothetical because you have no power over these teachers one way or the other. THe discussion was about you saying these teachers should be removed, and my disagreeing. Not my saying you aren't allowed to say that.

Nor does "live and let live" mean letting adults tred all over the innocence of influential children around them by flaunting their public behavior that eventually reverberates all around these children.

and THIS is where we get to the point where you don't get to decide for every parent if that behavior is one that means that this person is not good enough to teach their children. You only get to make that decision for your OWN child, not everyone elses. If a number of people agree, the teacher will be sanctioned because otherwise it will negatively impact the school. Otherwise, you take your kid and walk, and leave everyone else alone.

[longtermmemmory]

If this had been a group of men they would all have been fired on the spot. Instead these women are rewarded. So much for fairness.

(are there even any male teachers at that school? so much for quotas)

[Luis Gonzalez]

I am in charge of telling my kids the truth, you're not. As a teacher, you would be in charge of adhering to the established curriculum, if that curriculum does not suit you, find other work.

So stay out of a classroom, I don't want your truth anymore than a raving socialist's truth.

[livianne]

They are a role model for kids. What they do IN and OUT of the classroom is relevant to how good a role model they can be. They shouldn't be punished for things they might do, but if they have shown a lack of judgement outside of the classroom, we are under no obligation to let them teach our kids, because of the the things that they HAVE done, not the things they MIGHT do.

True, YOU are under no obligation to let them teach YOUR child. But unless a whole lot of parents feel that way, there is no reason for that teacher to not teach everyone else's child. You don't like the teacher, remove your child. If LOTS of parents don't like the teacher, then the teacher goes. I don't see a lack of judgement, so I see no reason for the teacher to be denied her job.

[livianne]

I don't know what form it will take. And I know you probably don't accept the Bible as proof. But you think it's harmless. It's not.

And you can show it as harmful because?? And no bible quoting - real life example of how a teacher going to Chippendale's hurts kids morals.

[DannyTN]

Chippendales would probably be considered soft porn and it's the context of a striptease act that makes it different from swimmers or dancing in general.

"You would scare the crap out of second graders just to satisfy some weird need to demonize Muslims Danny?"

I wouldn't even address the issue of Islam at all if I was a public school teacher. But I wouldn't/couldn't teach them that Islam is good and that Ramadan is good without giving them the downside.

"Do all Muslims do those things you would teach to all Jews Danny?"

That they do them to any Jews is problematic. But no all Muslims don't do those things. But that religion certainly generates enough that do them. And that religion has been generally slow and subdued and even silent in condemning such acts.

Teachers are to be judged differently than all other adults in town? WHY?

Because they teach kids!!! But you are too obtuse to see the difference aren't you?

"According to you, it's FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!"

We aren't talking about some fat Democrat program of government social workers trying to save the world from some junk science program that contradicts Christian values.

We are talking about who teaches kids. If you don't think parents should have a say in the quality of teachers teaching kids, then it's you, Luis, who want's the village people to usurp the authority from the parents.

[livianne]

Not necessarily. If he had given them tickets to a "Armed Woman" event where they could blast paper targets, and some PC snitch complained about teachers who touched a gun could contaminate their children, the "Live and Let Live" faction here would have exactly the same view as on the male stripper party.

still see nothing wrong. long as they don't bring the guns into the classroom. Not that children shouldn't learn to shoot, but it's not a public school sort of education. Don't put words in people's mouths unless you know yourself to be correct.

[livianne]

The anti-gun crowd is wrong and the people who expect public school teachers to demonstrate decency and moral integrity both in and out of the classroom are right.

nope, not right. Wrong. you are wrong if you think you get to say how people act when they are not working. wrong, and a little bit totalitarian.

[DannyTN]

"True, YOU are under no obligation to let them teach YOUR child. But unless a whole lot of parents feel that way, there is no reason for that teacher to not teach everyone else's child."

I agree with you here. The community standard as a whole needs to rule in these sort of matters. And I hope there is a public outcry. Not as much against the teachers in this case, although they did excercise poor judgement, but against the Superintendant who led them to excercise that poor judgement.

[livianne]

You said it yourself. It's up to the community to decide.

then let them decide - but you seem to be deciding all by yourself about something that doesn't affect you. let their community decide. And if they decide there is no problem, then will you be quiet about it?

[DannyTN]

"nope, not right. Wrong. you are wrong if you think you get to say how people act when they are not working. wrong, and a little bit totalitarian."

The community as a whole has some say in how people act. You can't drive drunk. You can't go naked in public. Well you used to couldn't, you still can't walk down the street naked unless you are part of a democrat protest.

Same thing with teachers. The community gets to say who teaches.

[DannyTN]

"And if they decide there is no problem, then will you be quiet about it?"

That's their right. But I will still say they are wrong. But I'll support their right to be wrong.

[DannyTN]

":And you can show it as harmful because?? And no bible quoting - real life example of how a teacher going to Chippendale's hurts kids morals."

How many kids get pregnant each year? How many abortions? Do you really think that teachers don't have any influence whatsoever? Do you really think those kids woke up one morning and said, "I think I'll have irresponsible sex today". They reached that point because of the influences around them, of which teachers are one.

Oh I don't have any first hand accounts where Jill Smith attributed her bad decisions to a bad influence from her teacher. I'm sure there's a few examples out there. But hopefully most teachers care enough not to set bad examples and hopefully most communities care enough to remove the teachers that do.

[DannyTN]

"So stay out of a classroom, I don't want your truth anymore than a raving socialist's truth.

Why? You aren't very teachable. I'm not likely to find you in a classroom. So you don't have to worry about what I'm teaching.