Puritanism strikes again

[HoreTore]

Why don't teachers deserve privacy? What they do in their spare time is their own business. When you go to work, you do what your company wants you to. When you go home, you LEAVE WORK BEHIND, and do WHATEVER you want to do. Your boss does not have any business with that until you take it to your workplace. Being a teacher shouldn't be any different than other jobs.

I don't care if my teacher has been lying naked in a ditch with a bottle in his bum, a guy with an S/M costume next to him and a hooker taking pictures.

[KukriKhan]

I don't care if my teacher has been lying naked in a ditch with a bottle in his bum, a guy with an S/M costume next to him and a hooker taking pictures.

Me either. But your Mom or Dad might (care), worried that your teacher would teach you to end up in the same circumstance (in a ditch, etc).

Just playing devil's advocate here.

[HoreTore]

Me either. But your Mom or Dad might (care), worried that your teacher would teach you to end up in the same circumstance (in a ditch, etc).

Just playing devil's advocate here.

That worry would be completely and utterly silly, and shouldn't be affecting his employment status at the school. Noone has any business with what you do outside work. I'm still going to go to work monday, no matter what I do this weekend(except illegal stuff, of course). I refuse to be fired because I'm going to get drunk tomorrow. This fall I'll be working as a teacher, and I refuse to get fired when I get drunk then. And it really doesn't concern me if anyone at that school(or their parents) find some pictures of me doing something they dislike.

[Whacker]

Being a teacher in the US means that you do really give up some of your right to privacy. Teachers are held to a higher standard, for better or worse. Some of it I think is lame, some of it is in some ways valid.

As for the OP, from my reading a few other articles, it's pretty cut and dry. They saw that picture/caption, and denied her a teacher's cert. because of it. As such I think she's totally justified with her lawsuit, that's just plain nonsense.

[Odin]

That worry would be completely and utterly silly, and shouldn't be affecting his employment status at the school. Noone has any business with what you do outside work. I'm still going to go to work monday, no matter what I do this weekend(except illegal stuff, of course). I refuse to be fired because I'm going to get drunk tomorrow. This fall I'll be working as a teacher, and I refuse to get fired when I get drunk then. And it really doesn't concern me if anyone at that school(or their parents) find some pictures of me doing something they dislike.

ah but if I recall one of your prior posts, you live in a country where your union can tell the PM to shut up ?(paraphrasing) in your case you bet, but in the states employment is an "at will" basis and the employer, or the employee isnt required to hold up there end at any time of thier choosing.

Now this is a case of a college not awarding a student the degree the student wanted. they did issue a degree, and as crappy as this deal is, the bottom line is she as a student chose to go to a college that allows administrators the ability to dictate the terms of her degree.

The last statement will be sorted out in court I suppose, but im not stepping up to ring the bell of trampled on civil liberties just yet. Maybe in her deposition she will reveal why she chose a school that has such strict ethical code, and admin that enforces it?

i suspect the ignorance plee will be given. I know I am sounding like a hard ass, but is suspect there is more to the story here, we'll see, but again I'd bet a cup of coffee there is a student agreement she signed when she started school that allows admin to judge her actions and determine what she is, or isnt qualified for through that institution.

[Xiahou]

Here's more:

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.

"Snyder required 'significant remediation' as a teacher, and her evaluation reflected serious performance problems," Kelin said. "Contrary to what is alleged in Ms. Snyder's lawsuit, nobody from the school district threatened that it would not accept any more Millersville University student teachers unless it punished Ms. Snyder.

"Nothing like that ever occurred. Whatever Millersville University decided to do with the evaluation and other information provided by the school district was up to Millersville University."

The university and Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education have declined to comment on the case.

Kelin also said the photograph released along with the lawsuit was not the same one Buffington and Reinking submitted to the university.

The photograph they submitted, Kelin said, shows Snyder holding a plastic cup and making a hand gesture while wearing the pirate hat.

Snyder mentioned on her Web site that she had been warned about posting online messages to students, Kelin said.

According to a statement issued by the school district, "Snyder's Web site invites students to continue looking at her page, and in apparent response to Ms. Reinking's advice that such an invitation was unprofessional says, 'I don't think that they would stoop that low as to mess with my future.' Ms. Snyder's Web site says further that students keep asking her why she will not apply to teach at Conestoga Valley and asks, 'Do you think it would hurt me to tell them the real reason (or who the problem was)?' "

Snyder submitted an apology to the high school and university after being told she would not receive an education degree or teaching certificate.

The school district released a copy of the letter.

"I wanted to express a variety of emotions to each of you: regret, empathy, confidence and responsibility," Snyder wrote in the letter dated May 12, 2006. "I have a large heart that only wants help others, not harm them.

"This incident has caused me to open my eyes and realize that I am the only person to blame. I have to take full responsibility for my actions and live with the consequences determined by the administrative staff from Conestoga Valley High School and Millersville University."

It's hardly about privacy and her personal website when she's directing students to it and encouraging them to post messages there. She apparently ignored warnings until she discovered it affected her certification, then apologized and accepted full responsibility in a written letter, then when that didn't work- sued.

Someone is bound to disagree, but I do think it's quite unprofessional to direct your students to a personal website that depicts you costumed, in a drunken state. The school district where she was teaching also claims that that was only 1 of the many problems they had with her. Maybe she shouldn't be teaching?

[Odin]

Here's more:


It's hardly about privacy and her personal website when she's directing students to it and encouraging them to post messages there. She apparently ignored warnings until she discovered it affected her certification, then apologized and accepted full responsibility in a written letter, then when that didn't work- sued.

Someone is bound to disagree, but I do think it's quite unprofessional to direct your students to a personal website that depicts you costumed, in a drunken state. The school district where she was teaching also claims that that was only 1 of the many problems they had with her. Maybe she shouldn't be teaching?

Funny how when you dig deep enough into an issue there is always a validation of the other side. Hardly puritan now that we have this bit of information, or is her poor performance the colleges fault as well ?

[Goofball]

Here's more:


It's hardly about privacy and her personal website when she's directing students to it and encouraging them to post messages there. She apparently ignored warnings until she discovered it affected her certification, then apologized and accepted full responsibility in a written letter, then when that didn't work- sued.

Someone is bound to disagree, but I do think it's quite unprofessional to direct your students to a personal website that depicts you costumed, in a drunken state. The school district where she was teaching also claims that that was only 1 of the many problems they had with her. Maybe she shouldn't be teaching?

Now, that's what I'm talking about: coming up with additional info.

And given the new info, I'm going to reevaluate my opinion. However, the only part that seems relevant to me as far as supporting the university's case is this:

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.

If the uni can demonstrate that she was denied her certificate because of poor academic performance, then they are in the right. But if they denied her the certificate after she had satisfactorily completed the academic requirements, then they don't have a leg to stand on.

[Blodrast]

Well, lemme tell you what *I* would do if I were an employer and an employee would sue me for firing them for any reasons. I'd claim that the employee was not performing satisfactorily, hence I was perfectly entitled to fire him/her.
And you can always, always, come up with dirty, stupid, ridiculous pieces of documentation or reviews or what not, that somehow suggest (or not) your point of view, or at the very least confuse things so much, and take them so far away from the original issue, that most everybody forgets what it was all about in the beginning - which would suit me just fine.

So I would have been surprised if the school DIDN'T claim that her performance was not satisfactory. I mean, think about it a little: I'm sued by this woman, I'm getting a lot of bad publicity, what do I do ? Well, try to save my skin, whether it's true or not. Duh.

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.

What the hell is "questionable" about them, once again ?!

And for "directing" students to one's myspace page, oh yeah, they would need detailed instructions and precise directions, after all, NOBODY can use google...

[HoreTore]

Someone is bound to disagree, but I do think it's quite unprofessional to direct your students to a personal website that depicts you costumed, in a drunken state. The school district where she was teaching also claims that that was only 1 of the many problems they had with her. Maybe she shouldn't be teaching?

When you do what I underlined here, what I said before doesn't matter. When you bring your private life to work, your employer can of course fire you for it. If you hold it to yourself, then fine, it's your private life. When you involve your work into it, it's no longer just your private life. You let people see, and you'll have to expect them to judge.

As for this particular case, I feel it's unacceptable to bring a private life with things not generally accepted among teenagers(like drinking, smoking) to a school.

[Watchman]

As for this particular case, I feel it's unacceptable to bring a private life with things not generally accepted among teenagers(like drinking, smoking) to a school.

The last I checked they on the average not only found those acceptable, but engaged in them regularly - and Devil take the legalities.

[Goofball]

Now this is a case of a college not awarding a student the degree the student wanted. they did issue a degree, and as crappy as this deal is, the bottom line is she as a student chose to go to a college that allows administrators the ability to dictate the terms of her degree.

So, If I went to uni for four years, paid my tuition, and completed the academic requirements for a BSC(Eng), then the uni decides that because they don't like my personal habits they are going to give me a general BA instead, you think that's acceptable?

Students at universities are paying customers. They pay their fees, complete the requirements for their degree, and then are awarded the degree they paid for and did the work for. Universities can't arbitrarily decide to withhold an earned and paid for degree.

Next thing you know you'd have universities denying people law degrees because they are pro-life, or denying people economics degrees because they favor nationalized health care.

I realize that it has now been called into question whether her academic achievement was up to snuff but as I said in my last post, unless the uni can prove that this is why she didn't get her certificate, then they are in the wrong.

[Odin]

So, If I went to uni for four years, paid my tuition, and completed the academic requirements for a BSC(Eng), then the uni decides that because they don't like my personal habits they are going to give me a general BA instead, you think that's acceptable

?

Personally no, however "rules are rules" and if the uni you chose has an academic policy that allows them to make that decision then is it there fault for excersising that agreement, or yours for not understanding it?

Its a crap deal man I concede that, but alot of american colleges have bi laws that govern degree requirements. Its the students responsibility to understand them.

Students at universities are paying customers. They pay their fees, complete the requirements for their degree, and then are awarded the degree they paid for and did the work for. Universities can't arbitrarily decide to withhold an earned and paid for degree.

In her case they didnt withhold a degree, she recieved one. Thats why I think there is some academic bi law at work here. I dont know for sure and will happily concede if there isnt, but your comment above seems fair enough to me.

Next thing you know you'd have universities denying people law degrees because they are pro-life, or denying people economics degrees because they favor nationalized health care.

Well isnt that the choice of the college? These are private institutions. I am not fluent in all the laws that govern universities in the states but I am confident enough to say that universities are granted a great deal of lattitude on thier cirriculum, and standards.

I realize that it has now been called into question whether her academic achievement was up to snuff but as I said in my last post, unless the uni can prove that this is why she didn't get her certificate, then they are in the wrong.

Maybe they are, but suppose for a moment that she her acceptance to the college included some form of a user agreement (for lack of a better term). I'd bet that it did, and there is some language in it that states ethical conduct etc, etc.

Is it fair, well the court will decide that, but the first link portrayed this woman as a victim exclusively and thus my skepticism.

[Whacker]

So, If I went to uni for four years, paid my tuition, and completed the academic requirements for a BSC(Eng), then the uni decides that because they don't like my personal habits they are going to give me a general BA instead, you think that's acceptable?

Students at universities are paying customers. They pay their fees, complete the requirements for their degree, and then are awarded the degree they paid for and did the work for. Universities can't arbitrarily decide to withhold an earned and paid for degree.

Next thing you know you'd have universities denying people law degrees because they are pro-life, or denying people economics degrees because they favor nationalized health care.

I realize that it has now been called into question whether her academic achievement was up to snuff but as I said in my last post, unless the uni can prove that this is why she didn't get her certificate, then they are in the wrong.

Ahhh... Well said, but there's always a rub to it. In public universities (funded largely by the state) such an occurance as the above is way out of line. As you stated, they are paying customers, and public universities by definition cannot "discriminate" on who they give diplomas to, even for rather stupid (but not deathly serious) offenses such as our dear drunken pirate. I say "discriminate" in quotes, because there are some limitations that can be reasonably placed, but that's another discussion entirely.

However, when it comes to PRIVATE universities, it's a relatively different ballgame. When I said 'here's the rub', what I was referring to was the university's decision to withhold issuing a diploma a this stage of the game. Private universities quite often can and do set certain "criteria" for entry, such as a religious affiliation, different "moral standards", etc etc. Also not uncommon is dismissal or expulsion for violating these. Take for example that instance a few years back where a student posted some less than shining comments about his university (which was private) on his blog, and was subsequently admonished, almost expelled, and had to write a public apology IIRC. Lame? I thought so. But it was within the institutions rights, private institutions can be a bit more choosy, for lack of a better term.

Now, back on topic, the issue is she's (as I understand it) essentially completed all of the requirements for her degree. Even though she's made a rather stupid blunder in terms of her personal site, does that necessarily negate all of the work she's done up to this point to obtain the degree? My personal opinion is that no, she hasn't. Sure she did something really stupid, and I've revised my earlier opinion based on what Xaihou found, but I still don't think it was serious enough to warrant the withholding of her license. It'd be like someone running a marathon, then being held up at the last 100 feet and refused to allow to continue because they put their underpants on their head. If they kicked her out for a serious offense or repeated offense earlier, that's different.

IMHO, YMMV, IANAL, WTFBBQ, etc

[Xiahou]

Now, back on topic, the issue is she's (as I understand it) essentially completed all of the requirements for her degree. Even though she's made a rather stupid blunder in terms of her personal site, does that necessarily negate all of the work she's done up to this point to obtain the degree? My personal opinion is that no, she hasn't. Sure she did something really stupid, and I've revised my earlier opinion based on what Xaihou found, but I still don't think it was serious enough to warrant the withholding of her license. It'd be like someone running a marathon, then being held up at the last 100 feet and refused to allow to continue because they put their underpants on their head. If they kicked her out for a serious offense or repeated offense earlier, that's different.

My guess is the unsatisfactory report from the Conestoga Valley School District is the hold up. I'm not a teacher and didn't go to school to be one but, I think successfully completing the student teaching portion of your degree is a requirement for both the degree in education and the teaching certificate. I would think the unsatisfactory rating would be the equivalent of failing that portion of her curriculum.

Frankly, I'm puzzled as to why the CVSD isn't named in the suit. Makes me tend to think her lawsuit may fall apart rather quickly in court- we'll have to wait and see I guess. Regardless of what happens in court though, she's succeeded in getting alot of sympathy and media attention for herself.

Til the book deal and Lifetime Movie are done she probably won't need to teach.