Teacher fired for what in Utah?

[JohnnyL]

My fifth grade teacher took us to a private museum owned by someone he knew. I had no appreciation for the gift of that experience when I was 10 years old, but I am thankful for it now even though the museum has several nude oils and nude sculptures. Of course permission slips were required and there was probably one or two parents who refused permission out of an irrational fear their baby would become a promiscuous sex addict if they saw a boobie, but guess what didn't happen to the class members who visited that museum.

I get that some people are unable or unwilling to distinguish between fine art meant to depict the beauty and artistic quality of the human body and hardcore pornography, but I'm willing to bet that I can find a few Utah parents who refuse to take their kids to the grocery store because of a fear their kids will immediately turn from the church if they see coffee grounds on the shelves.

And yet, many get their start that way, or through sexual education.

I don't believe it's "fine art". I'd actually pick abstract crap over nude art.

[brianj]

And yet, many get their start that way, or through sexual education.

I don't believe it's "fine art". I'd actually pick abstract crap over nude art.

If you can point out someone who claims they became addicted to pornography because of Pablo Picasso's Nude, Green Leaves and Bust, then maybe I will believe you.

[mcusick]

And yet, many get their start that way, or through sexual education.

I don't believe it's "fine art". I'd actually pick abstract crap over nude art.

If you can point out someone who claims they became addicted to pornography because of Pablo Picasso's Nude, Green Leaves and Bust, then maybe I will believe you.

Crap. I looked up Green Leaves and Bust. Now I need to talk to my bishop.

Thanks a lot.

[Fiannan]

I don't believe it's "fine art". I'd actually pick abstract crap over nude art.

The CIA would agree:

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201610 ... of-the-cia

[shadow]

It's unclear exactly why the teacher was fired. Apparently there were complaints about how he handled the situation, not necessarily only because students saw nude art. We might not be getting all the information.

Very wise.
And after hearing more of the story it's clear to me that the right thing happened by firing him. What a lying sack a crap he is. Good riddance to bad rubbish. After his 6th grade class opposed the "nudes", he then showed them to his next class, a 5th grade class. These are 10 year old kids. The "library" he got the pictures from isn't the school library, it's the art class library and the school did not provide the posters of the nudes. He claims he didn't, but he also claimed a lot of things that he got caught lying about, like not knowing the nudes were there. The school district claims this isn't the only reason he was fired and after meeting with the district he agreed to not fight his termination. Then in a huff and puff last gasp he proclaims to everyone that we are too closed minded. For what? Not wanting our 5th graders to describe nude pictures to him?? Adios and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Fiannan]

It's unclear exactly why the teacher was fired. Apparently there were complaints about how he handled the situation, not necessarily only because students saw nude art. We might not be getting all the information.

Very wise.
And after hearing more of the story it's clear to me that the right thing happened by firing him. What a lying sack a crap he is. Good riddance to bad rubbish. After his 6th grade class opposed the "nudes", he then showed them to his next class, a 5th grade class. These are 10 year old kids. The "library" he got the pictures from isn't the school library, it's the art class library and the school did not provide the posters of the nudes. He claims he didn't, but he also claimed a lot of things that he got caught lying about, like not knowing the nudes were there. The school district claims this isn't the only reason he was fired and after meeting with the district he agreed to not fight his termination. Then in a huff and puff last gasp he proclaims to everyone that we are too closed minded. For what? Not wanting our 5th graders to describe nude pictures to him?? Adios and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I have seen grade school classes visiting The Vatican Museum and the Hermitage Museum. Should those teachers loose their jobs because there are lots and lots of nude paintings and sculptures in both?

Also, was the art library part of the school?

[shadow]

It's unclear exactly why the teacher was fired. Apparently there were complaints about how he handled the situation, not necessarily only because students saw nude art. We might not be getting all the information.

Very wise.
And after hearing more of the story it's clear to me that the right thing happened by firing him. What a lying sack a crap he is. Good riddance to bad rubbish. After his 6th grade class opposed the "nudes", he then showed them to his next class, a 5th grade class. These are 10 year old kids. The "library" he got the pictures from isn't the school library, it's the art class library and the school did not provide the posters of the nudes. He claims he didn't, but he also claimed a lot of things that he got caught lying about, like not knowing the nudes were there. The school district claims this isn't the only reason he was fired and after meeting with the district he agreed to not fight his termination. Then in a huff and puff last gasp he proclaims to everyone that we are too closed minded. For what? Not wanting our 5th graders to describe nude pictures to him?? Adios and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I have seen grade school classes visiting The Vatican Museum and the Hermitage Museum. Should those teachers loose their jobs because there are lots and lots of nude paintings and sculptures in both?

Also, was the art library part of the school?

You're comparing apples and oranges. But if those teachers wanted the elementary school kids to describe and compare the nudes then yes, they too should be fired.

The teacher lied. He made it out to appear it was an innocent mistake to show the nudes but it wasn't as he later admitted, and after the 6th graders complained he then showed them to the 5th graders in the next class and made a point to point them out, even talked about women's nipples. That isn't his role nor is it approved to show nudes in elementary school. This is common so no seed to compare to a few selected private schools or schools in other countries. Nude art isn't accepted in elementary school and that's pretty much a country wide policy. Had this been an accident like the teacher originally claimed, and had he put them away like he said he did then fine, no reason to fire him. However, that's not what happened.

[PressingForward]

It's unclear exactly why the teacher was fired. Apparently there were complaints about how he handled the situation, not necessarily only because students saw nude art. We might not be getting all the information.

Very wise.
And after hearing more of the story it's clear to me that the right thing happened by firing him. What a lying sack a crap he is. Good riddance to bad rubbish. After his 6th grade class opposed the "nudes", he then showed them to his next class, a 5th grade class. These are 10 year old kids. The "library" he got the pictures from isn't the school library, it's the art class library and the school did not provide the posters of the nudes. He claims he didn't, but he also claimed a lot of things that he got caught lying about, like not knowing the nudes were there. The school district claims this isn't the only reason he was fired and after meeting with the district he agreed to not fight his termination. Then in a huff and puff last gasp he proclaims to everyone that we are too closed minded. For what? Not wanting our 5th graders to describe nude pictures to him?? Adios and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I have seen grade school classes visiting The Vatican Museum and the Hermitage Museum. Should those teachers loose their jobs because there are lots and lots of nude paintings and sculptures in both?

Also, was the art library part of the school?

You're comparing apples and oranges. But if those teachers wanted the elementary school kids to describe and compare the nudes then yes, they too should be fired.

The teacher lied. He made it out to appear it was an innocent mistake to show the nudes but it wasn't as he later admitted, and after the 6th graders complained he then showed them to the 5th graders in the next class and made a point to point them out, even talked about women's nipples. That isn't his role nor is it approved to show nudes in elementary school. This is common so no seed to compare to a few selected private schools or schools in other countries. Nude art isn't accepted in elementary school and that's pretty much a country wide policy. Had this been an accident like the teacher originally claimed, and had he put them away like he said he did then fine, no reason to fire him. However, that's not what happened.

Shadow,
Can you quote the teacher as saying these things you are saying he did? This is clearly Mormons going batcrap over nonsense, and the reason why most LDS youth are immature. Art, is Art. It is not porn, and we should not be ashamed of the human body. I’m ok with my daughter wearing a tank top or shorts or a bikini(no g strings or thongs though, except for volleyball). It’s the young mans fault for his bad thoughts. Period. To believe otherwise is to support burka’s.......

[shadow]

Very wise.
And after hearing more of the story it's clear to me that the right thing happened by firing him. What a lying sack a crap he is. Good riddance to bad rubbish. After his 6th grade class opposed the "nudes", he then showed them to his next class, a 5th grade class. These are 10 year old kids. The "library" he got the pictures from isn't the school library, it's the art class library and the school did not provide the posters of the nudes. He claims he didn't, but he also claimed a lot of things that he got caught lying about, like not knowing the nudes were there. The school district claims this isn't the only reason he was fired and after meeting with the district he agreed to not fight his termination. Then in a huff and puff last gasp he proclaims to everyone that we are too closed minded. For what? Not wanting our 5th graders to describe nude pictures to him?? Adios and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I have seen grade school classes visiting The Vatican Museum and the Hermitage Museum. Should those teachers loose their jobs because there are lots and lots of nude paintings and sculptures in both?

Also, was the art library part of the school?

You're comparing apples and oranges. But if those teachers wanted the elementary school kids to describe and compare the nudes then yes, they too should be fired.

The teacher lied. He made it out to appear it was an innocent mistake to show the nudes but it wasn't as he later admitted, and after the 6th graders complained he then showed them to the 5th graders in the next class and made a point to point them out, even talked about women's nipples. That isn't his role nor is it approved to show nudes in elementary school. This is common so no seed to compare to a few selected private schools or schools in other countries. Nude art isn't accepted in elementary school and that's pretty much a country wide policy. Had this been an accident like the teacher originally claimed, and had he put them away like he said he did then fine, no reason to fire him. However, that's not what happened.

Shadow,
Can you quote the teacher as saying these things you are saying he did? This is clearly Mormons going batcrap over nonsense, and the reason why most LDS youth are immature. Art, is Art. It is not porn, and we should not be ashamed of the human body. I’m ok with my daughter wearing a tank top or shorts or a bikini(no g strings or thongs though, except for volleyball). It’s the young mans fault for his bad thoughts. Period. To believe otherwise is to support burka’s.......

He is another batcrap libtard non member wanting 10 year old children to discuss nude women with him.

[tdj]

It's unclear exactly why the teacher was fired. Apparently there were complaints about how he handled the situation, not necessarily only because students saw nude art. We might not be getting all the information.

I never saw what exactly the teacher showed the students, so I can't say one way or another if what he did was inappropriate. I DO know that my daughter did an art class in her charter school last year that featured some nude arts. When she signed up for the class, she and I both thought it'd be just something like flowers, or Thomas Kinkaid type stuff. But she was very uncomfortable with it and changed classes. However, when she also took a class on reproduction, the topics got quite candid and didn't really mince words, descriptions, or hold anything back. I think it should be age appropriate, which this sounds like it wasn't, but it also depends on presentation. I have NO problem with a biology book showing pictures of reproductive organs, along with descriptions of their functions, but it's essential that it be done in a mature and adult manner.

[JohnnyL]

I don't believe it's "fine art". I'd actually pick abstract crap over nude art.

The CIA would agree:

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201610 ... of-the-cia

See, if you search long enough and hard enough, there's at least one thing you have in common with everyone else.