Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Girl Snaps Photo Of Porno Image Being Shown In Class, Gets Suspended

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Girl Snaps Photo Of Porno Image Being Shown In Class, Gets Suspended

    Girl Snaps Photo Of Porno Image Being Shown In Class, Gets Suspended

    By Sarah Fruchtnicht, Fri, May 02, 2014
    Two Kansas high school students were suspended after their teacher projected a pornographic picture in their class and a female student snapped a picture of it with her cell phone.

    Officials at JC Harmon High School in Kansas City said there is policy against students using cell phones in class. Parents want to know why the teacher was showing their kids pornography.

    "When she came home from school she was crying her eyes out, unable to speak about what had happened," parent Laura Lester told KCTV. "It was very upsetting that this is happening when our kids are in school, when they are supposed to be learning."

    Lester says her freshman daughter’s biology teacher hooked up his laptop to project to the class and when he did a pornographic picture popped up. She says her daughter was uncomfortable and snapped a picture of the image to prove the incident to authorities.

    The image "shows the laptop and projector, and in the background, there's an image of a naked woman in a compromising position from behind," KCTV reported. After she took it, she wasn't sure what to do.

    The girl asked her boyfriend about it and he sent the image to a friend asking him what to do. That boy allegedly posted it to Facebook. Then two students were then suspended from school for two days.

    "For inappropriate use of electronics. I have no idea (what that's supposed to mean). I tried to run it through my mind and understand. She was on her own cell phone," Lester said.

    "I believe my son got in trouble because the school was trying to hide something,” Karen Winkel told the news channel.

    The parents say their kids are honor roll students who don't want a suspension on their permanent record.

    "It was very upsetting that this is happening when our kids are in school, when they are supposed to be learning," Lester said.

    Kansas City Public Schools spokesman David Smith told USA Today that the teacher in question has worked in the district since 2002.

    Smith said he could not comment on whether the teacher was disciplined, but said the school "works very hard to maintain strong relationships with parents and continues to be willing to sit down with the parents in this case and work through any issues."
    Peachy.

    - See more at: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie....2a6IGiLQ.dpuf
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  • #2
    I wonder which union represents teachers at J. C. Harmon.
    It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
    In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
    Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
    Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

    Comment


    • #3
      More of the same stupid "zero-tolerance" mentality. No cell-phone use, even if it's to document a crime. No fighting, even to defend yourself or someone else who has been brutally attacked. Treat the victim and the aggressor exactly the same. Who's running these asylums?

      And the administrators who make and enforce these dumbass rules aren't union members, so don't blame it all on the union.
      "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
        More of the same stupid "zero-tolerance" mentality. No cell-phone use, even if it's to document a crime. No fighting, even to defend yourself or someone else who has been brutally attacked. Treat the victim and the aggressor exactly the same. Who's running these asylums?

        And the administrators who make and enforce these dumbass rules aren't union members, so don't blame it all on the union.
        Who is protecting this teacher from being immediately fired?
        It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
        In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
        Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
        Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Adam View Post
          Who is protecting this teacher from being immediately fired?
          The same organization that protects him if some oversexed little twerp who got a bad grade makes a FALSE accusation of sexual misconduct against a teacher. Union contracts protect the due process rights of the teacher. If the accusations are borne out by the evidence, the union not only can't prevent his termination, every one I've ever worked with won't even try.

          Every union contract spells out what conduct is subject to discipline and what the outcomes are for each. Managers or administrators need only follow the steps and a bad employee can be terminated. I have terminated union employees when I was management and I have represented unions which declined to take the part of union members whose discipline was justified. It's really only in your anti-union fantasies (and workplaces where management is too stupid and/or lazy to do it right) that union employees are impossible to fire no matter how egregious their conduct.
          "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
            The same organization that protects him if some oversexed little twerp who got a bad grade makes a FALSE accusation of sexual misconduct against a teacher. Union contracts protect the due process rights of the teacher. If the accusations are borne out by the evidence, the union not only can't prevent his termination, every one I've ever worked with won't even try.

            Every union contract spells out what conduct is subject to discipline and what the outcomes are for each. Managers or administrators need only follow the steps and a bad employee can be terminated. I have terminated union employees when I was management and I have represented unions which declined to take the part of union members whose discipline was justified. It's really only in your anti-union fantasies (and workplaces where management is too stupid and/or lazy to do it right) that union employees are impossible to fire no matter how egregious their conduct.
            There's a difference between due process protection and outright corruption by the unions to discourage anyone from giving testimony - or "stomping the rats" as it is known around here.

            And yes, the administrators are quite likely also union members too. The procedures they are forced to follow almost always require corroboration. That's why the unions make a big deal about protecting the institution and handling things internally.
            "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
            -John Locke

            "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
            -Newman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by scott View Post
              There's a difference between due process protection and outright corruption by the unions to discourage anyone from giving testimony - or "stomping the rats" as it is known around here.

              And yes, the administrators are quite likely also union members too. The procedures they are forced to follow almost always require corroboration. That's why the unions make a big deal about protecting the institution and handling things internally.
              Your experience is unusual. Currently I represent (mostly unionized) employers. I have no difficulty finding witnesses to testify when an employee has actually engaged in on-the-job misconduct or made a false claim. In fact, one of the things that alerts me to the likelihood of a bogus claim is when the employee says they were treated unfairly but claims the union wouldn't help them.
              "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

              Comment

              Working...
              X