Texas Teacher Fired for Posting Topless Photos On-line

Austin (Texas) high school officials recently fired art teacher Tamara Hoover, purportedly for posting naked photos of herself on-line at Flickr.com, a very mainstream photo sharing site. As reported by the Houston Chronicle, the photos, which are no more erotic than the statue of David, depict Hoover in a variety of routine activities, including lifting weights, showering, getting dressed, etc. Her breasts are visible in some photos but she is fully clothed in about 90 percent of the photos. Her genitalia are never visible. She did not tell her students or co-workers about the photos yet she is now fighting for her job. Indeed, her students only found out about the photos because they were told about them by another teacher who apparently had some type of grudge against Hoover. Hmmm. More about that later.

Is this yet another example of why people need to stop posting nude photos and other such material about themselves on-line at sites like Flickr but also at social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, and Friendster? Or is this actually an example of a school finding an excuse for firing a lesbian teacher because of her sexual orientation? The school district claims that it fired Hoover because the photos were inappropriate and violate the “higher moral standard” expected of public school teachers. The district is arguing that Hoover became an ineffective teacher simply because nude photos of her were accessible to students. Yet colleagues and students dispute the district’s characterizations of Hoover. Fellow Austin high school teacher Robin Lind stated that she doesn’t view Hoover any differently after having seen the photographs. From Lund’s perspective, the naked photos of Hoover don’t “make her less credible or less respectable.”

So is the real problem the nude photos of Hoover or the relationship that she had with the person who posted them? Celesta Danger, Hoover’s female partner, posted hundreds of photos of Hoover as part of an on-line documentary of their lives together. “I don’t think I can be responsible for other peoples’ perceptions or reactions when they look at my photos, it has to do with their state of mind at the time,” Danger said. “I’m not out to change people’s minds, but I’m not a pornographer.”
CollegeRecruiter.com estimates that about five percent of employers research applicants on sites like Flickr, MySpace, Friendster and Facebook, but that number is growing. In addition, studies indicate that 77 percent of employers use the Internet as part of their background checking process and that 35 percent have rejected candidates as a result of the information they found on-line.
Clearly the posting of the photos on-line was a catalyst in this dispute and Hoover should have been understood that when she allowed Danger to post the photos she was, well, playing dangerously. Yet would the district have moved to revoke the teaching certificate of a heterosexual teacher merely because her husband posted non-erotic photos on-line? I doubt it. And what about the teacher who told Hoover’s students about the naked photos? If the photos were so problematic, then shouldn’t a teacher telling students to go on-line to look at them also be problematic? Yet the district has apparently chosen to take no disciplinary action against the tattle tale. Hmmm.
Perhaps my libertarian nature is just a little too strong, but this action really troubles me. We have naked, not erotic, photos of a teacher posted on-line. The teacher does not tell her co-workers or students. Another teacher tells students where they can find naked photos on-line. The students do so. The teacher whose naked photos were posted on-line by her lesbian partner is then fired. Is this the type of critical thinking that the Austin high school wants from its students? Or is this just another example of small mindedness by public officials who should be spending more of their energy trying to educate our children than in trying to enforce their own sense of morality?