• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hooters - should this teacher be suspended for this?

Was it correct to suspend this teacher for taking the students to "Hooters" restauran

  • Total voters
    81
Redress said:
it is your opinion that it was appropriate. others disagree.
Click to expand...

You are correct. It is my opinion. If you believe Hooters is inappropriate, keep you child at home where they won't be exposed to anything that you might find offensive....or teach them to obey and/or follow your rules.

I don't expect the school to police my child. My child, especially at high school age, should know what I find appropriate or not and make their choices based on what I have taught them. I don't need the school to be my police agent if my child is taught properly.
 
Last edited:
finebead said:
You are right. You mention nothing about its appropriateness for high schoolers, brought there by there teacher. The Hooters 2006 employee agreement said its main concept was "female sex appeal". Now, it may just be a restaurant, but its not just any restaurant.

In public school, a teacher has a responsibility to each student not to put the student in situations that offend the student. The teacher has a responsibility to the parents not to put the students in situations that violate the moral teaching of the parents.

I assume some parents beside me believe that it is wrong to objectify women as sex objects. That's what Hooters does. Is it so blatant that every moral person in america objects to Hooters? No, its not that bad. I have been to Hooters twice, once with a group of guys from work, and once with one other guy from work. I have never been back, and I don't plan to. Below average food for above average prices, marketed on the sex appeal of the girls. I'd rather have a good hamburger somewhere else.

It is not that bad of a place, but better choices for a school group were available in downtown Phoenix. Just go someplace else. The administration suspended the teacher as they should have, for exercising poor judgment. Nobody charged her with a crime, nobody said she can't teach anymore. It wasn't a horrible judgment error, but it was a minor error and she suffers a minor punishment. Good job by the school administration.
Click to expand...

So, taking high-schoolers to a national restaurant chain that is patronized by millions of people every year is poor judgment? Strange...
 
Dezaad said:
He has done nothing of the sort. Clothing has more context than simply the person wearing it. I suppose you would support girls wearing bathing suits to their high school classes? How about the teachers doing the same?

Deliberately charging an atmosphere with sexuality where that sexuality is traditionally absent: That is the appeal of Hooters. That is the crux of the matter with regard to the teacher's judgement.
Click to expand...

Oh yea, the Hooters atmosphere is just CHARGED with sexuality. It's virtually dripping off the walls!

:roll:
 
Regicollis said:
So what really happened here? A teacher took an all-male group of students to a restaurant where the waitresses wear a little less clothes than in other places. What is the big deal? - I'm sure male high school students already knows how big-busted women looks.

What also puzzles me is that the school bends over backwards to appease the parents of the single student. Even if there was a reason to believe the teacher did something wrong, surely a milder sanction would be in place.

I would be happy if someone could clarify exactly why some people are so afraid of anything remotely sexual and why the rest of American society seems so afraid of these people and so willing to appease them.
Click to expand...

It's a mystery, really. Americans are fixated upon sex, but in a very unhealthy and repressed way.
 
disneydude said:
You are correct. It is my opinion. If you believe Hooters is inappropriate, keep you child at home where they won't be exposed to anything that you might find offensive....or teach them to obey and/or follow your rules.

I don't expect the school to police my child. My child, especially at high school age, should know what I find appropriate or not and make their choices based on what I have taught them. I don't need the school to be my police agent if my child is taught properly.
Click to expand...

So you are now suggesting that a parent should keep their kids from school on the off chance a teacher might take them to Hooters? How could this kid obey the parental rules when it was not his choice to go there, and he may not have had his parents explicitly say "Hooters is off limits"? Why should a kid even be put into that position, when a permission slip with an itinerary is trivial to use? The school would not have to police anything if a proper procedure had been used.
 
Regicollis said:
So what really happened here? A teacher took an all-male group of students to a restaurant where the waitresses wear a little less clothes than in other places. What is the big deal? - I'm sure male high school students already knows how big-busted women looks.

What also puzzles me is that the school bends over backwards to appease the parents of the single student. Even if there was a reason to believe the teacher did something wrong, surely a milder sanction would be in place.

I would be happy if someone could clarify exactly why some people are so afraid of anything remotely sexual and why the rest of American society seems so afraid of these people and so willing to appease them.
Click to expand...

It's not that big of a deal.
But what is the big deal about expecting a little professionalism from teachers? There are other, more appropriate restaurants for a teacher to take her students. I think it's a bit extreme to draw the conclusion that some people are "afraid" of anything remotely sexual. Jeesh. Just show some common sense and take them to Applebees or whatever. How hard is that?
 
Redress said:
So you are now suggesting that a parent should keep their kids from school on the off chance a teacher might take them to Hooters? How could this kid obey the parental rules when it was not his choice to go there, and he may not have had his parents explicitly say "Hooters is off limits"? Why should a kid even be put into that position, when a permission slip with an itinerary is trivial to use? The school would not have to police anything if a proper procedure had been used.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that if your sensibilities are such that you are easily offended and worried about what your child is exposed to, the simple answer is home schooling. That way you can protect your child from everything that might offend you.

Maybe its not in the article, I don't remember, but I know for a fact in following the story that they kid of the offended parents expressed concern that his parents wouldn't want him to go there. Several students offered to go to the Subway restaurant with him. However, he declined and made the choice to go. That shows that he knew what his parents expected....he had a choice...an option...and he chose to go.

Why should a school be put in a position to have to try to please the whim/sensibilities of every parent that might be offended? Seriously.
If you are that sensitive to what your child might be exposed to, then don't let him go on the trip.

The school should not have to follow a procedure that gives every menial detail on an itinerary....any more than they should be required to have their lesson plans pre-screened on a daily basis so as not to offend anyone.
A general itinerary detailing the basics of the trip should suffice and as long as the school adheres to proper supervision utilizing restaurants that are suitable for all ages and open to all ages...THAT is sufficient and they shouldn't be required to take steps to nurture people and their selective outrage and sensibilities.
 
disneydude said:
What I am saying is that if your sensibilities are such that you are easily offended and worried about what your child is exposed to, the simple answer is home schooling. That way you can protect your child from everything that might offend you.
Click to expand...

So, home school, or actually plan trips as has been done for decades. Wonder which makes more sense...

Maybe its not in the article, I don't remember, but I know for a fact in following the story that they kid of the offended parents expressed concern that his parents wouldn't want him to go there. Several students offered to go to the Subway restaurant with him. However, he declined and made the choice to go. That shows that he knew what his parents expected....he had a choice...an option...and he chose to go.
Click to expand...

Without details, there is no way of knowing. However, again, if this story is accurate, then even the teacher knew without question that the choice of places to go was going to be controversial. Bad judgment in the extreme then.

Why should a school be put in a position to have to try to please the whim/sensibilities of every parent that might be offended? Seriously.
If you are that sensitive to what your child might be exposed to, then don't let him go on the trip.
Click to expand...

Why should any employee have to please his bosses? If the parent had known in advance that Hooters was part of the trip, they probably would not have let their kid go. Planning, it easy and beneficial.

The school should not have to follow a procedure that gives every menial detail on an itinerary....any more than they should be required to have their lesson plans pre-screened on a daily basis so as not to offend anyone.
A general itinerary detailing the basics of the trip should suffice and as long as the school adheres to proper supervision utilizing restaurants that are suitable for all ages and open to all ages...THAT is sufficient and they shouldn't be required to take steps to nurture people and their selective outrage and sensibilities.
Click to expand...

This whole thing proves that it is not sufficient. Poor judgment on the teachers part shows why it is not sufficient.
 
How dare a child be subjected to this! With all the wholesome material on TV, conservative school dress codes, and a society that assails our children with righteousness and good morals at every turn, how can we NOT expect anger and disgust from a parent whose child was just FORCIBLY SUBJECTED TO THIS FILTH!?
hooters-waitresses-1.JPG

I HOPE I DON'T GET BANNED FOR POSTING SUCH SMUT!

The Parent's anger and School's actions are completely justified.



:roll:
 
Redress said:
So, home school, or actually plan trips as has been done for decades. Wonder which makes more sense...



Without details, there is no way of knowing. However, again, if this story is accurate, then even the teacher knew without question that the choice of places to go was going to be controversial. Bad judgment in the extreme then.



Why should any employee have to please his bosses? If the parent had known in advance that Hooters was part of the trip, they probably would not have let their kid go. Planning, it easy and beneficial.



This whole thing proves that it is not sufficient. Poor judgment on the teachers part shows why it is not sufficient.
Click to expand...

Once again....your post is nothing more than stretching to find some basis to support your feigned selective outrage.

Why would patronizing a national all-age restaurant be considered "Controversial"? Obviously to other than a minor few...it isn't. That's why it is "selective outrage".

Why should the school have to change its policies to avoid offending the sensibilities of ONE parent. They shouldn't

Perhaps parents who are so concerned about what their high school child is subjected to should take the trip with them. That way they can cover their eyes and ears anytime they see or hear anything that they don't approve of.

C'mon people. Get real. If you this is not selective outrage and you really are that hypersensitive that you are offended by this, then you really should stick to Perkins...because in the real world, Beer is served at many restaurants and people may see women in shorts and tanktops.
 
disneydude said:
Once again....your post is nothing more than stretching to find some basis to support your feigned selective outrage.
Click to expand...

Ummm...you are the one who is outraged here, remember. I am the one who thinks the school handled the situation properly when they found out about it.

Why would patronizing a national all-age restaurant be considered "Controversial"? Obviously to other than a minor few...it isn't. That's why it is "selective outrage".
Click to expand...

Explain how you can deny it is controversial when several in this very thread have explained why they would disapprove? Just because you see no problem with it does not mean that it is not controversial. Next you are going to tell me abortion is not controversial...

Why should the school have to change its policies to avoid offending the sensibilities of ONE parent. They shouldn't
Click to expand...

To make them better? The point is not the "one parent", it's the fact that this highlights a potentially flawed system.

Perhaps parents who are so concerned about what their high school child is subjected to should take the trip with them. That way they can cover their eyes and ears anytime they see or hear anything that they don't approve of.
Click to expand...

Or some one could take 5 minutes and list the plan for the day for the parents on the form that they sent home to sign. That would make alot more sense.

C'mon people. Get real. If you this is not selective outrage and you really are that hypersensitive that you are offended by this, then you really should stick to Perkins...because in the real world, Beer is served at many restaurants and people may see women in shorts and tanktops.
Click to expand...

Again, dishonesty and hyperbole. I stated already, more than once I was not offended. I also am not outraged, that is you. Selective outrage is in fact likely in your case, as I can think of several places a school might take kids you would disapprove of as a parent. Let's say the school took your kids to a church service without notifying you, would you be so relaxed about it?

I want to repeat to you the real meat of this, the point that you still have not argued. The point is not what kind of place Hooters is, not what is worn by the waitresses there, not what is served. it's that a teacher took students to a place that simple common sense would have let her know would piss off at least one parent(and by your account, the kid in question even said as much) without getting permission or notifying the parents. Parents are the arbiters of what their kids should see, and where there kids should go. The parents make the rules, not the state. The state has no business making these decisions. The state serves the people, and in this case, poorly served one of it's employers. And yes, a school is part of the state unless it is private.
 
EpicDude86 said:
How dare a child be subjected to this! With all the wholesome material on TV, conservative school dress codes, and a society that assails our children with righteousness and good morals at every turn, how can we NOT expect anger and disgust from a parent whose child was just FORCIBLY SUBJECTED TO THIS FILTH!?
hooters-waitresses-1.JPG

I HOPE I DON'T GET BANNED FOR POSTING SUCH SMUT!

The Parent's anger and School's actions are completely justified.



:roll:
Click to expand...

Succubi! Kill them! lest they steal away with our young ones!
 
Ethereal said:
Succubi! Kill them! lest they steal away with our young ones!
Click to expand...

The odd part is I don't think a single one of those are attractive at all.
 
...not suspended, but seriously warned that any action in the future might result in suspension or termination. Morality is opinionated, but I would be extremely upset if my kids were taken to Hooters without my consent. I have been there, like the view and the food isn't crap, almost, but the view, and the beer, makes up for the food. That said, teenage boys don't need any more encouragement in viewing womant as sex objects, and this has no place being done in relation to a school. Hooters is not like TGIF, Hooters has essentially models walking around in tight shorts and tight tops. Why didn't she just take them to TGIF instead?
 
Bodhisattva said:
...not suspended, but seriously warned that any action in the future might result in suspension or termination. Morality is opinionated, but I would be extremely upset if my kids were taken to Hooters without my consent. I have been there, like the view and the food isn't crap, almost, but the view makes up for the food. That said, teenage boys don't need any more encouragement in viewing womant as sex objects, and this has no place being done in relation to a school. Hooters is not like TGIF, Hooters has essentially models walking around in tight shorts and tight tops. Why didn't she just take them to TGIF instead?
Click to expand...

Because the boys wanted to go to Hooters. An utterly tame, perfectly mainstream restaurant chain.
 
Ethereal said:
Because the boys wanted to go to Hooters. An utterly tame, perfectly mainstream restaurant chain.
Click to expand...

So kids should get to do whatever they "want" to do then?

...and it is not perfectly tame, it has waitresses walking around in tight revealing clothing. I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with the parents not being informed though. That is what I said if you read it with an openess.
 
Redress said:
It's not in any way. It was a general comment.
Click to expand...

Okay, because I'm sensing this idea that the inappropriateness of Hooters has something to do with the waitresses being "attractive", as if they become sexual by mere virtue of their physical features.
 
Bodhisattva said:
So kids should get to do whatever they "want" to do then?
Click to expand...

Did I say that?

...and it is not perfectly tame, it has waitresses walking around in tight revealing clothing. I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with the parents not being informed though. That is what I said if you read it with an openess.
Click to expand...

I was at a weekend meet for cross-country once and our coaches took us to a restaurant, one we wanted to go to. Were my coaches obligated to contact my parents before taking me to a restaurant? I mean, I ate at restaurants all the time when I was in high-school, many times without informing my parents. I didn’t know that going to restaurants was such a huge deal nowadays.
 
Ethereal said:
Okay, because I'm sensing this idea that the inappropriateness of Hooters has something to do with the waitresses being "attractive", as if they become sexual by mere virtue of their physical features.
Click to expand...

It is inappropriate for a teacher to take a bunch of teenage boys because of the all-female waitress staff that is wearing tight, short and revealing clothing that no other normal restaurant, and certainly not a family one, wears...
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is inappropriate because of the all-female waitress staff that is wearing tight, short and revealing clothing that no other normal restaurant, and certainly not a family one, wears...
Click to expand...

So, it would be okay if the teacher had taken the boys to a "family restaurant"?
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is inappropriate for a teacher to take a bunch of teenage boys because of the all-female waitress staff that is wearing tight, short and revealing clothing that no other normal restaurant, and certainly not a family one, wears...
Click to expand...

I wonder what kind of TV the parent that got mad let the child watch...probably even bought the kid some M rated games. :D What was that term from earlier? "Selective Outrage" I like it. I could be wrong however, the parents could be fundamentalist religious zealots...
 
Ethereal said:
Did I say that?



I was at a weekend meet for cross-country once and our coaches took us to a restaurant, one we wanted to go to. Were my coaches obligated to contact my parents before taking me to a restaurant? I mean, I ate at restaurants all the time when I was in high-school, many times without informing my parents. I didn’t know that going to restaurants was such a huge deal nowadays.
Click to expand...

You said that they wanted to go, and that indicates that this reason is why the teacher took them. The problem is, that this negates the very real and very necessary role of parent and teacher responsibility for decision making for minors and those in their care.

Hooters is not a normal restaurant... until you accept this, there is no reason to discuss anything further. Hooters used to make national headlines for various reasons regarding the role of woman and their clothing... deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom