• 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
I hope this wasn't already posted. I scrolled thru and didn't see it.
From Hooters website:

The element of female sex appeal is prevalent in the restaurants, and the company believes the Hooters Girl is as socially acceptable as a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, or a Radio City Rockette...
Hooters characterizes itself as a neighborhood place, not a typical family restaurant. Sixty-eight percent of customers are male, most between the ages of 25-54. Hooters does not market itself to families, but they do patronize the restaurants. Ten percent of the parties we serve have children in them. Hooters is in the hospitality business and provides the best possible service to anyone coming through the door. For this reason, the chain offers a children's menu.

Hooters.com

So there you have it. Not a family restaurant. 90% of the parties don't bring kids. I think that teacher showed poor judgement. The teen boys probably loved it. Which is why it was poor judgement on her part. :lol: But she should have received a lighter punishment, imo.


Not a family restaurant. They're pretty clear about it.
 
New Rules for High School Teachers (according to some on this site):

You cannot take students:

(1) To a restaurant that serves any kind of alcohol. (No Hooters, No Chili's, No Sizzlers, No Shakeys)

(2) You cannot take children anywhere where they might see a female in short shorts or bikini tops ( No Beaches, No Public Swimming pools...etc)
 
Even Chuck E. Cheese serves alcohol:

Chuck E. Cheese - Menu - Menu Items

Chuck E. Cheese said:
Beverages

(Free refills on all soft drinks)

Coca-Cola® Soft Drinks • Iced Tea • Bottled Water • Milk • Minute Maid® Apple Juice • Coffee • Hot Tea • Beer • Wine


Just clarifying that fact so that we can stop assuming that this bastion of debauchery is wholesome.
 
New Rules for High School Teachers (according to some on this site):

You cannot take students:
<snip>

(2) You cannot take children anywhere where they might see a female in short shorts or bikini tops ( No Beaches, No Public Swimming pools...etc)

I have already addressed this with this:
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.
 
Aren't cheerleader outfits (not too mention some of the maneuvers they engage in) just as bad as the hooters getup?
 
New Rules for High School Teachers (according to some on this site):

You cannot take students:

(1) To a restaurant that serves any kind of alcohol. (No Hooters, No Chili's, No Sizzlers, No Shakeys)

(2) You cannot take children anywhere where they might see a female in short shorts or bikini tops ( No Beaches, No Public Swimming pools...etc)



Your argument has fallen apart. You said they were a family restaurant, no different than any other. They are not, they say they are not. There was no academic reason to go there. There were other choices. A parent objected. A kid was made to feel uncomfortable by an ancillary aspect of an otherwise potentially enriching school sponsored trip.

If you want to take your kids there, go ahead. That has no impact on whether or not it is appropriate for the teacher to take someone else's kids there.
 
Aren't cheerleader outfits (not too mention some of the maneuvers they engage in) just as bad as the hooters getup?


Not at the HS my daughter grad from 2 yrs ago, or the one I grad from way back when.
 
Your argument has fallen apart. You said they were a family restaurant, no different than any other. They are not, they say they are not. There was no academic reason to go there. There were other choices. A parent objected. A kid was made to feel uncomfortable by an ancillary aspect of an otherwise potentially enriching school sponsored trip.

If you want to take your kids there, go ahead. That has no impact on whether or not it is appropriate for the teacher to take someone else's kids there.

Except the complaint was made after the fact.

EDIT: BTW, the hilarity is that girls wear more revealing things to high school than the Hooters outfit.
 
I hope this wasn't already posted. I scrolled thru and didn't see it.
From Hooters website:

The element of female sex appeal is prevalent in the restaurants, and the company believes the Hooters Girl is as socially acceptable as a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, or a Radio City Rockette...
Hooters characterizes itself as a neighborhood place, not a typical family restaurant. Sixty-eight percent of customers are male, most between the ages of 25-54. Hooters does not market itself to families, but they do patronize the restaurants. Ten percent of the parties we serve have children in them. Hooters is in the hospitality business and provides the best possible service to anyone coming through the door. For this reason, the chain offers a children's menu.

Hooters.com

So there you have it. Not a family restaurant. 90% of the parties don't bring kids. I think that teacher showed poor judgement. The teen boys probably loved it. Which is why it was poor judgement on her part. :lol: But she should have received a lighter punishment, imo.

Not a TYPICAL family restaurant, and no more "Un-Family" than Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.
 
Except the complaint was made after the fact.

EDIT: BTW, the hilarity is that girls wear more revealing things to high school than the Hooters outfit.


The parent's complaint was after the fact, the kid's wasn't.


And, girls, and boys, at my local HS have a dress code. Hooters outfits are not permissable school attire. Less is definitely not.
 
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.
 
Your argument has fallen apart. You said they were a family restaurant, no different than any other. They are not, they say they are not. There was no academic reason to go there. There were other choices. A parent objected. A kid was made to feel uncomfortable by an ancillary aspect of an otherwise potentially enriching school sponsored trip.

If you want to take your kids there, go ahead. That has no impact on whether or not it is appropriate for the teacher to take someone else's kids there.

Is there an "academic reason" to go to ANY restaurant that is incidental to an otherwise planned school outing? I fail to see any "academic reason" why Chili's or Denny's or Burger King would have been a better choice.

Because one parent objected, we are going to allow them to dictate what is appropriate and what isn't?

If you read the article, the kid who's parents object CHOSE to go with the group. Others offered to go to Subway with him. There were other options available if he chose to accept the offer.
 
Not at the HS my daughter grad from 2 yrs ago, or the one I grad from way back when.

They were at my high school in UTAH of all places. I remember distinctly, the Cheerleaders doing a dance where they would turn around and flip their skirts up exposing their rear ends...that were covered in tights.

Something like..."We're gonna beat the Whoopie out of you".

Again....this is "selective outrage"...nothing more.
 
Is there an "academic reason" to go to ANY restaurant that is incidental to an otherwise planned school outing? I fail to see any "academic reason" why Chili's or Denny's or Burger King would have been a better choice.

Because one parent objected, we are going to allow them to dictate what is appropriate and what isn't?

If you read the article, the kid who's parents object CHOSE to go with the group. Others offered to go to Subway with him. There were other options available if he chose to accept the offer.


Of course not. However, there was no reason TO go to Hooter's, therefore deciding whether or not to take the kids to a place that markets sex appeal is a no-brainer. NO.

There was no inherent reason they had to go there.
The reason given (that no other place could accomodate the group) is bogus.
The parents did not give permission.
The school did not give permission.

This is really simple - the teacher was over the line. And her followup lie (that NO other place could feed them) makes her situation even worse.

I initially thought suspending the teach was too much. I've changed my mind. She earned the suspension.
 
Of course not. However, there was no reason TO go to Hooter's, therefore deciding whether or not to take the kids to a place that markets sex appeal is a no-brainer. NO.

There was no inherent reason they had to go there.
The reason given (that no other place could accomodate the group) is bogus.
The parents did not give permission.
The school did not give permission.

This is really simple - the teacher was over the line. And her followup lie (that NO other place could feed them) makes her situation even worse.

I initially thought suspending the teach was too much. I've changed my mind. She earned the suspension.

But that's exactly it...there was no inherent reason to go there or NOT to go there. It was an age appropriate restaurant open to ALL AGES.
Sorry....but there are many places, including HIGH SCHOOLS that market sex appeal. You cannot tell me that Cheerleading and Drill teams do not exist for sex appeal...they ALWAYS have.

Its ridiculous to think that whenever students go on an outing, especially one for several days, that the school would have to Pre-Approve every restaurant or stop that they make.
 
They were at my high school in UTAH of all places. I remember distinctly, the Cheerleaders doing a dance where they would turn around and flip their skirts up exposing their rear ends...that were covered in tights.

Something like..."We're gonna beat the Whoopie out of you".

Again....this is "selective outrage"...nothing more.



Well, then, perhaps your school would have given permission; mine wouldn't have. That's fer sure. My daughter went on three extended field trips during her time in school. They were very exacting in all their permissions and itineraries. The chaperoning teachers all exercised excellent judgement, as well. I was very happy with all involved, every time.


And, in this situation, the teacher got permission from neither the school, nor the parents.
 
But that's exactly it...there was no inherent reason to go there or NOT to go there. It was an age appropriate restaurant open to ALL AGES.
Sorry....but there are many places, including HIGH SCHOOLS that market sex appeal. You cannot tell me that Cheerleading and Drill teams do not exist for sex appeal...they ALWAYS have.

Its ridiculous to think that whenever students go on an outing, especially one for several days, that the school would have to Pre-Approve every restaurant or stop that they make.


You're clearly incorrect about this. There is an inherent reason not to go. One of the parents involved in the trip objected. One of the kids objected. Some of the posters in this thread objected.

It is neither age-appropriate nor content-appropriate for a school sponsored trip. The target market of this restaurant is males aged 25-54.
 
You're clearly incorrect about this. There is an inherent reason not to go. One of the parents involved in the trip objected. One of the kids objected. Some of the posters in this thread objected.

It is neither age-appropriate nor content-appropriate for a school sponsored trip. The target market of this restaurant is males aged 25-54.


I cannot believe that you would support the parents of one child to dictate to everyone else what is appropriate or not. Can you imagine if every single restaurant had to appeal to every single parent?

I went on many school trips and a "general" itinerary was planned...but it rarely included the restaurants we would eat at or where we would stop for potty breaks.

Seriously....there are some posters here that are objecting to going to ANY restaurant that serve liquor. Are we seriously going to put up with this type of BS from any parent that gets their panties in a bunch over any little issue?
 
Not at the HS my daughter grad from 2 yrs ago, or the one I grad from way back when.

I used to love the way the cheerleaders did the splits after they got tossed in the air when I was in school because you could usually get a peek at some camel toe.
 
I used to love the way the cheerleaders did the splits aster they got tossed in the air when I was in school because you could usually get a peek at some camel toe.


I couldn't say, cheerleaders were utterly uninteresting to me when I was in HS. :cool:
 
I used to love the way the cheerleaders did the splits aster they got tossed in the air when I was in school because you could usually get a peek at some camel toe.

Seriously...if we are going to take "sexuality" completely out of schools....then we need to ban cheerleading/cheer squads or completely alter their uniforms and dance styles.
 
Seriously...if we are going to take "sexuality" completely out of schools....then we need to ban cheerleading/cheer squads or completely alter their uniforms and dance styles.

We'd also need to travel back in time to say...pre 1950's?
 
I was a normal teenage boy. The only thing I found interesting in high school was vag.


Well, that's a different statement than staring at cheerleaders hoping to get a peek at a wedgie. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom