• 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
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'll also have to get rid of the school nurses. Some people might have a medical fetish!
 
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)

You can tell when some one knows their argument is weak. It's when they stoop to lying about what others are saying. Let's look at the two claims in order

1) I was the one to mention alcohol, but let's look at what I really said:

While I personally doubt I would have a problem with a kid of mine being taken there(and any chance of that would have more to do with alcohol being served)...

Note that I never said I would object, only that if I did, alcohol would be a bigger issue to me than the outfits. Note also I never suggested schools should not ever take kids to a place without alcohol, only that they get parental permission so parents can make an informed decision on their kids welfare. So we can dismiss argument 1 as a flat out lie, it has no bearing on what any one has actually argued.

2) Again, no one has said anything of the sort. I challenge you to find where any one has said this. The argument is that Hooters is a place likely to cause a parent to object, and that it does not qualify as a "family" restaurant. Again, we can dismiss this as a complete fabrication that has no bearing on the points being argued.

Why is Disney not arguing against the points actually raised? Because the truth is, he has no argument against those points. Parents can and should decide what is appropriate for their children. Parents should be informed of extra-curricular school activities. A teacher who takes kids to a place that is going to be controversial(and this thread proves that it is controversial) without getting parental permission made a very large error in judgment. These are the points that Disney has not addressed, instead trying to paint us liberals who disagree with him as taking a conservative position(it's not), and exaggerating and lying about our arguments, and being generally obtuse.
 
Posts 218 and 221.

You were suggesting that any time that a school group goes to any restaraunt that serves liquour you would require pre-approved parental permission.
So if 1 parent objected to going to that restaurant on the trip, what are you suggesting, the they change the restaurant due to the objections of that one parent or that the kid bring a sack lunch and sit on the bus? Exactly what are you proposing as an alternative? Seems to me that you are suggesting that if any parent objects, then they should find a restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol in any form.....which as many pointed out excludes, Sizzler, Pizza Joints and Chuck E. Cheese.
If this isn't what you are suggesting, then what is your proposal?

As for the rest of your post...I HAVE addressed them many times. YES...parents make the choice to send kids on a trip. However, it is utterly ridiculous that a school be required to supply ever single detail, including every restaurant they will patronize and every location they take a potty break.
These are high school age kids afterall.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why alcohol would be an issue. They're not going to sell it to them are they?
 
I don't see why alcohol would be an issue. They're not going to sell it to them are they?

I think it was just another example of "selective outrage" that has been expressed by those trying desperately to find some argument to support their outrage.
 
It seems like overkill to me. Anyone who has ever been in a Hooter's realizes there's a disappointing level of debauchery occurring. And, these are high school kids. Hooters is strictly PG rated. :roll:

I'm going to guess that the parents have a serious disconnect with their children's everyday activities. They are certainly exposed to more cleavage in their cafeteria on a daily basis.
 
A teacher who takes kids to a place that is going to be controversial(and this thread proves that it is controversial)

I would say just the opposite. The overwhelming majority don't see it as a "controversy" at all. Only a select few that don't have much of an argument to base their "selective outrage" on...other than saying "its a parent's right". To which I would say that you are absolutely correct, it is your right to decide whether to send your kid on the trip or not. It is not your right to dictate to the school every single detail of the trip and to dictate to others on the trip what you believe is appropriate or inappropriate.
As long as the school is following age appropriate bounds, then you as a parent have delegated that authority by allowing your child to attend the trip.
You cannot micromanage the school....and you shouldn't overly micromanage a high school student.
 
IYou cannot micromanage the school....and you shouldn't overly micromanage a high school student.

I think there are a lot of parents who want to strictly control every aspect of their teenagers' lives. The parents in my neighborhood are now monitoring their teenagers by GPS.

The problem is that there is a point of diminishing returns where that level of control leads to an equal level of rebellion as the teenager attempts to establish an independent identity.

These parents would prohibit Hooters but have no idea that their child is abusing skittles or giving
I think by becoming more and more controlling, they believe that they will be able to protect their child from sex, drugs etc.
blowjobs on the school bus. I've seen it with a lot of my daughters' friends. The strictest parents have the kids that are the biggest screw-ups....and the parents have no clue.

One of the kids in our neighborhood was sneaking out several nights a week at age 14 and giving boys blowjobs. I heard about it during car pool. The mom was absolutely convinced that the daughter was a perfect catholic girl. She would be bragging to the rest of us about how perfect her daughter was, and I"d be thinking..."If you only knew." She was exactly the sort of mother to throw a fit over something like this.
 
Last edited:
I would say just the opposite. The overwhelming majority don't see it as a "controversy" at all. Only a select few that don't have much of an argument to base their "selective outrage" on...other than saying "its a parent's right". To which I would say that you are absolutely correct, it is your right to decide whether to send your kid on the trip or not. It is not your right to dictate to the school every single detail of the trip and to dictate to others on the trip what you believe is appropriate or inappropriate.
As long as the school is following age appropriate bounds, then you as a parent have delegated that authority by allowing your child to attend the trip.

When I was in school, there was an annual trip to Chicago. Museum of Science and Industry + Shed's Aquarium(which is awesome beyond words), plus a couple other places that changed every year. Every year a permission slip was sent home for kids who wanted to go, with a list of the stops for the year, including where we would eat. This was not hard to do, and we are talking a significant all day trip(5 am leave time, return after midnight). If a parent had an issue with any of the stops, they could simply not agree to let the kid go. See how easy this is. No one is saying that I have seen that the trip was inappropriate in itself, only that parents should have been able to make the choice whether to send their children on the trip. This is the point you have still failed to comprehend. it's not parental ability to veto trips, it's parental right to not send their child. It's a real right, and belief in this right is not a conservative position. And you have yet to address this, instead making things up, and blowing things out of proportion, just like you claim this parent did.
 
This is the point you have still failed to comprehend. it's not parental ability to veto trips, it's parental right to not send their child. It's a real right, and belief in this right is not a conservative position.

I agree, very much so. However, having said that, as a parent, it is important for me to pick my battles based upon relative importance. In my opinion, this is an extremely minor issue. Of course, I can't say that it isn't the right of the parents to protest, but it says more about the parents and their priorities than it does the teacher.

Just my take.
 
When I was in school, there was an annual trip to Chicago. Museum of Science and Industry + Shed's Aquarium(which is awesome beyond words), plus a couple other places that changed every year. Every year a permission slip was sent home for kids who wanted to go, with a list of the stops for the year, including where we would eat. This was not hard to do, and we are talking a significant all day trip(5 am leave time, return after midnight). If a parent had an issue with any of the stops, they could simply not agree to let the kid go. See how easy this is. No one is saying that I have seen that the trip was inappropriate in itself, only that parents should have been able to make the choice whether to send their children on the trip. This is the point you have still failed to comprehend. it's not parental ability to veto trips, it's parental right to not send their child. It's a real right, and belief in this right is not a conservative position. And you have yet to address this, instead making things up, and blowing things out of proportion, just like you claim this parent did.

I understand what you are saying, but I still believe that it is completely ridiculous for a school to list every restaurant they are going to.
Maybe if these were elementary school children...but at 16-17 years old, you have to give your kids a little leeway and a little respect.
I am not saying that schools should be allowed to take kids to XXX venues or promote drinking, but all-age establishments are certainly appropriate for all ages and therefore for the schools.
If the child doesn't want to go to the establishment because it offends their morals, there are options available, less drastic than requiring them to miss the trip.

I remember in Jr. High that a parent objected because our choir was singing a song from "Jesus Christ Superstar". They were going to cut the number out of the program due to this ONE parents objection, until all the other parents objected to the cutting.
The solution was simple. The kid didn't have to sing the song....and the parents were free to walk out of the auditorium.
The bottom line is - when you release a child to a trip, especially a high school age kid, you have to give them a least a little freedom and respect to make their own decisions. You cannot continue to shelter and micromange them until the day they turn 18.
 
I understand what you are saying, but I still believe that it is completely ridiculous for a school to list every restaurant they are going to.
Maybe if these were elementary school children...but at 16-17 years old, you have to give your kids a little leeway and a little respect.
I am not saying that schools should be allowed to take kids to XXX venues or promote drinking, but all-age establishments are certainly appropriate for all ages and therefore for the schools.
If the child doesn't want to go to the establishment because it offends their morals, there are options available, less drastic than requiring them to miss the trip.

I remember in Jr. High that a parent objected because our choir was singing a song from "Jesus Christ Superstar". They were going to cut the number out of the program due to this ONE parents objection, until all the other parents objected to the cutting.
The solution was simple. The kid didn't have to sing the song....and the parents were free to walk out of the auditorium.
The bottom line is - when you release a child to a trip, especially a high school age kid, you have to give them a least a little freedom and respect to make their own decisions. You cannot continue to shelter and micromange them until the day they turn 18.


My daughter went on trips to Guatemala, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They each included detailed itineraries, including where the kids would be eating (breakfast lunch and dinner) each day. This was for trips out of the country. The trip in question is to the same city. The venue of destination, btw, has an indoor food court, which would have had many food options for kids to choose from, according to comments attached to a local story (saw it earlier today, but I don't have a link right now).

It is just silly for a teacher to say it's too hard to let parents know where he or she is taking kids on a field trip. That's a really incompetent teacher, if that is actually the case.
 
My daughter went on trips to Guatemala, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They each included detailed itineraries, including where the kids would be eating (breakfast lunch and dinner) each day. This was for trips out of the country. The trip in question is to the same city. The venue of destination, btw, has an indoor food court, which would have had many food options for kids to choose from, according to comments attached to a local story (saw it earlier today, but I don't have a link right now).

It is just silly for a teacher to say it's too hard to let parents know where he or she is taking kids on a field trip. That's a really incompetent teacher, if that is actually the case.

Its not a matter of how hard or how easy it is. It is more of a question of What is required. Your experience is different than mine. I went on many trips that included a general itinerary, but didn't include every stop that we made or every restaurant we ate at. I think in a foreign country it might be more common to include that, because you are going on a tour and even for adults those types of things are common.

If you are going on a day trip, the most common thing that I saw growing up was a notice on the permisison slip that we would be away for the day and the child should either bring money for lunch or pack a lunch.

Schools shouldn't have to try to accommodate every parent/child's sensibilities. As long as the establishment is open to all ages...it is all age appropriate and the school shouldn't have to justify its decisions.
The parent has to have enough respect and know their child well enough to make the decision that is appropriate for them. THAT opportunity was afforded to the offended child here. At high school age, they have to be able to make SOME decisions on their own. Parents cannot make every decision for them.
 
Its not a matter of how hard or how easy it is. It is more of a question of What is required. Your experience is different than mine. I went on many trips that included a general itinerary, but didn't include every stop that we made or every restaurant we ate at. I think in a foreign country it might be more common to include that, because you are going on a tour and even for adults those types of things are common.

If you are going on a day trip, the most common thing that I saw growing up was a notice on the permisison slip that we would be away for the day and the child should either bring money for lunch or pack a lunch.

Schools shouldn't have to try to accommodate every parent/child's sensibilities. As long as the establishment is open to all ages...it is all age appropriate and the school shouldn't have to justify its decisions.
The parent has to have enough respect and know their child well enough to make the decision that is appropriate for them. THAT opportunity was afforded to the offended child here. At high school age, they have to be able to make SOME decisions on their own. Parents cannot make every decision for them.

In your opinion, it is appropriate. It is not your right to decide that for other families. And neither is it the teacher's.

High schoolers make plenty of decisions on their own. Parents make decisions about schooling, and school sponsored trips are schooling, and require parental permission.
 
In your opinion, it is appropriate. It is not your right to decide that for other families. And neither is it the teacher's.

High schoolers make plenty of decisions on their own. Parents make decisions about schooling, and school sponsored trips are schooling, and require parental permission.

I'm not saying that it is....but it is ALSO not your right to dictate what is appropriate or not for anyone else.
Schools should not have to be so overly hypervigilant to protect against offending every sensibility or whim of an overprotective parent.

Its simple...if you want to shelter your child, don't allow them to participate in any activities....put them in a private school that meets your sensibilities...or better yet, homeschool them and prevent any influence at all that might offend you from encountering them.

BTW....obviously every other parent had no issue with it. Why is it OK with you to allow this one parent to dictate what is appropriate for their children?
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying that it is....but it is ALSO not your right to dictate what is appropriate or not for anyone else.
Schools should not have to be so overly hypervigilant to protect against offending every sensibility or whim of an overprotective parent.

Its simple...if you want to shelter your child, don't allow them to participate in any activities....put them in a private school that meets your sensibilities...or better yet, homeschool them and prevent any influence at all that might offend you from encountering them.

BTW....obviously every other parent had no issue with it. Why is it OK with you to allow this one parent to dictate what is appropriate for their children?

Who the hell is dictating for other children? The parent was upset because they could not dictate for their own child. The teacher was suspended for being a dumbass. No one is dictating what students can do with parental permission. if the parent does not give permission for their child, only that child is affected.

Schools should be super vigilant to the needs and morals of the parents of the children attending. it's part of their damn job.
 
Who the hell is dictating for other children? The parent was upset because they could not dictate for their own child. The teacher was suspended for being a dumbass. No one is dictating what students can do with parental permission. if the parent does not give permission for their child, only that child is affected.

Schools should be super vigilant to the needs and morals of the parents of the children attending. it's part of their damn job.

No. The teacher was suspended because some over-protective parent got their panties in a tissy because their son didn't exercise his free-will and option to choose a restaurant that his parents would have approved of.
Not dictating? Please...these parents complained because they want to make sure that their view of what is appropriate is put on every other parent and their children.
Maybe these parents should spend more time educating their son and teaching him how to respond when their sensibilities are offended rather than requiring the school to be a babysitter on their behalf and follow their standards of appropriateness. Just sayin.
 
No. The teacher was suspended because some over-protective parent got their panties in a tissy because their son didn't exercise his free-will and option to choose a restaurant that his parents would have approved of.[

Your article does not say this. You have a source? It does say that the choir teacher chose the restaurant, not the students.

Not dictating? Please...these parents complained because they want to make sure that their view of what is appropriate is put on every other parent and their children.

Really? You can prove this claim? It's a pretty strong claim, I would think you could show at least some evidence it is true. The article you link does nothing to suggest it is true. Without evidence, I think it is far more likely that any parental complaint is over where their children went, not an attempt to control the whole districts children.

Maybe these parents should spend more time educating their son and teaching him how to respond when their sensibilities are offended rather than requiring the school to be a babysitter on their behalf and follow their standards of appropriateness. Just sayin.

Ain't your place to tell any one how to raise their children. You would be the first person to throw a fit if some one tried to tell you how to raise your children, and in that case, you would be right.
 
I'm not telling anyone how to raise their child. All I am saying is that it is not the school's responsibility to try to accomodate every sensibility and whim that a parent has.
As a parent, you do your best to raise your children the way that you believe is appropriate and hopefully you instill some values in them as well.
At some point, you have to trust you child to make decisions for themselves. If they disappoint you in their decision making, then you should direct that towards them and teach them...not direct it towards the school.

Again...there was nothing "offensive" about the choice of restaurant as evidenced by the fact that no other parent complained...and as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of responses here on this poll.

Parents need to understand that it is their responsiblity not the school's to babysit their children. If you want to protect your child from making a decision that you disagree with, the option is simple.....keep them at home.
 
I'm not telling anyone how to raise their child. All I am saying is that it is not the school's responsibility to try to accomodate every sensibility and whim that a parent has.
As a parent, you do your best to raise your children the way that you believe is appropriate and hopefully you instill some values in them as well.
At some point, you have to trust you child to make decisions for themselves. If they disappoint you in their decision making, then you should direct that towards them and teach them...not direct it towards the school.

Again...there was nothing "offensive" about the choice of restaurant as evidenced by the fact that no other parent complained...and as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of responses here on this poll.

Parents need to understand that it is their responsiblity not the school's to babysit their children. If you want to protect your child from making a decision that you disagree with, the option is simple.....keep them at home.

You offered child rearing advice, yes you did. You suggest that schools should not have to notify parents about trips, which is taking away from a parent their right to determine what is right for their child.

It is the schools responsibility to give parents enough information to make an informed decision about their own child. It is not the job of the school to assume they know best.

Again, whether Hooters is offensive is in the eye of the beholder. It's not your place to make moral judgments for others. Just because you are not offended does not mean others will not be. Don't make blanket statements like that, it's a weak argument. This thread, and the replies in it are proof that not every one agrees with you that hooters is not offensive. How would you react if some one made a moral judgment for you?
 
You offered child rearing advice, yes you did. You suggest that schools should not have to notify parents about trips, which is taking away from a parent their right to determine what is right for their child.

It is the schools responsibility to give parents enough information to make an informed decision about their own child. It is not the job of the school to assume they know best.

Again, whether Hooters is offensive is in the eye of the beholder. It's not your place to make moral judgments for others. Just because you are not offended does not mean others will not be. Don't make blanket statements like that, it's a weak argument. This thread, and the replies in it are proof that not every one agrees with you that hooters is not offensive. How would you react if some one made a moral judgment for you?

Absolutely. Schools should not have to include every single minute detail regarding every decision they make. (Can you imagine if schools had to send home the next days lesson plans every day in order to have them pre-approved by parents, so as not to offend their sensibilities)?

It is the parents responsibility to parent their own child, not to push off that responsibility on the school. If you teach your child well, they will respond to what you would expect them to.

In this case, the child obviously either was not parented well or went against what his parents taught him. No one forced him to go to Hooters to have his parent's sensibilities offended. In fact, he was given other options and chose to go.

I am not the one trying to place moral judgement on anything. The people that are doing that are the ones that find Hooters offensive to them and seek to impose that belief on others. If you find Hooters offensive...then simple....don't go. If you find Hooters inappropriate for your child, then teach them appropriately, don't expect the school to be your policing agency.

I make moral judgements for no one other than myself and expect others to have that same respect for me. I find it offensive that one parent is seeking to have their views of what is appropriate applied to all.

The school/teacher made a decision that was within their bounds. This was an all-age establishment and thus....appropriate for all ages. The fact that one parent found that it offended their sensibilities....oh well......then teach your child to honor your standards or keep them home and sheltered so that you can ensure that they do.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. Schools should not have to include every single minute detail regarding every decision they make.

Straw man. No one is saying this, they are saying parents should be notified of trip itineraries, which is very doable and easy.

It is the parents responsibility to parent their own child, not to push off that responsibility on the school. If you teach your child well, they will respond to what you would expect them to.

Both the school and the parent have responsibilities. In this case the school did not live up to it's responsibility. Again, planning is trivial, and was trivial back before the internets made it especially easy.

In this case, the child obviously either was not parented well or went against what his parents taught him. No one forced him to go to Hooters to have his parent's sensibilities offended. In fact, he was given other options and chose to go.

He was? Where did this information come from? Not from the article you linked. Do children ever do what their parents would not approve of? Of course they do, especially in peer pressure situations.

I am not the one trying to place moral judgement on anything. The people that are doing that are the ones that find Hooters offensive to them and seek to impose that belief on others. If you find Hooters offensive...then simple....don't go. If you find Hooters inappropriate for your child, then teach them appropriately, don't expect the school to be your policing agency.

Again, you spin and do not address what is being said, and are mistaken to boot. When you said "here was nothing 'offensive' about the choice of restaurant", that is making a moral judgment, which you are then trying to force onto others by taking away their right to choose. The school would not "have to police" if it did something as trivial as notify parents of where their kids are going off campus on a school trip. Then parents could police their own kids, as is appropriate.

I make moral judgements for no one other than myself and expect others to have that same respect for me. I find it offensive that one parent is seeking to have their views of what is appropriate applied to all.

You have yet to show this to be the case. The parent could, and most likely probably was upset that their choice for their child was not respected. There is no evidence in your article, nor in any of your posts that any one is trying to force their morality on any one but their own kids in this case.

The school/teacher made a decision that was within their bounds. This was an all-age establishment and thus....appropriate for all ages. The fact that one parent found that it offended their sensibilities....oh well......then teach your child to honor your standards or keep them home and sheltered so that you can ensure that they do.

it is your opinion that it was appropriate. others disagree.
 
Back
Top Bottom