Slashdot Mirror


Student, Denied Degree For MySpace Photo, Sues

gwoodrow writes "We've all heard the 'fired because of MySpace' stories, where a simple blog or picture gets someone canned. But now one of the targets is fighting back. (The offending picture in this case was a snap from Halloween 2005 of the student in a pirate outfit drinking from a cup.)" From the article: "Teacher in training Stacy Snyder was denied her education degree on the eve of graduation when Millersville University apparently found pictures on her MySpace page 'promoting underage drinking.' As a result, the 27-year-old mother of two had her teaching certificate withheld and was granted an English degree instead. In response, Snyder has filed a Federal lawsuit against the Pennsylvania university asking for her education diploma and certificate along with $75,000 in damages."

84 of 823 comments (clear)

  1. umm by otacon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    2005 was 2 years ago, and she's 27 now, that makes her 25 in the photo...how is this underage drinking again?

    --
    In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
    1. Re:umm by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2005 was 2 years ago, and she's 27 now, that makes her 25 in the photo...how is this underage drinking again?

      Wrong. The cup was clearly full of liquid LSD, which is a federal felony.

      I just don't get the human race. It just seems clear that no matter what century it is, there is some kind of witch hunt or persecution of somebody for something. Is there anybody that has read something about this human phenonemon? Is there going to be a time when humans just don't do this kind of thing?

    2. Re:umm by Johnny5000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2005 was 2 years ago, and she's 27 now, that makes her 25 in the photo...how is this underage drinking again?

      I'm sure they originally thought she was 20 in the picture, and wanted to withhold her teaching certificate for underage drinking. Then when they found out she was 25 in the photo, they changed their story to not wanting anyone who has had alcohol touch their virgin lips to be teaching young children, rather than admitting they were wrong.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    3. Re:umm by subterfuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is there going to be a time when humans just don't do this kind of thing?

      no

    4. Re:umm by Knight+Thrasher · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not to mention that if you read the cup, it's a cup advertising Chocolate. Nothing about beer is mentioned in the picture. Now, I COULD be mistaken, but I'm fairly positive Hersheys Mr Goodbars contain NO alcohol.


      =_= Unless...

      ... this isn't about alcohol at all! Instead, a conservative right-wing conspiracy covering up the left-wing media frenzy over HOT CHOCOLATE!

    5. Re:umm by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This whole thing is simply idiotic, it seems obvious someone is out to "get her" and has convinced enough people to start cranking the wheels of "the complaint process". If it's fair game to investigate this womans life then what about the person(s) who put in the complaint, do they have alternative motivations? - Religion, revenge, nappy-wearing-jelousy?

      A system of formal complaints that can screw up your life must be accountable, if formal complaints are to be taken seriously then abuse of the system needs to be puni$hed.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:umm by inviolet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just don't get the human race. It just seems clear that no matter what century it is, there is some kind of witch hunt or persecution of somebody for something. Is there anybody that has read something about this human phenonemon? Is there going to be a time when humans just don't do this kind of thing?

      You already understand that humans are utterly self-centered. Yet many of them have that irresistible desire to control others. It's a paradox, but still frighteningly logical...

      Humans seek to control in others what they wish they could control in themselves.

      They hate it when other people are having more fun than they are.

      And they will cling to their moral rules even after those rules have lost their basis. (Certainly the mutual enforcement of morality is justifiably important in any family, tribe, or society, and certaintly this is an unending chore. But still: moral rules exist to maximize something; they are not divine ends-in-themselves.)

      The current war against birth control illustrates all three phenomena of control:

      1. "I hate my profligate urges, but at least I can feel better about them by cracking down on yours."
      2. "Hey, no fair getting laid twice a week! My husband barely wants me once a month!"
      3. Them: "Promiscuous behavior is immoral because it creates unintentional babies."
        You: "But birth control ends that risk; therefore, there is no longer any basis for condemning promiscuous behavior. Your moral rule is obsolete."
        Them: "Then to protect morality, we must ban birth control."
      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    7. Re:umm by got2liv4him · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The current war against birth control illustrates all three phenomena of control:

      1. "I hate my profligate urges, but at least I can feel better about them by cracking down on yours."
      2. "Hey, no fair getting laid twice a week! My husband barely wants me once a month!"
      3. Them: "Promiscuous behavior is immoral because it creates unintentional babies."
        You: "But birth control ends that risk; therefore, there is no longer any basis for condemning promiscuous behavior. Your moral rule is obsolete."
        Them: "Then to protect morality, we must ban birth control."

      Isn't that what they call a straw man argument... I mean look at number two, you are invoking your opinion on why people believe certain things (it must be that they aren't getting any, so they don't want me to). You have put those with different opinions than you in a box, and then made up there thoughts so you can be better than them... isn't that what your post was complaining about in the first place?

      --
      King of kings and Lord of lords
    8. Re:umm by paeanblack · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Regardless of the picture, the School District or college have no right to amend her graduation qualifications, based on a single party photograph.

      They do, however, need to consider her serious lack of judgement and forethought in handling the photo. The fact that she got drunk and someone snapped a photo is no big deal. The fact that she thought it would be a good idea to publish that photo to the entire world is a completely different matter.

      Teachers, like many others, must maintain separation between their personal and professional lives. How is this any different from her standing in front of a classroom talking about how hammered she got the night before? It's just not even remotely appropriate for her to publicize her nightlife, especially in places where students will find it.

    9. Re:umm by Phyvo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact is, children require sacrifice, and when given the option many people will just avoid sacrificing. This is why in Europe and Japan population is declining, and why, unless a new pro-family and pro-child secular ethos is created, religious people will be the ones keeping society going.

      Now, I'm not saying that birth control is all a bad thing. My parents used birth control (but they still had 3 kids), my sister and her husband are using "natural" birth control (because she's allergic to something, I think). But it has had bad unintended consequences. A society with no children is a society with no future.

    10. Re:umm by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since you want to call people names, dumbass, the point is she was doing something completely legal & is getting punished for it using an arbitrary rule created on the spot to punish her. I know it's bizzaro-cool for us socially inept geeks to ridicule anything having to do with MySpace or "social networking" but they are trampling on this young lady's rights.

      I hope she takes them to the cleaners.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    11. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think it is more the case that children absorb as right the behaviors and ideas they are exposed to. When they grow up, there is a deep emotional attachment to those well worn ruts in their mental road, and to leave them behind is emotionally painful. Additionally, it is normal that many of those ideas are about who is bad and deserves to be punished... transgressions eliciting a strong anger and outrage.

    12. Re:umm by Wolfger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Teachers, like many others, must maintain separation between their personal and professional lives.
      Uh... A MySpace page is definitely personal, and not professional. I don't think that this poor lady has any problem whatsoever making a distinction between personal and professional. I think it's the school, the initiator of the complaint, and apparently you who have problems with maintaining that separation. It's already hard enough to get good teachers, without asking them also to give up their humanity for the sake of the job. What any teacher does on his or her personal time, whether or not they talk about it or post pictures on their personal website, is their own damn business.
    13. Re:umm by hunterkll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, So you have a problem with it.....

      I don't have a problem with you having a problem with it, just don't legislate away things just because you have a problem with something....

      I can understand if it's seriously detrimental (Like theft and such), but other than that...

      Don't legislate my freedoms away because of your opinions.

    14. Re:umm by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's usually a big thing when coupled with AIDS, particularly in Africa. People say silly things like we can't give prostitutes condoms because then they might use them. Then African bishops spread FUD about condoms, and meanwhile millions of people die.

      Although lately a similar issue has sprung up with a human papaloma vaccine. Is giving your daughter a vaccine for a STD at 11 condoning sex?

    15. Re:umm by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, the fact that it's not your life would mean that you should frankly STFU and stop attempting to impose your own morality through bad law. That's the essence of a theocracy, you know...

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    16. Re:umm by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      1) Don't be afraid to approach people in a friendly manner. You don't need fancy pick-up lines. Seriously. 2) Commit (e.g. sit down with them instead of hovering over) and get committment out of them (tell their own stories, jokes, buy you stuff in return for you buying them stuff). 3) Don't be afraid to reveal attraction.
      1) But you do need to appear confident. Confidence is attractive to both sexes, so this applies whoever you are. 2) Learn how to make idle conversation. Find people who you have something in common with. Join a book club, a hobby group, go to a convention, anywhere there are many people of the appropriate sex that have something in common with you. It makes it easy to start a conversation when you already know that you and the person you'd like to meet have similar interests. 3) Yes, but don't over-do it or be annoying about it either. -- a geek happily-married for two years. ;)
    17. Re:umm by compro01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that she got drunk and someone snapped a photo is no big deal

      and where exactly is there any evidance that she was actually drunk?

      i see a plastic cup, which no evidance that there is anything alcoholic in it and she doesn't seem to be drunk in the picture either.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    18. Re:umm by TheGavster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that promiscuous behaviour isn't immoral because of unintentional babies at all.

      You have missed the point of the argument. A group opposes promiscuity on moral grounds. Moral grounds are not a valid reason to pass a law, so they develop a related social issue, unintentional babies. When their social issue is ameliorated while still allowing people to partake in the "immoral" activity, they try to ban things in an effort to restore the social problem.

      In any case, not everyone who has sex for pleasure is doing it as a fling. Many people in committed relationships simply do not want children, and thus partake in sex via safe means.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    19. Re:umm by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's immoral to people that consider that you should dedicate yourself to a relationship with one person.

      It is perfectly fine for you to decided that you want to dedicate yourself to a relationship with one person. If you ask my opinion about the potential pitfalls along that approach, I'll tell you want I think, but tell you, "knock yourself out - whatever works for you".

      It is not ok for you to decide that I should dedicate myself to a relationship with one person; you don't get to dictate what style of relationship makes me happy, any more that you get to decide what sort of music makes me happy. You are free to report your own experiences, preferences, even speculations: but when you attempt to tell me how I "should" love, you've left the realm of useful discourse. And when attempts are made through public policy to dicate how people "should" love, a sane society would hand those poltiicans a whuppin'.

      People don't outlaw breaking and entering because they are jealous that they can't crack safes, etc.

      Non sequitor. B & E is a violation of the rights of others; if my girlfriends and I decide to have open relationships, that's not a violation of anyone's rights.

      I have no problem with birth control myself, but I do have a problem with people being promiscuous,

      What in the world does that mean, that you "have a problem" with other people's personal sexual choices? How does my choice cause you any problem?

      I think it's extremely shallow, and in the end just leads to loneliness.

      I hear a lot more discussion and thought from the polyamoury community about the nature of relationships than I do from most folks, so charges of "shallow" fall flat. And I see honest non-monogamous models working quite for many people - certainly much better than the dishonest non-monogamous model that condemnation like yours pushes people into.

      Again: whatever works for you, fine and dandy. But your opinions about the choices of others seem based on faulty data.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    20. Re:umm by kalaf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My experience with teachers is that they tend to party pretty hard. You don't know about that when you are 8, but by the time you are 12-14 you pick up on it pretty quick. Oral sex with a boyfriend is also pretty tame compared to what's happened at some of the TGIF parties they have after school :-)

      As an aside, I think it's the requirement to act moral all the time that causes this behaviour. You see the same thing with police officers, lawyers, etc. People who can be themselves at work don't generally display a huge moral swing when the client leaves the building.

    21. Re:umm by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is human nature to hate, about 2K years ago an extremist preached this. People just killed him and went on scratching their heads.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    22. Re:umm by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have put those with different opinions than you in a box, and then made up there thoughts so you can be better than them... isn't that what your post was complaining about in the first place?

      Is it really that hard to believe that people who hold certain opinions and then attempt to force those beliefs onto others really are shittier people?

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    23. Re:umm by malsdavis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Getting woman is extremely easy, you just have to remember one simple rule:

      Woman (and I guess men) only care about themselves. If you want to get a woman, simply spend the whole time talking about them and stuff which concerns them. It's easy.

      Unfortunately, it is also extremely boring! But that's how you get girls. simple!

    24. Re:umm by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A theocracy doesn't sound bad to me as long as the government is just following a good set of beliefs rather than creating new ones.

      And that, right there, is what I find most terrifying. People think that an arational theocracy is OK, if the beliefs that it's imposing on others is "good" in their estimation -- meaning that it's their set of beliefs. Of course, What's "good" is highly subjective. There are a lot of people in the world who think that Sharia law is just fine and dandy, and we'd all be a lot better if we buried cheating women up to their heads in sand and stoned them to death. Once you've accepted the premise that arationality is acceptable in government, it's just a matter of degree how far you decide to go in impressing your superstitions on everyone else. You may draw the line at just telling people who they can have sex with, while someone else may go further and tell them what clothes they can wear -- there's no difference in kind there, just of degrees.

      Either you reject theocracies on premise, or you have to accept nearly all of them, since there is no rational basis for presuming that any one set of superstitions is superior to any other.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    25. Re:umm by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Roman Catholic opposition to birth control is based on very strong religious reasons: they believe that sex is immoral, and should be engaged in only for creating more followers of the Church and even then should not be enjoyed.

      Moral reasons are not why we have laws; laws are passed to ensure the safety and stability of society. We prohibit theft not because taking from others for your own benefit is immoral (we actually have laws explicitly designed to take from some groups and give to others), but because if people cannot be assured of the fruits of their labors they would be less inclined to be productive. Thus, the Church and other groups oppose promiscuous sex not by saying that it is immoral or shallow, but on the grounds that it produces a population of children without a father figure (which it is then presumed makes them less able members of society). Arguments against the use of birth control attempt to maintain this social cause to discourage sex for pleasure, despite technological developments making it not a social issue.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    26. Re:umm by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See, I think at least with that, when you attend that school you know what you're getting into.
      I think those kids are missing out on a lot of fun times that they could be having if they didn't have their head so far up God's ass and if they went to a normal university, but that's their own choice to make. I can see one of those schools being within the bounds of their authority to withhold a degree from someone caught drinking alcohol.


      I agree. While personally, the idea of going to such a place holds about as much appeal to me as does being put in a burlap sack and beaten with a piece of rebar for several years, if that's what someone really wants to do, more power to 'em. (That goes for both activities -- hanging out with a bunch of crazy Christers or getting beaten with rebar.)

      However, the problem that occurs is when people like that, who have spent their lives doing their religious thing, decide that nobody else should have any fun, either, and begin trying to impress their value system on society as a whole. Now, I'm not saying that all religious people do that, but a sizable percentage of them seem to, and that's just not acceptable.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    27. Re:umm by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's what I mean about the pacifism point.

      k Strategy civilistions have the technology to defend themselves from R strategy ones, the question is whether they actually recognize the threat. If they don't see themselves as being better, and don't see k Strategy values as being worth fighting for, then they will likely be overwhelmed

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    28. Re:umm by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They've accepted their "fetters", cannot understand, will not see?

      Why are you so sure that your "sisters" are so ignorant/"uneducated" of the alternatives?

      If you think the straight can/should change their preferences, maybe you're not so much different from those who think the not-straight can/should change their preferences. Like those "annoying guys trying to convince lesbians to be straight/bi".

      Many lesbians want others to respect their choices, I figure the choices of their straight and maybe not-so-straight sisters should be respected too.

      I'm a straight guy and I respect the choices of straight, bi and lesbian ladies to NOT prefer me :p. I must say some of them do make some rather strange choices though, but I'm not sure if that's good or bad news for me!

      --
    29. Re:umm by Torvaun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, you asked why everyone was assuming there was alcohol in the cup. I pointed out that the caption placed on said picture by the person depicted strongly suggests use of alcohol. You rebutted that she may have lied on the caption, and provide a zombie metaphor. I am now explaining that she's not getting in trouble for murder on the high seas, she's getting in trouble for promoting underage drinking. I agree that she shouldn't be getting in trouble for this, but you're not making good arguments.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    30. Re:umm by DavidShor · · Score: 2, Insightful
      'seriously detrimental activity' - An activity that actively harms those who did not wish to participate.


      Theft falls under that, promiscous sex does not.

    31. Re:umm by Torvaun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1: Fine, but you gotta admit that it doesn't take extremely convoluted non-logic to see the other side of that argument.

      2: I'm not trying to say that she was promoting underage drinking, I'm saying that that's what the university says she's doing. I mentioned that it is possible to promote something without doing it yourself. Example: If I make beer, and I use Bugs Bunny and other cartoon characters in the commercials doing plenty of drinking, I could easily find myself being accused of promoting underage drinking. The fact that I didn't depict kids drinking is irrelevant.

      Again, I'm on her side. The university is out of line. But I didn't see enough devil's advocates weighing in, so I stepped up to the plate.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  2. Define "promoting"? by VE3OGG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would like to see the page in question, since "promoting" and "here's a picture of people with a beer" are two very different things (but of course, can be interpreted any way the viewer wishes). Sigh -- MySpace to the rescue of society's morals an ethics again...

  3. hmm by cordsie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I see clearly absurd stuff like this, I tend to wonder whether there are other aspects to the story that we're not being told about.

    I'm not judging either way, but is it not a possibility that the 'victim' here is screaming loudly about a single innocuous piece of evidence while failing to mention any of the other relevant details or bits of evidence in the 'case'?

    1. Re:hmm by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1, Insightful

      References please?

      I agree; there's something fishy here. I, too, would like to know more about this.

      Anyone got a snapshot of the MySpace page?

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    2. Re:hmm by bkr1_2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That allegation has been denied by the school district in question. The article below also mentions that she was reprimanded several times (for the same offense) as a student teacher and that she needed "significant remediation" in several areas of her teaching abilities. There is more to the story, but it's generally being told (at least on slashdot) from a one-sided perspective. Here is another side: http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070502234811315

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    3. Re:hmm by Cauchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was actually quite an interesting article. I found the following excerpt particularly enlightening:

      "...One of the concerns that Ms. Snyder's cooperating teacher, Nicole Reinking, expressed to Ms. Snyder throughout the semester was the importance of maintaining a professional working relationship with students and not to become overly familiar with them regarding her personal life. Among other things, Ms. Snyder had been inviting students to log onto her MySpace Web site, and Ms. Reinking counseled her repeatedly to stop doing so."

      If this is the case, perhaps the school district and the university were quite well justified. In this case, the issue wasn't the website or the photo, but her conduct in the classroom and with the students related to the website. One might even say that her conduct was encouraging underage drinking not because she drank or took pictures, but because she in essence said to students, "Look, I'm cool, I get drunk at parties." That's much more nuanced than just the fact that she put the pictures up online since it involves actively promoting the pictures in the classroom.

    4. Re:hmm by theckhd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, professionalism is important as an educator. There's a distinct difference between being well-mannered and being chum-my with students. Learning the difference is one of the toughest parts of an education curriculum, primarily because the student teachers aren't that much older than the students they're teaching. The natural urge to be "buddy-buddy" with the students in order to seem cool is something that you need to suppress as much as possible. In general, you earn a lot more respect from students by being professional and fair than you do by being their friend.

      Not that there aren't teachers with the Cartman Complex [(c) 2007 theckhd if nobody else has taken it yet!] who would go as far as to abuse their powers for petty, stupid reasons. I've seen a lot of those too. It's just not clear that this is necessarily one of them.

  4. What is the problem? by edbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I looked at the picture. I shows an obviously of-legal-drinking-age adult woman in a pirate hat drinking from a plastic cup with no indication of the contents of said cup. How this promotes underage drinking is beyond my ability to comprehend.

  5. Not getting a couple things here... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Insightful

    • If the picture is from "Halloween 2005", and she's 27, would she not have been 25 at the time of the photo? How exactly is that promoting "underage" drinking? Am I just really bad at math today, or did they change the drinking age while I wasn't looking?
    • There's not even any clear indication the caption isn't satirical. You can't tell what she's drinking, there are no bottles of liquor anywhere to be seen, and the cup is opaque.
    • Even if she were underage in the photo, and were obviously drinking alcohol, what's that have to do with anything? If you're under the illusion that every teacher in your child's school never touched a drop of alcohol until they were 21, you're deluded, quite dangerously so.
    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  6. Re:Sometimes you need to think about your future by Megaport · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For fucks sake, you think she needs counselling or an ethics class over a picture of her in a pirate hat drinking a cup of drink?

    -M

    --
    # grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
  7. Ah yes, Pennsylvania by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where our school taxes run deep, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are leeches and our governor is doing his best to increase the New Jerseyfication of the state.

    I've told people for the longest time, any time PA is in the national news, it can't be a good thing.

    Personally, I don't agree with Millersville (not too far from me) since the activity took place away from school and the teacher to be, as far as I know, has never advocated to anyone that getting drunk is a good thing.

    Further, as others have pointed out, how is she promoting underage drinking if a) she was above the legal drinking age at the time the picture was taken and b) we have no idea what was in her cup.

    Besides, if Millersville is going after her because of something she may have done, are they going to rescind degrees from those who have graduated and are later found to be doing something similar or are convicted of other crimes? Say, child molestation, rape or robbery? What if someone posts a picture of themselves in a thong at a party (as a guy) or some skimpy, revealing outfit (for a woman)? Are they going to withhold degrees for that too?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  8. When will people learn. by joerdie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I agree that the school is acting outside of there bounds, why is it that people are still so obsessed with posting there "party" pictures on the web?!? Does anyone really care? If all of this says anything to me it's this. Now that the web is made up of "user generated content" it is staring to feel a little too much like MTV. Does anyone remember when the internet and computers where un-cool and we spent all of our time talking about why Picard could kick Kirks ass?

  9. Only denied Teaching Degree by MishgoDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now, I disagree completely with what has happened here, but wanted to clarify some things...

    The 'Promoting Underage Drinking' argument isn't about her age, obviously - that's why they didn't block her English degree.

    It's because students (you kids can laugh all you want) view teachers as role models - thus if a kid gets on the net, goes 'Hey, miss so-and-so is a drunk!' it changes the perception in their mind slightly that 'drinking is a bad thing'. Hence the promoting-underage-drinking.

    Oh, and the article doesn't say this, but I read an article on this (in Australia!?!) a week or three ago, and it mentioned that part of the degree was something to do with 'being of good character'. Which is where their argument, I believe, comes from.
    Note: that last paragraph comes from my own, alcohol-abused memory, so it may be slightly off. Lucky I'm not a teacher... oh wait...

  10. If anything ... by LordKaT · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If anything, they should have just reminded her to quietly take down the picture, so she would not go through the hell of having her students find out about her 20-something escapades.

    But no, when small-town redneck buttfuck USA sees anything that goes against Bible 2.0, you're screwed. If you do anything but suck Jaysus' cock in these towns you're a t'rrist and don't deserve to be treated like one of them.

    Shit, I've had some bad photos taken of me. There's probably still a midget with a bondage fetish out there jerking off to that set of pictures.

  11. And they know what she was drinking how? by farker+haiku · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Looks like a fairly opaque cup to me. Sue the bastards. Then sue the school district for defamation of character. That ought to teach the fundies (and the people who kowtow to them) to mind their own fucking business.

    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  12. Re:Well by braintartare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is not neo-moralism as much as it is simple cowardice. People in authority today, more than ever before, are doing the CYA thing regardless of the consequences to those under their authority. This judgement is sad, sick, absurd, wrong. But the people who made the judgement ( withhold her certificate ) thought that this was the safe course of action, that they were protecting themselves from any political fallout. As I suspect we will soon see, they couldn't BE more wrong. /chandler bing

  13. Re:math is hard by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah but that's neither illegal or immoral. As a society we allow and tolerate adults drinking, even, gasp, for recreation.

    It'd be like the teacher having a blog talking about her sex life. Are we now to disallow teachers from copulation as well? Well we don't let kids vote either. So teachers shouldn't vote. And most kids can't drive. Therefore no driving, etc...

    TEACHERS ARE NOT [supposed to be] KIDS!

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  14. Pennsylvania by DaMattster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am from and live in, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has a strange attitude towards alcohol. It is remarkably easy to get a license to serve alcohol yet liquor is a state run enterprise. It is kind of a schizophrenic balance of control and freedom. If only you should have seen the public outcry when the state liquor store was going to have hours on Sunday. I was vaguely amused because many of those in the public outcry, I am sure, went to buy a bottle of wine on Sunday. This girl is going to win her lawsuit, hands down. What Millersville University did was attempt to flex its muscle. In doing so, that attempt just went way too far and will end up generating negative publicity for an otherwise, fine state school. I hope Millersville's administrators are arrogant and blind enough to see this to a public venue. Universities are supposed to be about academic freedom and thought freedom . . .or maybe once upon a time they were. The egregiousness of this is simply shocking.

  15. Re:So what they're saying here is... by Churla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, I do pay property taxes as a home owner. I also know people who work in the teaching profession in the same city in which I pay these strangely high taxes. And in my brain I've made a note to someday figure out where the money is going because it's not going to the teachers.

    And whereas yes they do get 3 months a year off, most of the don't make enough to avoid needing to get a summer job. Many of them are either working on grading papers and preparing lesson plans at home, or they're putting 12 hour days in at the school keeping up with some of it. The worst part is knowing how many of them honestly want to instill that vital critical thinking nugget in the heads of kids, but then get beaten down with the fact that they have to teach to a standardized test because that's what they'll be reviewed over.

    Maybe where you're at the teachers job is a cushy one, but from my observations in a non suburb city it isn't. The only teachers I know who are thriving and loving the job all teach at private schools, and there aren't enough of those jobs to go around.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  16. Re:Sometimes you need to think about your future by segfault_0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nonsense, there nothing wrong with drinking or posting a picture of you doing it. The only thing that would justify their claim is if there were children around her during the drinking - in the picture or described in the caption/accompanying text. There is nothing morally wrong with dressing up for Halloween and having a few drinks with friends and sharing your good times with your online friends. If glamorizing is defined as not doing it in a closet with the lights off where no one can see - guess its time to move to Canada cause who wants to live in a country like that. Whoever made this decision should lose their job IMHO. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find a picture of our current president with a beer in his hand (hint: try google image search, a name, and the word drinking). Hope shes wrings them dry in the courts and uses some of the money to gets drunk on them.

    --

    I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
  17. So she's punished for doing something legal? by AmericanPegasus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, so as I see it, the 'problem' is this: They say they won't give her a teaching degree because the very fact that she was *photographed* with a cup of beer in her hand makes her an unacceptable teacher. You can't do that. This institution cannot impose it's own moral guidelines on it's graduates regarding something that is completely LEGAL. Well, maybe they can, but they can also lose their ACC accreditadion. What if she had been photographed smoking, or watching a rated-R movie, or any other number of legal activites? You can't just deny someone a degree they have worked for years to get, just because you don't approve of their personal choices. I hope she sues the pants off of this college and they award her triple the sum she's asking for. This is blatantly immoral and wrong of the college and I hope they learn their lesson.

  18. Re:Image is... something. by TobascoKid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How are they going to feel, knowing that she's a party girl?

    Yeah, because only the truly debauched party at Halloween.

    --
    At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
  19. Re:Image is... something. by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obviously she wouldn't drink beer and wear a pirate suit in the classroom... but is this the image she wants to communicate with your classroom, who surely will see this at some point in time?

    A picture demonstrating that you're not a joyless machine doesn't make you a bad teacher.

    I've had plenty of teachers who dressed up in costumes from time to time, whether based on the subject at hand, or just for classes on Halloween...

    As for "beer," well... She's drinking out of a cup, there's no indication whether she's drinking beer, milk, soda, slim-fast, etc.

    And even if there was, there's absolutely nothing illegal, or morally wrong about drinking beer, or being seen drinking beer by people of any age... Now, if it was a beer bong, or drinking a full bottle of hard liquor, or something else clearly suggestive of irresponsible behavior, then you might have something. As is, from her picture I see nothing to suggest anything but a responsible adult.

    What's next, should we throw out teachers that put up pictures of themselves at a target-shooting competition, or driving in a professional or armature car race, because it promotes minors using guns, and speeding?
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  20. Fear the Moral police by AndOne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real problem is that there is a generational shift in attitudes and opinions in the US. And it scares the shit out of the older crowd. People have more sex, drink more freely and are generally more open about everything. Honestly, if I were a parent I'd reserve judgment for those teaching my kids based upon my childrens progress and learning. It scares me that so many people think that children should somehow get their morals from people they'll see actively for maybe a year or two. Any kid that bases his decision to drink on what his teacher did in a photo on myspace deserves the hangover.

    On a side note my 5th grade teacher told us about how he used to hunt jackrabbits from the back of a speeding pick up truck with his ex military brother. God that would've been a picture to see. A 35+ year old 5th grade teacher in the bed of a pick up with a high powered rifle. I wonder if that would've gotten his teaching license revoked. That sort of stunt could lead to far worse than drinking before you're 21.

    --
    I don't care what you say, all I need is my Wumpabet soup.
  21. Re:Image is... something. by Compholio · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not so sure they would want an "uptight" person as their kid's teacher, but how about someone who might be coming to work all hung over, or at a minimum, "unfocused" on occasion?
    I know plenty of people that are just about to go into the workforce as engineers that have WAY worse photos on facebook. What if they go to work all hung over and build a building that falls down and kills a bunch people? Most people realize that those kind of activities occur after the work week is over. People need to realize that many people have lives outside of their jobs and that it is inappropriate to judge them based on their personal life.
  22. "Somebody think of the children" by Knutsi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not encoureaging underage drinking, it's more of a sympthom of a society soaked in paranoia, unrealistic expectations and simplistic views of the world that clash with a modern age where a person's life and living will be more exposed and available.

    So we have two choices now: a.) remove the access to insight into our lives, or restrict it radically, or b.) realise that the people that take care of your children are humans too, with all that entails. There are no saints here. It's not a bad thing.

  23. Re:Well by TheWoozle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't have to be religious to be self-righteous, authoritarian, or just a plain old bastard.

    --
    Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
  24. Re:So what they're saying here is... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah, but is it over the national average for people with a Master's? Compare like with like.

    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  25. Re:She was not denied her degree by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, I think it is for the worse.

    Irrational harshness is a sure sign of incompetence. We don't know how to protect kids, but we'll cover up our complete ignorance of anything that might do any good by setting up anybody who comes across our desk as an example. Nobody can say we don't care if we indulge ourselves with in an appalling tantrum.

    Just don't ask us to think, evaluate evidence, or have a real strategy. We're reacting here.

    Let's not root out the bad or abusive teachers. That's too much work. Let's string up some student for dressing up like a character from a Disney theme park.

    There is no evidence that this person thought "underage drinking was cool at 25". There is no evidence that she was drunk. There is no evidence that she has alcohol in that cup. The only thing she did was put a comical caption on a picture of herself.

    This kind of foolishness is indefensible. It is not only unjust to the prospective teacher, it is not only unjust to the students who might have benefited from her service, it mollycoddles incompetent bureaucrats posing as moral crusaders.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  26. Re:Image is... something. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish her well in the lawsuit, but I think that if she really wants this career, she should take the following steps:

    By posting this, you are leaving evidence of your "I have better judgment than you" attitude on the internet. Have you considered the impact this will have on your career? And I'm showing my "attitude", too.

    It might be a good idea for all potential employers, whether would-be puritans or scowlers, to consider that any "attitude" gleaned from the web about someone could be a fictitious persona. To overlook good candidates for reasons like this is just a sign that it's a bad place to work. Because, unlike internet personas, that attitude taints an entire organization. And it leaves the good candidates to work for Cogswell Cogs, instead.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  27. Re:The longer I live... by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    nobody in Europe wanted those pesky Puritans around and thus kicked them all to the US. Sometimes, I really dislike the behavior of some of my fellow Americans.

    Me too. I find myself more and more wanting to move to Australia. At least they were founded as a penal colony.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  28. Re:She was not denied her degree by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So she was reprimanded, did she get a passing grade? If yes, then give her the cert, if not deny her the cert. And just because she gets her cert doesn't mean they have to give her a recommendation or hire her.

    But if they pull that BS she should get enough money from the school system so she doesn't have to work, the people recall most of the school board and the superintendent is forced to resign. Its called you screwed somebody's life over, now you get to pay.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  29. Re:umm - throwing the BS flag by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only abstinence eliminates the risk of STDs and pregnancy.

    No it doesn't. There is still a 0.001% chance of contracting an STD from a gynecologist visit, a 0.0012% chance of contracting genital warts from a toilet seat, a 0.0019% chance of becoming pregnant while being unconscious and raped during any given hospital stay, etc.

    The only SURE way to avoid STD's and pregnancy is a successful suicide. So I would like to encourage my right-wing religious friends to consider that as an option--if you TRULY want to remain pure, that is. It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  30. It wasn't the picture - read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It was the fact that she repeatedly encouraged students to visit her myspace page, even after she was told to stop. In so doing she was not maintaining the line between her personal and professional life.

    The way that that picture promotes underage alcohol use is that she was encouraging underage students to see pictures of her drinking, which they might imitate. It isn't addressed in the article, but I'd suspect that they also didn't really like the fact that students could find out that she was a single mom of two. (Might give some teenagers the idea that they could swing that as well.)

    Having seen that, I have to say that I understand why they did what they did. I disagree with it, but that is more because I disagree with the rule than because I think the rule was unfairly enforced.

  31. Re:She was not denied her degree by porcupine8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She was reprimanded for giving out her myspace page to students - if she hadn't, they would have found it anyhow. She might as well use it as a way to connect to them. And the new picture is slightly goofier than the old one, but still fairly innocuous. Sure, she probably didn't show the best judgment, but if she already had tenure (ie, worked in a district for 3-5 whole years) there's no way she could even be fired for this, let alone have her certification stripped. No one involved has to give her recommendations when she tries to get a job, but if she fulfilled the certification requirements she should be certified.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  32. Not a straw man by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Isn't that what they call a straw man argument...

    Nope. It would be a straw man argument if he claimed these were the spoken arguments against birth control. But he doesn't, he speculate that these are the unspoken reasons (at least #1 and #2).

    It does show a total lack of respect for the opponents. Nothing wrong with that. The official spoken arguments for certain positions, such as alien visitors, creationism or the immorality of birth control are utterly insane. Trying to counter them with rational arguments are a total waste of time, as they are not based on rational thinking.

    It is much more productive to try to analyze which emotional needs makes people hold to these irrational positions. Once you understand the true reasoning behind them, you can start working on filling the emotional need the motivates them, and the positions become irrelevant.

    > You have put those with different opinions than you in a box, and then made up there thoughts so
    > you can be better than them... isn't that what your post was complaining about in the first
    > place?

    Nope, he was complaining about people trying to control others behavior. Not about people trying to change others opinions.

    1. Re:Not a straw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The official spoken arguments for certain positions, such as [...] the immorality of birth control are utterly insane.

      Logically speaking, cows and pigs are much more intelligent and autonomous than the average newborn baby, so why is it okay to kill them and not the child?

      Perhaps a good place to draw the line is if the creature can pass the mirror test. If something is self-aware, it's wrong to kill. Makes sense. And human kids can't pass the mirror test until they're 1.5 to 2 years old, so that's where we should draw the abortion line.

      If you say that humans deserve special consideration, then I'd say you're arguing out of emotion instead of reason.

      Drawing the line at the second trimester is just as illogical as drawing the line at conception. It's just that the former is far more convenient.

      (And I actually am pro-abortion. I'm just not a smug elitist about my arbitrary line in the sand.)
  33. Re:This is Pennsylvania, remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hey guess what? The day before your 21st birthday you're underage. Underage drinking is underage drinking up until you're actually 21. If you don't want to get caught for underage drinking, use your freaking brain. Don't drink till you get alcohol poisoning and stay the heck inside and out of trouble. It's not that hard.

  34. insight in the american psyche by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your comment is truelly remarkable and gtives an idea of the completely screwed up mentality USa people have (at least, a part of it, and most likly the bible-belt part).

    In my country, nobody would give a rats' ass if a teacher DId say she/he got drunk the night before. What, you think pupils or students are going to get traumatised? Seems to be going on a lot of traumas, lately, including 'online rape'. For Gods' sake; when are you guys going to get a grip? Your problems mainly stem just *because* you treat youth as if they were some alien beings who can have no idea what's the real world all about. Of course, they DO know all to well, but because of the paniced reactions everywhere, they never have learned how to deal with it in a normal fashion.

    To be 21 before you can sip a glass of alcohol...meh; ridiculous. In most european countries, you can drink alcohol when you're 16. and when your parents let see sip from their beers, even when you're only nine, no-one makes any fuss about it - because it isn't. the rerality is, if ypou treat drinking beer as no big deal, and you let them taste it, they usually go: "yukkie, that's awful." and don't want to try it out anymore. Also, when you drink with kids in a social context (e.g. not binge drinking stuff), they are more inclined to follow that pattern. If you treat it as something special, it gets 'forbidden fruit' status, and if they only have peers to look how to act when confronted with alcohol, that's when shit happens.

    In france, kids often drink 'table-wine' (wine with moderate alcohol-level) as a normal thing, in Belgium the same with table-beer, etc. do they have more drunks and alcohol-problems there, then in the USA with its 21-year law? Not at all. In fact, the prevalence of problematic drinking (like binge-drinking) is way LOWER there than in anglo-saxon countries, where the restriction to alcohol is much more severe. The whole concept of 'save the children' in the USA has gone way overboard, to the detriment of the youths themselves.

    In a reasonable country, the fact that a teacher was drunk has nothing to do with her professionalism *unless* she was drunk during the course of her work, obviously. But if she got drunk outside her professional hours, even if she puts hundreds of photos about it on the net, it doesn't say anything about her capacities as a teacher. It's the same crap and obsession of the USA with irrelevant nonsense as back with Clinton getting a blowjob, over and over again. What you do in your private life - EVEN if it comes out in the open (as long as it's legal) - DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT have any bearings on how you are treated while exercising your profession.

    In the USA, I wonder if a teacher can say something which is scientifically true but socially/politically-incorrect, like stating that moderate consumption of alcohol is actually healthy. These days, especially in the bible-belt states, I think no teacher can say that without risk of being fired or being severly reprimanded. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this. That obsession of weeding out the political incorrect and having to 'cry wolf' with all the other wolves (the prevailing mentality) is sickening.

    In summary:

    1)Drinking is no big deal
    2)Posting pics about it is no big deal

    Conclusion: as long as whatever she does is not illegal and does not affect her actual professionalism in the classroom, there is no reason why she should be treated the way she was. And even if it was illegal and did affect her teachings, then still it should be determined if it was severe enough to warrant the withdrawal of her diploma.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    1. Re:insight in the american psyche by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole concept of 'save the children' in the USA has gone way overboard, to the detriment of the youths themselves.

      Well, the whole thing is a sham. When the precious children turn 18, they are ripe for sending overseas with a gun, or thrown into jail for smoking crack. You see, the people in the US don't really care about the children as human beings, for if they did care, the children would be regarded with the same protective attitude when they reach adulthood. No. The people here care about the idea of children --- proxies for their own vanished innocence, naivete, potential, and youth.

  35. Re:So what they're saying here is... by Churla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The unfortunate fact is the test to if a child has really learned critical thinking is how well they do once school is no longer a part of their lives.

    My wife and I are working on having a spawn of minions right now and I fully expect that it will be "informational tidbits you learn at school, thinking you learn at home". Not because the teachers can't teach it, but because they don't have time. I am just mildly bitter because I feel I got a leg up on life because of a few teachers who really cared and made me learn to think, once I knew how to think, and how to find answers actually "learning" anything became exponentially easier.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  36. "Condoning" by mengel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Giving someone a vaccine against a virus is not "condoning" anything.
    • Wearing a seatbelt is not "condoning" unsafe driving.
    • Putting up a lightning rod is not "condoning" thunderstorms.
    Anyone who uses that reasoning is seriously confused.

    Similarly, teaching kids about how their reproductive system works, and about contraception, is not "condoning" promiscuity, any more than teaching someone about locks, safes, and keys is "condoning" thievery.

    Certainly, promiscuity provides a disease vector, both for diseases we know about, and ones we don't yet.

    So does sneezing.

    Humans appear to have a limited ability to resist either of these urges. So for one we have condoms, and for the other, Kleenex(tm) (or your elbow).

    Do these same people argue that we shouldn't have tissues, because you should instead fight the urge to sneeze?

    --
    - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
    1. Re:"Condoning" by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's certainly enabling it. Remove a negative consequence of a choice makes that choice much more attractive.

      Right, so the normal natural healthy choice is more attractive. That is entirely a good thing.

      Keeping your children healthy is well worth letting them see your tacit acceptance of their sex life, but don't pretend when you tell them "this is so you won't get sick when you have sex" that what they're going to hear isn't "have sex."

      Which means what? Your kids will have sex. That's a fact. It's an entirely normal healthy thing.
      So talking about how they *will* have sex is the only decent moral course of action.
      Anything else is flat out lying.

      Pretending it won't because *you* are too weak to deal with reality is an entirely *bad* course of action with no possible positives.

  37. Why try to apply logic by Goose3254 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why try to apply logic to a bureaucracy? They continue only through inertia, much like a totally off-topic thread on /...

    From information gathered after reading other sources on this issue, it seems that Ms Snyder's issue stems from one of her advisers at the school where she did her student teaching had found the photo and reported it up to her student adviser at Millersville. The adviser at Conestoga Valley High School (where Stacey had apparently been described as "one of Millersville's finest graduates") called Stacey to tell her that there was an "issue" with the picture and Stacey's adviser at Millersville told her that she "might lose her teaching certificate" over the issue.

    Millersville's mascot is a pirate. In modern pop culture, the "drunken pirate" is ubiquitous. Stacey's wearing of a pirate hat is not unexpected, due to her being a student at school where the mascot is, in fact, a pirate. Stacey is drinking from an opaque plastic cup whose contents cannot be discerned. If she was similarly dressed, drinking from the same cup, with the same caption, and the picture would have been of her DRIVING A SCHOOL BUS, then MAYBE there might be some validity to this knee-jerk reaction. Otherwise it's much ado about nothing. And that is EXACTLY the type of issue that those entrenched in a bureaucracy LOVE to champion; let's get behind a policy that sounds good on paper but is inherently flawed from the moment of it's inception. These guys have a bright future, if the college admin field doesn't pan out for them, then there is always the RIAA, the MPAA, or Microsoft. I'm sure there are quite a few more grandmothers out there to prosecute and persecute, more criminals to create.

    I hope she sues these pretentious prigs into bankruptcy and expands her damage claim to include personally, the Dean of students at Millersville, her student adviser, J. Barry Girvin, and the adviser at Conestoga Valley High School. Further, if a single person in her graduating class accepts a degree from this so-called institution of higher learning then they are the worst kind of hypocrite, by demonstrating they actually know nothing of right and wrong and are too weak to make a stand based on conviction and reason.

  38. Slashdot effect: by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My guess is getting Slashdotted is probably the best thing going for this woman. Two things can buy justice in American courts, money and eyeballs. Money makes the world go round and with the exception of certain eyeball cases is all that is needed for a victory. Eyeballs on the other hand guarantee that if a court gives a fucked up ruling they'll suffer for it.

    It's unfortunate it comes down to needing one of the two for justice to happen.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  39. Jumping to conclusions, the Slashdot way! by baboo_jackal · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I don't think we have enough of the facts about this story to be demonizing the university and spreading FUD about the mySpace Police just yet.

    What we know:

    From Millersville University's website:

    The University notes, however, that all of its educational decisions are based on a full range of academic performance issues, not solely on a student's personal website or social networking site. The University is committed to maintaining the academic integrity of its academic programs and degrees and will vigorously defend itself and the actions of its employees in legal proceedings related to the lawsuit.
    The University claims that Snyder didn't receive her degree for academic performance issues. Snyder claims that she didn't because of the mySpace picture. I found another article that said this:

    Stacy Snyder, a 27-year-old single mother of two, was a student-teacher at Conestoga Valley High School at the time she posted the picture on her "MySpace" account last May. Earning her teaching degree at Millersville University, she was all but done with her requirements before graduating. But then, her cooperating teacher at Conestoga Valley found out about the posting, and confronted her. "'(She said) There's a problem with your professionalism. You're not able to attend our school. You can't come back,'" said Snyder from her Strasburg home.
    So what it sounds like is that she got booted from her student-teacher internship at Conestoga for the photo. I assume that the Millersville then decided that because she didn't complete her internship, a requirement for graduation as a teacher, that she didn't merit a teaching degree. If there's any "mySpace police" in this story, it's not the university - it's a school, who can certainly have their own standards to which they require their teachers to uphold.

    What we don't know:

    1) We have no idea of Snyder's actual academic record at Millersville. She could very well have had a spotty record, and getting booted from an internship was "the last straw" for the Teaching Dept at Millersville. Or she could have had an exemplary record, and getting booted from the teaching program was a weird administrative requirement. Point is, we don't know.

    2) We have no idea of whether or not Snyder could, if she chose to remain, complete another internship to get her teaching degree. All we know is that she can't get it *now* because of the internship. She could very well be able to re-do the internship, but is just too impatient and thinks that suing is easier than teaching. Or she may not be able to do that, and is totally screwed out of her degree. Point is, we don't know.

    So, all I'm trying to say is that I think we're jumping to a whole lot of conclusions without enough facts.
  40. Re:Die of dehydration? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's different is that the page (at least the photo I saw) shows nothing of the sort.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  41. Re:Die of dehydration? by orgelspieler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a teacher friend who had to make her MySpace profile private for this very reason; her boss saw it as unprofessional. There weren't pictures of her getting stoned at a party or anything; her principal just thought she should have such a visible private life. Additionally, several school districts even go so far as to have "no public drinking" policies. So if she was in one of these districts (I know, I know, RTFM), that could be reason enough. I hate it that employers think they can control every aspect of your life, but if you sign the contract it's your own damn fault.

  42. WHERE ARE THE MODERATORS by mstahl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This comment is way way way way way off-topic. Seriously now. We're talking about underage drinking, freedom of expression, and puritanical outlooks on life that make no damn sense.

    Who is out there modding this insightful? Come over here. You're 'bout to get stabbed in the jaw.

  43. Re:Die of dehydration? by aztektum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're referring to the article itself, this lady isn't even employed by a district. This is about her living her life and someone else trying to dictate a level of "professionalism" upon her. This is ridiculous and I hope she wins.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  44. Re:Die of dehydration? by teknosapien · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not the actual drinking that's the problem...that's nobody else's business. It's the teacher publicizing her personal life without discretion. That's the unprofessional behavior here. I'm curious as to what is not appropriate about a picture in this space? Many of my daughters teachers have myspace areas for the purpose of homework assignments and such. A picture of her in a pirate hat (well not really but for arguments sake it is). on Halloween? if anything it shows that a person that will be teaching children is actually in tune with their social structure and how it works. She should be applauded for having the foresight to use this technology to get through to students. There was nothing inappropriate here other than the University's lack of foresight and integrity.
    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
  45. Re:Die of dehydration? by TWX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Additionally, several school districts even go so far as to have "no public drinking" policies. So if she was in one of these districts (I know, I know, RTFM), that could be reason enough. I hate it that employers think they can control every aspect of your life, but if you sign the contract it's your own damn fault."

    This woman wasn't even working though, she was a student finishing her teaching degree at a university. She was 27 years old when she was denied her degree, and 25 when the image was created that led to the denial of her degree. Her action was not illegal in any way, nor does it reflect anything that is generally societally unacceptable. Even worse, she was censored by the SCHOOL, not by an employer of any kind...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  46. So employers do own us after all. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is not enough to show up in the office, work diligently during our working hours and then some.

    We are also suppossed to behave in a way our feudal lords, sorry, employers, deem appropriate in accordance to their more out of office hours, in our private time.

    Charming concept.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.