01.18.07LETTER FROM THE EDITOR BY ELIZABETH FARINA
When Stephen Murmer was canned this month from his position as art teacher at Monacan High School because an old online video surfaced, it brought about some interesting questions and quite a number of snickering jokes, too.
Besides the juvenile giggles from this desk as I write, the video is similar to something one would catch on late night television and not quite all cracked up to be the buzz around town.
He's an artist that uses his bare behind as a brush for the canvas. Murmer demonstrates his technique in a thong and Grocho Marx disguise. Primetime television shows more skin than Murmer reveals. More importantly, to Murmer - this is his creative artwork.
So, how does this quick, short-flick affect his ability to teach?
He's not demonstrating in the classroom today how he created the antennas on the butterfly painting that was inspired for his wife, but the same bad puns about him using his bum as a brush is rearing its ugly head to the point the Chesterfield County School Board fired him from his position. Yes, I can see the momentary distraction, until the next embarrassing event happens in a high school.
If law-abiding employees are doing their job in the workplace, then are they allowed to have interests outside the workplace that may not seem the norm?
Kent Willis, executive director of Virginia American Civil Liberties Union, noted the practical question, the crux of any case like this, is whether or not involving yourself in any outside activity renders one incabable of doing their job. Think about it.
An art teacher using creative means to, uh, paint. Is it completely out of bounds?
"Chesterfield County upped the ante by suspending him first. The more likely scenario with the resurfacing of the video would have caused a buzz and then, it would have died down," Willis said. "There are a large number of students who take his class and parents who know him and think of him as an excellent teacher."
Willis noted Murmer may have legal options to consider either in circuit court or federal - since a case like this is related to the first ammendment.
We'll see what's next.
2 comments:
In its decision, the board reasoned that students have a right to receive their education in a positive learning environment free from distractions and disruptions is what Marlow said.
Wow! You mean all an award earning teacher needs to do is not provide a positive learning environment and it dishonors Chesterfield's core values.
This explanation for termination is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
Clearly there's something else at work here.
I hate that I'm defending this guy and I don't care for the artwork displayed on this site. Every educational institution I've ever heard of recognizes that outside services of a professional nature strengthen and contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning. Why would Chesterfield discourage the involvement of a faculty member in extramural professional activities and then terminate him for it? Isn't it the responsibility of all school systems to provide students with faculty that have specialized knowledge in the discipline they teach? Chesterfield Co. Schools had that in Murmer. They publicly chose censorship over responsibility and the school board ruled against the wishes of a community that they were elected to represent. The actions of this school system were irresponsible and are detrimental to public education. Shame on Chesterfield Schools for dismissing an educator that they awarded for excellence in the classroom and shame on them for hypocritically basing their actions on a set of moral codes that school officials and board members refuse to live by.
Post a Comment