Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Utah Elementary School Fires Art Teacher for Showing Students Classical Nudes

Parents complained about postcards that were part of an educational set kept in the school library.

School district administrators for Lincoln Elementary School in Hyrum, Utah fired art teacher Mateo Rueda on December 8 for showing his fifth and sixth grade students classical art postcards, a few of which displayed nude figures.

On December 4, Rueda circulated in his class about 100 of the 800 postcards featuring classical paintings from an educational set called "The Art Box" from the school library for a color study exercise. The cards include works by Van Gogh, Claude Monet, and Leonardo Da Vinci.

According to the Herald Journal, Rueda said he was unaware that three or four featured nude figures, among them "Iris Tree" by Italian painter Amedeo Modigliani and "Odalisque" by 18th-century artist Francois Boucher.

"There were some pictures that were a little weird, and most kids were laughing," fifth grader Bella Jensen told Fox13.

Some students were okay with the classical nude paintings, but a few others expressed discomfort and approached Rueda about the cards. He promptly removed them and discussed the issue with his students.

A few days later Rueda learned that some parents had complained to the school and someone even called the police, alleging the art teacher had shown his students pornography. Police called aff the investigation after prosecutors determined the images were not pornographic.

School administrators initially suspended Rueda for a few days, but then sent him a termination letter. "In a Friday meeting, they gave me two choices: to resign, accepting their terms of my alleged wrongdoing (eliminating any possibility to voice my opinion in the future), or to be terminated with a scathing and defamatory letter," Rueda wrote to a supportive parent, Kamee Jensen, which she posted to her Facebook page.

Rueda is appealing the decision and has requested a hearing to clear his name, the Washington Post is reporting.

The issue wasn't exclusively with the nude postcards themselves, but that Rueda, according to one parent whose son was in the class, belittled his students for some of their reactions.

"He said Mr. Mateo even told the class, 'There's nothing wrong with female nipples. You guys need to grow up and be mature about this,'" Venessa Rose Pixton told the Herald Journal.

Rueda denied making that statement, and said he told his students that art sometimes portrays images that are uncomfortable to the viewer and that context is important.

"I did say that when you grow up, you're going to find yourselves going to museums or to places where unavoidably there's going to be nudity," Rueda said, according to The Herald Journal.

Jensen told Fox13 the whole situation was blown out of proportion and that her daughter is upset that her art teacher is in trouble.

Blown out of proportion is right. Even had Rueda said what Pixton alleges, it hardly seems reasonable to fire him. It is possible school administrators fired Rueda in an attempt to avoid the controversy of employing a teacher accused of showing his students "pornography."

If that was the plan, it clearly backfired.

It is little comfort to know there were no criminal charges filed against Rueda. The police should never have been called in the first place. What kind of world do we live in when classical paintings featuring stylized nude figures are interpreted as pornography?

Photo Credit: jean louis mazieres/flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I believe the appropriate response in today's parlance is:

    "Dat ass tho!"

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Or, thick, with no K and extra C.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    What kind of world do we live in when classical paintings featuring stylized nude figures are interpreted as pornography?

    Earth, yo.

  • Microaggressor||

    The same planet where the police get called for stuff like this.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The same planet where a bunch of Renaissance-era fine art statues in the Vatican have removable peeners, that morally sensitive souls might not be traumatized by having to confront biological facts.

  • ||

    Right, I don't want to live in the world where classical paintings featuring stylized nude figures can't be interpreted as pornography either.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    The same planet where the Virginia attorney general covered up the breasts on the Virginia state seal.

  • Rod Flash||

    It was only one breast. Huge difference, there.

  • Agammamon||

    Ooh, remember when Ashcroft did that to the statue of Justice?

    The boob did not like being part of a pair in pictures.

  • amishanarchist||

    Spirit of Justice Statue

  • esteve7||

    Christ, you idiots.

    I remember as a kid my mom didn't cover my eyes during the art scene in titanic, and she didn't cover my eyes during the shower scene in starship troopers. When I asked why, she said "well don't you shower without clothes on?"

    There's a difference between being "nude" (art) and "naked". Has anyone taken a basic art history class?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Spoiler alert: there is no difference between nude and naked. Someday, you'll find out.

  • ||

    Yeah, you usually have to go backpacking through Europe before you learn that you always sketch European women in the nude. That's just how it's done.

  • BYODB||

    The Aussies call it 'the bush' for some pretty literal reasons it turns out.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Nude = having no clothes on
    Naked = having no clothes on

    Now you see the difference. Right?

  • Longtobefree||

    There are even different words; here is an old comedy explanation of the difference from a southern view.
    There is naked, which just means you ain't go no clothes on.
    There is nekkid, which means you ain't got no clothes on, and you're up to something.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Nekkid nekkid was my nickname in pipe fitting school.

  • BambiB||

    Now that's funny.

  • Agammamon||

    1. There is no difference.

    2. There are no 'art history' classes in elementary schools.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Probably not labeled "art history", but just "art" classes, which can include teaching about art pieces and not just making art pieces? Sure.

  • ||

    A man may fight for many things: his country, his principles, his friends, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally I'd mud wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock, and a sack of French porn.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    A sack of porn. Thank you MikeP.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Would you both be naked, uh, I mean nude, in this mudwrestling scenario?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "Parents complained"

    That's all I need to know.

  • ||

    I'm unsure how "be terminated with a scathing and defamatory letter" without charges would go down.

  • CE||

    My lawyer will be particularly interested in your defamatory letter, so make copies.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    "I know you won't believe this, but it was the kind of sorry that only happens in Penthouse Forums"

  • amishanarchist||

    Funny, but I also like to note that the postcards were the school's property, and in their library, so if they want to defame him, they are shooting themselves in the foot. It was not like he brought porn into the school...

  • DJF||

    Guilty!!!! A obvious case of fat shamming.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    That fat is no sham.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, see, in private schools, you can fire a teacher for things like that, no problem. Why should any teacher be unaccountable for showing kids something that their parents don't want them to see?

    Good catch, Lindsay!

    "Blown out of proportion is right. Even had Rueda said what Pixton alleges, it hardly seems reasonable to fire him."

    Huh?!

    I assure you that standing up for the right of public school teachers to subject students to things against their parents' will--sans accountability--is not the libertarian take on anything. This isn't even about creationism, prayer, or evolution, all of which are an establishment violation.

    Two of the reasons public schools suck so much is because teachers can't be fired and they ignore the wishes of parents, etc. You seem to be on the wrong side of the argument. Libertarianism isn't--at all--about teachers not being fired for showing nude pictures to children against their parents' wishes. The libertarian lesson from this is that not only would this teacher have been fired if it were a private school, he probably would have known better than to show those pictures in the first place.

  • ||

    The libertarian lesson from this is that not only would this teacher have been fired if it were a private school, he probably would have known better than to show those pictures in the first place.

    The pictures came from a collection of materials in the school library. In a private school, we would've had to bring his own individual paintings/replicas to violate school policy and gotten permission from the school first.

    I'm unsure of Rueda's (and/or the community's) interactions outside the school, methinks there's something else afoot here.

  • BYODB||

    That's the bit that confuses me as well. I guess it's fortunate that no kids go into the school library since there's 'porn' just laying around and no one gives a fuck until a teacher points out 'hey, there's porn in the library' at which point the teacher is fired.

    Ha.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Hyrum, UT is a town of 7,000 people some 60 miles north of SLC.

    Showing pictures of nude women to a class that's probably at least half, rural Mormon kids is begging for trouble.

    If it were a private school, the First Amendment rights of the teacher wouldn't be any more of a concern for the school in firing him than the First Amendment rights of a rude waitress is a concern for a private restaurant.

    You offended a customer. You're fired!

    In the meantime, there are all sorts of big problems in this country. The problem of teachers being fired because the principal and the local schoolboard are concerned about what parents want is probably the least of our problems. Pardon me while I let the local government employee/teachers' union fight this battle.

    In a libertarian world, teachers who didn't want to get fired for showing nude pictures to Mormon students would refrain from showing nude pictures to Mormon students. The lesson to take from this is that the government doesn't care about the desires of parents, and if you want that, then we should privatize the school system--that's the libertarian way.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I think the lesson is learn to throw the librarian and his box of porn postcards under the bus.

  • Zeb||

    the right of public school teachers to subject students to things against their parents' will--sans accountability

    Isn't that sort of the job of public school teachers? (I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, just making an observation.)

    And unless there was a clear policy that teachers are not to show students art depicting nude human figures, I don't see a lot of justification for the firing, whether this is a public school or private school. If there was such a policy, or the teacher had been told not to do this before and ignored it, that would be another matter. But you can't check with every parent about every thing you are going to teach to make sure it isn't against their wishes for their children beforehand. If you want to control everything your child learns and sees, then I think homeschooling is the only real option, even in a world without public schools.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's the point, Zeb. Public schools suck because 1) teachers are unaccoutable and 2) public schools disregard parents' wishes.

    In private schools, that's generally not a problem.

  • amishanarchist||

    LOL. That is a silly take on this case. The guy did not bring in the images from outside the school, it was already there, in the school library. If anything its the schools' librarian and the administration's fault.

  • ||

    "He said Mr. Mateo even told the class, 'There's nothing wrong with female nipples. You guys need to grow up and be mature about this,'" Venessa Rose Pixton told the Herald Journal.
    ...
    "I did say that when you grow up, you're going to find yourselves going to museums or to places where unavoidably there's going to be nudity," Rueda said, according to The Herald Journal.

    Grow up? Just as much if not more now with transgender activism; there *will* be nudity before you graduate High School and you *will* be uncomfortable with it.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If you are uncomfortable about something someone else is doing, and they are not aggressing against you, than that is entirely your problem.

  • BYODB||

    Is a homeless person on the subway sitting across from me, maintaining strict eye-contact, while masturbating considered aggression these days?

  • Brandybuck||

    Being forced to watch the uncomfortable something is called aggression in my book. It might the school system doing to agressing instead of the tranny exposing himself in the women's' restroom, but it's still aggression. Captive audience is captive.

  • EscherEnigma||

    So lawn decorations are aggression? Who knew that HOAs were just protecting us from neighborly aggression.

  • ||

    Who knew that HOAs were just protecting us from neighborly aggression.

    The millions of Americans and people all over the world who belong to HOAs and Tennants' Associations?

    Wait, I mean, Hitler?

  • BYODB||

    While I loathe HOA's, one does need to more or less voluntarily buy property where they hold sway so it would be difficult to paint that as 'captive' as opposed to 'why did you agree to this, again?'

  • EscherEnigma||

    Fine. Municipal civic code regarding free-standing structures in the front yard. GAHD.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    Depends on whether they are gnomes or pink flamingos.

  • Zeb||

    Was anyone being forced? Were there kids who said "I don't want to see paintings with naked people" but were forced to continue looking at them?

  • ||

    and they are not aggressing against you

    First, sure, even before the transgender rights movement everybody totally understands the difference between waving your genitals in someone's face as a sexual act vs. waiving your genitals in someones face as an insulting act at all times and from birth. The two can't possibly occur and the same time and there's no confusion or lack of understand to be had, there, not ever. /sarc Christ, even when understood as a purely sexual act *over the phone* between HS kids it still fucks up their lives.

    Second, the explicit point of the transgender movement is that you can't avoid it and you can't ignore it. They plainly state that don't want tolerance and/or accommodation, they want compulsory acceptance whether the anybody wants to accept them or not. You act like I'm some inhumane right-wing oppressive monster about it when part of the problem that plagues the transgender community is that it confuses people who are deceived or forced to deal with it (and would prefer not to) and they react violently.

    Fuck you and your non- passive-aggressive status quo.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Someone waved their genitals in your face? I'm sorry. How close did they get?

  • amishanarchist||

    The mouth perhaps?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Police called aff the investigation after prosecutors determined the images were not pornographic.

    Why was a Utah teacher investigated by New England police in the first place???

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Almost missed that.

    Fawkin weeahd, I thought Reason employed editors.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    When everyone's an editor, no one's an editor.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    That's not New English, it's Chicagoan.

  • ||

    North Ethnic Statists, particular stripe is irrelevant. Distinguished from the South Ethnic Statist who would've called teh investigation awf.

  • ||

    Threading fail, that was meant in response to $park¥.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    No, sorry. I live in New England and nobody around here could be mistaken for someone from Chicago. Northern US is not a regional dialect.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Oh, great. Now I have read all your comments with a haaahd Boston accent.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I live in Western MA, we don't have accents here.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You ask if $park¥ pahks his cah in Hahvahd Yahd, he asks if you're feckin' retahded.

  • amishanarchist||

    Im in TN. They have them here. But I am a northerner, and a former Amish guy, so I have my own accent...

  • BYODB||


    What kind of world do we live in when classical paintings featuring stylized nude figures are interpreted as pornography?


    Welcome to the Progressive future, or as I like to call it the New Victorian Period.

  • Brandybuck||

    He said "period". heh heh

  • GILMORE™||

    mmmm titties

    OT: the only thing surprising about this piece is that it wasn't written first by Soave

  • GILMORE™||

    sorry, "This piece"

  • GILMORE™||

    fucking hell.

    THIS PIECE

    (my greasonable plug tries to post every time i click the link button)

  • Sevo||

    At least it's not in italics.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Protip: he's no Heroic Mulatto, but clicking on Crusty's links is nevertheless worth the risk of the occasional Dunham-induced retinal scarring.

  • ||

    What? I think my retina scar/salve ratio for CJ is like 8:1.

    His saving grace is that he frequently cites the dailymail which has a great habit of running ads for their own "boob reindeer", "nipple freedom", and "ass glitter" stories on the side of whatever Crusty's actually linked to.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • BYODB||

    Does Soave even write here anymore? My blood pressure is doing better, so I'm guessing he doesn't.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The guy triggers libertarian snowflakes while on sabbatical.

    Respect.

  • GILMORE™||

    he's writing a book which will be very timely and relevant. its about the importance, sincerity, and relevance of millenial protesting. Which totally doesn't follow the OWS model of being "self-important, incoherent, short lived"

  • GILMORE™||

    I found a wonderful cover-illustration for his tome

  • GILMORE™||

    (

  • GILMORE™||

    jesus,

  • GILMORE™||

    lol i'm gilmoring like a mf'r

    i'm just trying to post a link. and failing, and failing, and failing.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's a picture of a well-dressed Internet man failing to post a functioning link.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Is the book called "To be sure,..."

  • Longtobefree||

    Fifth and sixth grades.
    Did I miss something, or aren't those kids presumed to be old enough to determine their own "gender", regardless of biology? Aren't they allowed to insist on surgery despite parental objection? How can they make that determination without knowing the naked truth?
    All this sounds a whole lot bogus. For instance, WHERE IS THE UNION??!!!
    You can't fire a teacher for anything. Suspend with pay for a few years during an investigation maybe, but never fire!

  • BYODB||

    It's Mormon country, and this teachers name is sort of Spanish. Hmm...

  • ||

    In all fairness to the racist rednecks of Hyrum, Utah; I haven't heard a single father or husband weigh in on the matter. That is to say, sans husbands/fathers, Kamee Jensen speaking out in favor and Venessa Rose Pixton speaking out against provides me with enough motive.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Would gloss her watercolor.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Would Jackson Pollock her canvases.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Wood paint her a happy little tree.

  • Longtobefree||

    "He said Mr. Mateo even told the class, 'There's nothing wrong with female nipples. You guys need to grow up and be mature about this,'" Venessa Rose Pixton told the Herald Journal.

    So making true statement is now "belittling students"?
    Welcome to the revolution.

  • BYODB||

    Well, you see it's a basic truth in life that female nipples cause madness almost as acute as the insanity that overtakes a man when they inhale the reefers.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Um, a lot of classical art is porn. Sure, we put it up in museums now and try to re-contextualize the titillation away, but them titties were meant to tittilate.

    "I did say that when you grow up, you're going to find yourselves going to museums or to places where unavoidably there's going to be nudity," Rueda said, according to The Herald Journal


    [citation needed]
    First, this is Utah we're talking about. They'd probably put towels around Michelangelo if they were going to show it.
    Second, when was the last time y'all went to a museum? It's trivially easy to go through your entire adult life and never go to a museum, nevertheless one of the few that would show classical porn.

  • BYODB||

    Indeed. You'd need to actually seek out going to a museum these days (or ever, really). You don't just end up in a place and exclaim to yourself "Why, this appears to be a museum full of titties!" That simply does not happen, or if it does than you have successfully taken the exact right drugs.

    That said, classical art is not 'porn' although I would concede that it is possible that ancient Roman's felt a moral obligation to jerk off to their god's and demi-gods. I'm sure a subset of them did, but one wonder's if it extended much further than the cult of Dionysus.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yeah, and those temple murals were just showing the Mayans finger-painting and those recent "tickle videos" aren't gay at all.

    Do y'all think porn was invented in the 20ths century or something? People have been making porn as long as we've been making art. And if it lasts long enough it gets re-contextualized as "art" and put up in a museum. Have no doubt, in two hundred years there will be a bunch of furry porn hanging in a museum somewhere under "early 21st century art". Probably not the hardcore stuff, too obvious. But the softcore stuff? Totally going to be in mueseums.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Fact: archaeological museums in Peru often have to keep 1700-year-old Moche ceramics in restricted rooms because they ARE hardcore.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That anus has clearly seen some action.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I should have said "Christ, what an asshole."

  • EscherEnigma||

    Sure. And we have statues of Pan fucking goats. Hardcore stuff sometimes survives. The difference being that usually you don't have folks trying to claim it's not porn.

    And so not clicking that link.

  • Think It Through||

    The fellattee is holding the fellator's head down. Not only is it porn, it's goddam sexual assault. #themtoo

  • ||

    Have no doubt, in two hundred years there will be a bunch of furry porn hanging in a museum somewhere under "early 21st century art". Probably not the hardcore stuff, too obvious. But the softcore stuff? Totally going to be in mueseums.

    200 yrs.?!?!? You clearly haven't seen Meret Oppenheim's Object (Breakfast In Fur) which is widely held to have overt sexual connotations. Even without recontextualization, there's *loads* of artwork that is simply Porn being passed of in grandiose fashion as well as porn being 'snuck in' to 'legitimate' museums and displays.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Correct, and kind of irrelevant.

    My point is that we have a pretty nasty history of downplaying stuff from "history" that doesn't fit our narrative. Whatever we're talking about, be it the violence of the Mayans, the raciness of the Greeks, Alexander the Great's non-hetero proclivities, women buried with swords and weapons, extensive collections of paintings of naked women that weren't publicly displayed at the time, you can bet that if it goes against some archeaologist's or historian's biases, they're going to find a way to explain it away. "Fingerpaint", "appreciating the male form", just flat-out ignoring things, "this was clearly a dude. It wasn't? That's a woman? Um, it was clearly ceremonial", "appreciating the female form", etc. and so-on.

    Sometimes history is written by the winners. Sometimes it's just written by those who come along later.

    And so not clicking that link.

  • ||

    And so not clicking that link.

    No tricks, it's literally just a cup, saucer, and spoon covered in the fur of a gazelle. About as objectively SFW as you can get, IMO (here's the MOMA link in case you don't trust the other website). The sexual/pornographic connotations are part of the rumor/prevailing interpretation(s) and entirely introduced by the viewer.

    It's kind of analogous to the Hooters logo. I can't tell you how many women I know who've looked at that for the better part of 3 decades without recognizing it for what it was. I bet there are loads of women who've worked at Hooters and/or worn the logo that, to this day, don't get it.

  • ||

    There's porn all over the internet and TV. It's pretty hard to go through your adult life without seeing any pictures of nudity.

  • Zeb||

    And there is plenty of explicit sexuality that doesn't involve nudity all over the place.

    If you don't want your kids exposed to any such "porn", then you are going to need to keep them really close.

  • EscherEnigma||

    It's pretty hard to go through your adult life without seeing any pictures of nudity.


    First-up, I said without going to a museum, not "without seeing any pictures of nudity".

    Second-up, not as hard as you think. Don't pay for cable, check out the warnings for TV shows and movies before you watch, leave safe-search on and you'll avoid just about everything besides the unintended (like Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"). Sure, you won't be watching Game of Thrones or Deadpool, but you'll have your virtue intact, and isn't that what counts?

  • ||

    That's sort of beside the point isn't it? Rueda's point was that it's really silly to expect kids to never see a picture of a naked body. So what if his example was museums.

    And really, having to avoid all of cable television and actually look at ratings on TV shows for every fucking thing you watch, nevermind YouTube videos, and safe search is hardly foolproof either, especially not for classical art. Come on man. This is the internet and it was built on porn. You aren't escaping unscathed.
    I still have pictures of SugarFree's guy-fucking-a-snake in my head.

  • EscherEnigma||

    That's sort of beside the point isn't it?


    Refuting his exact claim is besides the point?

    And really, having to avoid all of [pop culture] is hardly foolproof either


    Foolproof? Nah. There's always a bigger fool. But that's not my point. My point is that if someone wants to, they really can avoid almost all nude images. And it's not as bad as you think either. There's sites out there that go into a lot more detail then the rating system on what "objectionable" content is in any given movie or TV show, allowing pro-active parents to carefully police their children's media consumption. Use those same things for yourself and you can avoid all movies with side-boob and nip-slips you want.

    [...] especially not for classical art [...]


    Classical art, like strip clubs, are entirely optional.

    I still have pictures of SugarFree's guy-fucking-a-snake in my head.


    Don't know what you're talking about. But unless we used to be able to embed images, that probably means you clicked on a link. So yeah, totally avoidable.

    The world is a lot cleaner then you think.

  • ||

    The world is a lot cleaner then you think.

    Agreed. It is also dirtier than you think.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...he told his students that art sometimes portrays images that are uncomfortable to the viewer and that context is important.

    That would explain the CHIPS movie.

  • ||

    Understanding that private entities are entitled to do whatever they want does not preclude observing that having an appreciation for art and a mature attitude about nudity is not a horrible thing for children. Now, it's possible there are some other circumstances about this that make the teacher's actions somewhat creepier. Maybe he should have run this stuff by the administration first. Maybe it wasn't the first time. Still, I can imagine (for instance) a teacher getting back from an Italian vacation and showing students pictures of Michelangelo's David with no particular creepy intent. In fact, I can totally imagine doing that myself. I like art. I think other people should appreciate art. If I was a teacher, I would want my students to appreciate art. A naked bum is not a thing to be afraid of. People who are terrified of their kids seeing a naked bottom are prudes and ought to be ignored. We can't have a few prudes dictating to the rest of society the images that everyone else's children are allowed to see.

  • Agammamon||

    Sometimes I don't understand these people,

    I mean, its not like the social conventions in the US regarding *elementary* school kids seeing nekkid people are unknown or in flux. Whether you agree or not with the prudish cultural standards we have - they're still what we have. So *of course* showing nudes to elementary school kids is going to get the parents to raise a stink. Calling it 'art' doesn't change that. Its still a picture of a nekkid lady. Shit like this is likely to be *barely* tolerated in high school - not an elementary.

  • ||

    It's not that well established that school kids shouldn't be allowed to view classical art involving nudes.
    Some places are prudish, some aren't. If this was in the Bay Area or New York nobody would bat an eyelash.

  • swaged||

    No, he's right. It really is kind of well established.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Maybe by people that have never seen an ocean.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    nobody would bat an eyelash.

    Seems painful.

  • Rhywun||

    I wouldn't be so sure about New York, except maybe in the private schools. The majority of public school kids either come from or have parents that come from countries that are much more socially conservative than the US.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    My parents would not have batted an eye. Then again, the first time I got drunk was with my dad, when I was six.

  • ||

    That's really irresponsible, at six you should be able to handle your role as the designated driver.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Funny story, it's actually illegal in some states for a parent to give their minor kid a sip of wine in their own home. Sounds weird to me, but apparently states think it's better for folks to learn about responsible drinking when they're 21 and out on the town rather then when they're 14 at home on New Years.

  • ||

    My parents were Catholic and my dad let us watch A Clockwork Orange when I was 12.
    Not everyone's parents , even the religious ones, hate art.

  • ||

    Also, Jesus is sometimes naked on the crucifix. So I got full frontal in grade school.

  • IceTrey||

    The only thing that matters is HE GOT THEM FROM THE SCHOOL LIBRARY! This is obviously an attempt by the administration to deflect from that fact.

  • Carter Mitchell||

    Well, he IS teaching in a public "school", so right there is over half of the problem. Public "education" (i.e. indoctrination) is an anathema to a free society to begin with, so my sympathy for his plight is somewhat limited.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    "I know porn when I see it"

  • Longtobefree||

    But give me another two hours to be sure?

  • Humanist||

    Religion poisons everything.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online