Monday May 2, 2016
Jump to content
What do the words "had to" mean to you? To me they mean there was no other choice, no other way to get something done.
Would you agree with that?
If so, evaluate the "had to" in this paraphrased story from CNN.
American University professor Adrienne Pine found that her baby, which she intended to leave all day at a daycare center, had a slight fever. That meant that she could not leave the baby at her usual daycare center.
It was the first day of her course, so she "had to" teach it.
That, in turn, meant she "had to" take the baby to class with her.
That, in turn meant that when her baby began to fuss, "...so I had to breast feed it during lecture." She adds, "End of story."
A lot of other people disagree, and the profession, whose course is, "Sex, Gender and Culture," has gone ballistic online about it.
My questions after teaching high school and graduate level courses for over 40 years are simple:
• Since when can't any class day can be cancelled?
• If the professor was going to leave her baby in a daycare center all day, was there no provision for the baby to be fed there until the whole class day ended?
• If the professor had some way of feeding the baby in a daycare center, why couldn't she have used the same way at work? Why does she say she "had to" breast feed it? Why not use the same method that would have been used at the daycare center?
• Or does the professor breast feed her baby at the daycare center? Does she wait for a phone call t her classroom, jump in her car, dash down to the daycare center, feed the baby, and dash back--three or four times a day? If so, how many times a day does she do it? What's her best time?
• How stupid does this woman, who brags that she has "...been breastfeeding in public in every place possible," think we are?
• Did she really think that she was going to get away what is obviously an attempt to make a statement in her "Sex, Gender and Culture" course?
This has nothing to do with breast feeding, by the way, which I view as much ado about nothing. It has to do with credibility. I could care less how anyone feels about breast feeding, in or out of public places. It's a matter of complete indifference to me.
But I care a LOT about the %$#@! truth!
I think CPS should pay a visit to her for using her baby as a prop for her stunt.
That's exactly what I had in mind.
I would like to see her try to answer those questions in court?
"Does your child feed when it is at the daycare center?"
"How doe it feed?"
"Why could it not feed that way at work?"
And the big one:
"Tell me, madam, just how stupid do you think this court is?"
"Have no fear, madam. You need not concern yourself in the future. Henceforth the state will see to it that your child receives its nourishment."
Come on guys. Yes, she could have brought a bottle for the baby. But suggesting CPS and "the state will see to it that your child receives its nourishment" goes a bit far.
Sorry Bernice, I am completely with the guys on this. This woman deliberately set up this situation. She deliberately used her baby for whatever reason...to make a name for herself? To publicize some cause which she believes in?
She obviously had all of the required equipment to leave the baby at the day care all day, bottles, diapers, extra clothes, and whatever else a baby needs to be away from it's mother for a full day. So did she not just transfer that equipment from the day care or her car, to her office? Then when the baby fussed, all she had to do was get a bottle out of the bag and feed the baby.
Imagine being one of those young, impressionable college kids. Sitting in a class taking notes on the Instructor's lecture, when she picks up her baby, opens her blouse and proceeds to breast feed, all the while continuing to lecture. Just a bit distracting.
In my opinion, if she has no qualms about using her baby in this way, what would stop her from using it in any other way? She needs a complete psychological evaluation, if nothing else.
impressionable college kids?? Come on.
"impressionable college kids?? Come on." Yes, Bernice, impressionable college kids.
Picture an 18 or 19 year old guy, sitting in a lecture hall in a class called, "Sex, gender and culture", he is already a bit uncomfortable because the class that sounded cool when he signed up for it on the anonymity of his computer is now something he has to listen to surrounded by a lecture hall of his peers, male and female. Then, the instructor who can't be too old since she is still of childbearing years, pops her blouse open, sticks her baby in there and helps the kid to latch on to her voluptuous, milk-filled breast. I guarantee you that every male, and some of the females, in the class have just lost any attention they may have had on the lecture.
Furthermore, I cannot help thinking that the name of the class indicates where the instructors mind is, it is my contention that she was trying to make a point. And I doubt that had she been teaching Advanced Chemistry, or Shakespeare's entire works, she would have even considered breastfeeding her child in front of her class.
Which brings up my final point...class. In my opinion, any woman who thinks that it is okay to breastfeed her baby while she has a lecture hall of 30-40 students all focused on her as she gives her lesson, clearly has none. She is an exhibitionist and as I stated previously, needs a complete psychological evaluation.
I have no problem whatsoever with women breastfeeding in public. However, I think that there is such a thing as common decency and courtesy. A woman should cover herself before she opens her blouse, she should stay covered while the baby is feeding, and she should stay covered while she rebuttons her blouse. In this country, if you go on a beach or to a public pool topless, you get a ticket, I don't see where breastfeeding is any different.
While I understand Bernice's concern over the state sometimes getting carried away as far as "child abuse" is concerned, and I share it with her, as I'm sure you do, I agree with every word you said.
And so, apparently, do a lot of people, since the original article pointed out that what the professor did "ignited a national" furor. The reason is obvious; there was no valid need for what she did. It was grandstanding, pure and simple, and since it fell in her teaching area it is patently obvious that she was trying to make a point regarding what is a hot button partisan issue.
What she did was wrong, both personally and professionally. She abused a position of trust and violated a contract which required her to remain professional and neutral in her subject area. The classroom is no place to promote personal views. It is a place where people come to learn, not a place to be abused by people who sign a contract and then use a teaching position to push a personal agenda. The teacher should be given a review regarding unprofessional conduct, and unless she can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there was indeed no other choice open to her, she should be dismissed for abusing her position as an educator by deliberately bringing partisan politics into her classroom. That's what this is all about. She injected a women's lib issue into her classroom in an unacceptably unprofessional manner.
We fire teachers in Arizona for unprofessional conduct when they bring in WRITTEN materials that are partisan or sectarian; think of how much more unprofessional this conduct was. Had it been a matter of absolute necessity it would have perhaps caused a minor stir, but what I didn't tell you in the original post--because I didn't think it was all that important--is that it was her students who objected. They called the campus newspaper, which sent over a student reporter. Both the kids in her class and the campus newspaper took a strong position against what she did. That says a lot!
CPS should stay out of it !
The teacher could not take her baby to day care, she was teaching her first class and was probably very upset. Maybe she had bottles ready or maybe not. But having a sick baby will rattle any good mother, and if she had the bottles ready she forgot them. She took being a good mother and employee very serious so was trying to be both.
I can't believe it will leave any serious marks on any college student that was present.
I am sure they have all seen a lot worse things on TV or videos.
Why are you not more concerned with an unmarried pregnant teacher teaching school here in Payson?
Clean up your own backyards before complaining about someone else.
"Why are you not more concerned with an unmarried pregnant teacher teaching school here in Payson?'
Wasn't me. :-)
As for the woman, my concern is not what she did, but why she did it. Because of all the facts, I think she was grandstanding, trying to make a name for herself.
What gives he away to me, in addition to the fact that the kid obviously was not being breast fed all the time is this comment: "I have been breastfeeding in public in every place possible..."
If she had said, "I breast feed in public whenever it becomes necessary," that would be one thing. But to say that she breast feeds "...in every place possible," shows that she is an activist who is pushing her point of view in a classroom where she was supposed to be teaching the curriculum, not her personal viewpoint. Which means this was not a case of "had to" but a case of "wanted to make a point in my own classroom."
You are the last person I would expect to put on the remark, "Wasn't me."
The kids here in Payson are not in college. Big difference.
"In every place possible" may have meant there was no where else possible.
Where can I find the complete article on this ?
Waste a lot of court time and money for something so natural.
"Wasn't me" was meant to be a humorous comment meaning that the lady teacher didn't get in an interesting condition because of a anything I did.
Trust me, Pat. You do not want to know any more than you already know about all this. I had to cut so much stuff out of the original articles I read to make my post as even-handed as I could that it was like putting up one strand of spaghetti to represent a plateful.
Oh, well. I'll share just a few things that you'll see for yourself the minute you post her name on Google. it is Adrienne Pine.
I'll put this up ONLY because it is what the woman, who is a single-mother Marxist-feminist by the way, wrote about herself. It is her own self-written profile at the university, not from the reply she wrote after she got into trouble, which reply was entitled, believe it or not, “The Dialectics of Breastfeeding on Campus: Exposéing My Breasts on the Internet.”
"Dialectics," remember that? One of Communism's favorite words?
Okay, here's her own description of herself:
"Adrienne Pine is a militant medical anthropologist who has worked in Honduras, Mexico, Korea, the United States, and Egypt. In her book, Working Hard, Drinking Hard: On Violence and Survival in Honduras, she argues that the symbolic violence resulting from Hondurans’ embodied obsession with certain forms of ‘real’ violence is a necessary condition for the acceptance of violent forms of modernity and capitalism. Dr. Pine has worked both outside and inside the academy to effect a more just world. Prior to and following the June 2009 military coup in Honduras, she has collaborated with numerous organizations and individuals to bring international attention to the Honduran struggle to halt the state violence (in its multiple forms). She has also conducted extensive research on the impact of corporate health-care and health-care technologies on labor practices in the U.S."
Consider what she did as you reread this sentence: "Dr. Pine has worked both outside and inside the academy to effect a more just world." Ever heard that phrase "more just" before? It's Communist phraseology, right out of the book.
Also consider this, taken from an eyewitness description of the baby in the classroom: "The baby, in a blue onesie, crawled on the floor of the lecture hall during part of the 75-minute class. The mother extracted a paper clip from the girl’s mouth at one point and shooed her away from an electrical outlet."
The original article I read was from CNN as I said in my first post, but I went to about a dozen or so before I came up with enough neutral information to post.
Want to an article that's more typical of what's on the net?
Try this one:
Haven't read the address you put on yet. But my question is why did the University hire her?
I knew what you meant about "wasn't me," just couldn't believe you said it. You are getting more warped than me.
Now I have read the article about the professor. Some one wasted a lot of time to make a news story. If it is all true she should never have been hired.
As for embarrassing the students I find that really hard to believe. In this day and age I doubt it would have shocked a 6th grade student. The clothes girls wear to school now I am sure some of the other students have seen bare breast, without a baby getting fed.
I am 75 yrs. old, fairly straight laced and think it is a lot of to do over nothing.
SLOW NEWS DAY
"You are getting more warped than me."
"If it is all true she should never have been hired." and "But my question is why did the University hire her?"
There are universities and universities. Some, sadly, have a political point of view that spills over into everything they do--including hiring. That's one reason parents should check into the background of a school before they pay a nickel for enrollment. You can send your kid off to schools and end up with an extremist so brainwashed by his or her teachers that he or she just becomes another reason the nation is being split right down the middle at the same time when we all share the same fundamental beliefs.
Left to me, I would expand this part of Arizona law:
15-535. Sectarian instruction prohibited
A teacher who uses sectarian or denominational books or teaches any sectarian doctrine or conducts any religious exercises in school is guilty of unprofessional conduct and his certificate shall be revoked. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a teacher from teaching the elective course permitted by section 15-717.01.
I sincerely believe that Arizona teachers should be required to take a course in non-partisan teaching, that they should be required to take and pass an examination that shows they understand that they are to teach what is in their textbooks and not overlay that teaching with partisan views in any form, that they should be required to sign an understanding that they will be discharged for failure to abide with the statute, that students should annually complete a short questionnaire which asks them about partisan teaching in the classroom, and that this should be especially applied to universities.
The purpose of this is not to stifle the free interchange of ideas among peers, but to keep adults from brainwashing kids. I'm not saying anything unusual. I'm just expanding the purpose of having teachers study both state and national constitutions.
Why do I believe that so strongly? I've watched it happening all my life. I saw it in the lessons taught to my own kids as long as 40 years ago, I saw it in other classrooms when I was teaching (and reported it and got it stopped!), and I still see it now.
The state pays us to do a job, to teach specific subject matter, to teach what is in the syllabus, and to otherwise stay within the the fundamental beliefs of state and national constitutions. We are not hired to push personal agendas. But that is not what is happening. It is particularly true in colleges that teachers depart from their role as educators and become propagandists.
Why do you suppose that we so often see political unrest in colleges? Teachers become cheer leaders for kids whose ideas are still only half formed, kids who still lack the knowledge and experience to see through devious, one-sided arguments. These people prime the kids and send them out to do their dirty work.
Obviously, this woman is one of those.
While I agree with Pat that it must have been a slow news day, I also am a firm believer in "time and place". I feel that there is an appropriate time and place for all things. It is my contention that exposing ones breast and latching your kid to it while in the midst of lecturing, whether you are speaking to college kids, sixth graders, or corporate executives is inappropriate. And regardless of how blase and cool those sixth graders are that Pat knows, I would be willing to bet that 99.9% of them would be embarassed by the sight of their teacher/professor/instructor's bare breast with a baby feeding from it.
Now that I have even more information about this woman and the incident, I even more firmly believe that she was pushing her personal political agenda and has zero business being in a classroom and I pray that she got fired.
Finally, knowing that it was the students IN HER CLASS who complained and informed the school newspaper, firmly solidifies my initial impression that they were embarassed.
I agree with you, Kim. Entirely.
It's easy to see why it would disrupt a class. Any class, from 2 year olds to 200 year olds. When someone gets up at the front of room to teach you have to look at him or her. But the natural thing to do when someone is breast feeding is to look elsewhere. So how do you teach anything?
Of course, the real issue here is that the woman flat-out lied. There was no "had to" here. I just found out that she actually had an assistant in the classroom with her, another woman as it happens. Since the baby had to have been bottle feeding at the daycare center, there is no reason whatsoever that her assistant could not have taken care of the matter. And proof of that is the fact that even though it was not part of her assistant's job to do it, the woman picked the baby up off the floor after the paper-clip-in-mouth incident that day and tried to care for it.
In mind mind there isn't the slightest doubt that the mother decided to use her child as a political statement in a class which dealt with the precise subject she was teaching, perhaps to make a name for herself.
Were it left to me she'd have a name all right: Ex-employee
Was the woman's breast bare or covered? That makes a big difference.
As I said before, when the teacher noticed her baby had a fever and couldn't go to day care maybe she forgot to fill the bottles she would need. Have you never forgotten anything that was important?
The 6th graders would probably laugh. No I don't know any 6th graders in the Payson school district. When you get to my age you have seen and heard a lot of 6th graders and the way they act. You might be surprised at how they talk and what they know and think is funny.
"...maybe she forgot to fill the bottles she would need."
She has not in any way suggested that her child is ever bottle fed. Everything has said has been an attempt to make us believe she always breast feeds, and so she "had to" do what she did. A large part of this matter is that lie.
Furthermore, know as well as I do that a bottle of warm sugar water would have calmed her baby down for the time needed to finish her class.
As a teacher, I guarantee you that it would have taken less time to bring the lecture to a quick conclusion than it took to do all she did. She had the obvious choice of just cutting it a few minutes short and making up the time in the next lecture. There isn't a teacher on the planet who has had to do that.
"Was the woman's breast bare or covered?"
Her comment: "...I didn't realize the degree to which people are afraid of breasts in this country and in particular, in the workplace."
She adds, "I doubt anyone saw my nipple, because I’m pretty good at covering it. But if they did, they now know that I too, a university professor, like them, have nipples. Or at least that I have one.”
About that reasoning, one of her peers, another professor, says, "Any day now, I expect a male teacher or professor to expose his bleep before students in class. After all, by Professor Pine’s impeccable compelling logic: “But if they did see my bleep, they now know that I too, a university professor, like them, have a bleep.”
One of her students, Jake Carias, 18, a sophomore from New York, was in Pine’s classroom the day she brought her daughter in and that he was okay with the [baby being in the classroom] once the professor explained the circumstances.
But he adds, “I wasn’t too distracted [about the baby being there and making noise]. We’re college students. Things go on all the time. Whatever. We’ll survive.”
But when Pine started to breast-feed in the middle of the class, he said it crossed a line. “I found it unprofessional. I was appalled.”
He dropped the class.
I remind you that the name of her class is "Sex, Gender & Culture." What that means, in case you haven't yet realized it, it that the term "Sex" at the beginning of that title does NOT mean "gender," otherwise the word gender would not have been part of the title.
The university, by the way, has now taken a firm stand in the matter, characterizing her action as "unprofessional." In contract renewals that term is a death sentence, so I take she will not have a chance to repeat her action next year, and possibly even this one.
We have a right to set standards, saying what we will and will not accept in public, and schools have a duty to uphold those standards.
It is obvious that the woman did what she did to make a statement. It is also obvious that she's not too bright if she expects the public to buy the "had to" nonsense she is trying to peddle. The more she says it, the more she gets tangled up in her own falsehoods.
Posting comments requires a free account