If Tamara Hoover showed her breasts to her students in class, she would have been fired. But she did not; she allowed herself and her breasts to be photographed. These photographs were posted on the Internet, where her students were able view them online. The antecedent of the pronoun “them” in the previous sentence should obviously refer to Hoover’s breasts, since she was not fired for any other part of herself that appeared on the Internet.

Though Hoover makes some weak arguments about the validity of the photos as “fine art,” one wonders whether the stronger position of her case may lie in the government’s right to intrude into her freedom of expression. Though the photos became public once they were published on the web, do they justify her firing? There is obviously a need for defining some boundaries when working with children or teenagers—if these had been lewd pictures with a minor or she was participating in sexual conversation while instant messaging her students, her termination would be justified. But she let her breasts be shown, and her employment status in this case should only be based on whether this action has affected her performance in the classroom.

When drawing up these arbitrary lines of morality for employment in public schools, society should also ask itself what lessons the students are being taught. Are breasts to be considered morally reprehensible when shown? Is the freedom to express oneself worth sacrificing for an employee’s termination? Should sexual morality be taught in the home or in the public forum? Even if the answer to the first question or two is yes, the conservative position has historically been that sexual education should be up to the parents of the student. It should be up to the parents of Austin’s students to make sure that their children do not look at Hoover’s breasts.