Meet this Kindergarten Teacher!

[Pink Partridge]

Some other quotes from this teacher:

"I would say the most painful tattoos were the flanks by my gut and the genitals, obviously."

"I have thought about my eyes next, but I might lose my sight and that would be bad because I really like video games and television."

Just not a mature guy. Maybe it is different in other countries, but a school teacher in the USA would probably be advised against talking about getting tats on their genitals and the pain it inflicted.

Also, the whole "I don't want to intentionally go blind because I like video games" reeks of someone who isn't particularly bright enough to teach.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6653901/Supply-teacher-completely-covered-body-art.html

 

[tarheelmjfan]

In the article is "he hoped to show his pupils that they should accept people who are different from the norm. "Maybe when they are adults they will be less racist and less homophobic and more open-minded," he said."

I guess his hope is lost on some people.

(I did the underlying)

I think comparing this situation to racism & homophobia is an insult to both people of color & the LGBTQ comunity. Everyone who knows me personally would say I'm neither racist nor homophobic, but I wouldn't have allowed my child to be in this man's classroom at any age. I would question his mental stability with the full body tattoos. The eyes would have been the final straw. His online pictures would have reinforced my opinion. IMO, he's lucky to have a job anywhere.

I agree with @Brett Wyman. He appears to be someone who has made poor life decisions in order to gain attention. It's obviously working for him in the short term. I think it was a poor choice long term.

 

[Karin1984]

A friend showed me this article yesterday. You know when you go this route a lot of options are not going to work out, career-wise. And that is basically everything where you interact with people in person.

Yes, I do agree that kids should learn about all sorts of people and be open-minded. However, I would be more concerned that his appearance would be distracting the kids from class than it be scary. Kids can adapt to appearance, if you talk to them, they more accepting than adults are, and are better at seeing the person beyond the tattoos. But if a walking painting is in front of my class, I would constantly get distracted by looking at the tattoos and making up stories about the tattoos.

Reminds me of this video of (ex-)gang members who got photoshopped without tattoos. There are longer videos, but this is a compilation

 

[GreatLakes]

Facial tattoos are going to limit your job prospects in some industries. Visible tattoos anywhere are against our policies at work and many other places have similar policies. It is what it is.

 

[mrodgers]

Here's another guy with some face tattoo and neck tattoo.

Dry Bar Comedy, worth a watch, hilarious. And refreshingly clean comedy on Dry Bar Comedy.

 

[Hikergirl]

Nope, when you do that to yourself you don't belong in front of a classroom full of little kids.

 

[sam_gordon]

In the article is "he hoped to show his pupils that they should accept people who are different from the norm. "Maybe when they are adults they will be less racist and less homophobic and more open-minded," he said."

I guess his hope is lost on some people.

(I did the underlying)

Does he not see the difference between CHOOSING what makes you different (tattoos, eye modifications, piercings, etc) and simply BEING what makes you different (race, sexual orientation, gender, handicaps, etc)?

He has every right to do with what he wants to his body. But he shouldn't be surprised when those choices affect your career/job status.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I think comparing this situation to racism & homophobia is an insult to both people of color & the LGBTQ comunity. Everyone who knows me personally would say I'm neither racist nor homophobic, but I wouldn't have allowed my child to be in this man's classroom at any age. I would question his mental stability with the full body tattoos. The eyes would have been the final straw. His online pictures would have reinforced my opinion. IMO, he's lucky to have a job anywhere.

I agree with @Brett Wyman. He appears to be someone who has made poor life decisions in order to gain attention. It's obviously working for him in the short term. I think it was a poor choice long term.

I can respect and understand your viewpoint though I do not agree with the life decision part. Hopefully you can respect and understand that viewpoint as well

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Does he not see the difference between CHOOSING what makes you different (tattoos, eye modifications, piercings, etc) and simply BEING what makes you different (race, sexual orientation, gender, handicaps, etc)?

He has every right to do with what he wants to his body. But he shouldn't be surprised when those choices affect your career/job status.

I think his point, though I don't actually know, is accept regardless. To not judge someone based on their appearance. It would appear that at least from what is currently written (which I stress that) none of the parents or children he actually taught had an issue. To me that speaks towards something.

Does it make you (general you) feel any better to judge someone because they look a certain way? Isn't so much of our time and effort about not judging someone on their appearance and instead looking to who they are as a person? Isn't the issue that people made judgements about someone based on their appearance or for instance their sexual identity or orientation and made judgements about based on that. You're of course right being Black (as that's not a choice) for example isn't the same as dressing in black (as that is a choice) for instance. But part of being progressive is taking both of those and not judging who the person is based on that. We'll never get rid of preconceived thoughts and judgement that's for sure, but each successive generation seems to be more and more understanding and more about learning about the person behind the outershell.

 

[BrianL]

It's not really about how he looks, but why he looks that way. This is different than people who are born a certain way - this was a choice and it required actions on his part and people are indeed judged for their actions. I'm all for his freedom to do that to himself, but I also understand how it could and should affect his job prospects. Some people are not going to want a person like that in certain positions. Now, if his employer, the parents and the students are all fine with it, then, hey, no problem. I'm still going to think it's pretty weird though.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

It's not really about how he looks, but why he looks that way. This is different than people who are born a certain way - this was a choice and it required actions on his part and people are indeed judged for their actions. I'm all for his freedom to do that to himself, but I also understand how it could and should affect his job prospects. Some people are not going to want a person like that in certain positions. Now, if his employer, the parents and the students are all fine with it, then, hey, no problem. I'm still going to think it's pretty weird though.

Well he was employed until a parent of a child he didn't even teach complained. If his place of business, the school, had an issue with it, they should have let him go the day he showed up like that. I don't know the timing, but surely a child he taught told their parents about him the day he showed up that way. Maybe there's more information on the timing of his changing of his appearance and this compliant.

It's about why he looks a certain way that's actually so much the point. The why doesn't matter as much, we, as a society are choosing to be more accepting. We're not so weighted down by all the whys, we don't care as much about the whys. We're more about the person on the inside. Well at least the younger generation is becoming more this way. The older generation tends to care about the whys. The younger says "hey whatever floats your boat, we accept you, so do you like..." rather than "why did you choose to be like this".

 

[sam_gordon]

It would appear that at least from what is currently written (which I stress that) none of the parents or children he actually taught had an issue. To me that speaks towards something.

Keep in mind, that's what HE says. And, if this was a multi-year project, the kids may have seen him change. Small changes over time are easier to take than one large change.

Well he was employed until a parent of a child he didn't even teach complained. If his place of business, the school, had an issue with it, they should have let him go the day he showed up like that. I don't know the timing, but surely a child he taught told their parents about him the day he showed up that way. Maybe there's more information on the timing of his changing of his appearance and this compliant.

But he's still employed, isn't he? He's just not teaching kindergarten.

The why doesn't matter as much, we, as a society are choosing to be more accepting. We're not so weighted down by all the whys, we don't care as much about the whys. We're more about the person on the inside. Well at least the younger generation is becoming more this way. The older generation tends to care about the whys. The younger says "hey whatever floats your boat, we accept you, so do you like..."

I agree the why doesn't matter. But IMO, employers can determine what is "acceptable" appearance for their employees. And yes, that can change at any time (as long as it follows the laws). This guy may be the greatest teacher ever and the best friend someone can have. But I can easily see where his tattoos can be a distraction to kids, ESPECIALLY younger ones. I have no problem with parents complaining, and I have no problem with the school saying he can only teach older kids. He's lucky (IMO) that they didn't take his teaching job away.

 

[BrianL]

Well he was employed until a parent of a child he didn't even teach complained. If his place of business, the school, had an issue with it, they should have let him go the day he showed up like that. I don't know the timing, but surely a child he taught told their parents about him the day he showed up that way. Maybe there's more information on the timing of his changing of his appearance and this compliant.

It's about why he looks a certain way that's actually so much the point. The why doesn't matter as much, we, as a society are choosing to be more accepting. We're not so weighted down by all the whys, we don't care as much about the whys. We're more about the person on the inside. Well at least the younger generation is becoming more this way. The older generation tends to care about the whys. The younger says "hey whatever floats your boat, we accept you, so do you like..." rather than "why did you choose to be like this".

What I mean by WHY is that it was a choice. It would be wrong for an employer to discriminate against the appearance of traits one is born with, but since this was a choice then they are well within their rights to factor that into their decision to employ him or not. He is employed so it seems they are okay with it, which is fine by me too. It's their call, but he should just realize that not everyone is going to make that same call and hire him.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Keep in mind, that's what HE says. And, if this was a multi-year project, the kids may have seen him change. Small changes over time are easier to take than one large change.

True, but that actually is even more important. The day he showed up that way with his face that way should have been the day kids went home screaming to their parents and complaining about it. I guess the article isn't really clear on the day but I do find the information that it was a child he didn't teach to be interesting.

But he's still employed, isn't he? He's just not teaching kindergarten.

You're right and that actually makes a point. If apperance is what is making him unemployable, or hurting his job prospects so badly, you'd think the school would have let him go immediately and then it would be a story about him finding it difficult to find a job. Instead it was about adjusting what age group he was teaching.

agree the why doesn't matter. But IMO, employers can determine what is "acceptable" appearance for their employees. And yes, that can change at any time (as long as it follows the laws). This guy may be the greatest teacher ever and the best friend someone can have. But I can easily see where his tattoos can be a distraction to kids, ESPECIALLY younger ones. I have no problem with parents complaining, and I have no problem with the school saying he can only teach older kids. He's lucky (IMO) that they didn't take his teaching job away.

Of course but did I speak about anything about his employers NOT being able to determine. My comments were really about society at large. I think we all understand, at least allowable by law, employers, especially in an at-will state, can do what they wish to. Years ago any piercings or tattoos were not allowable, that has changed over time. Of course I don't have a problem with parents complaining, did I say I did? I just think it's an interesting thing that it was a child he didn't teach. These days I would expect a flurry of angry parents storming the school building if they had an issue with the teacher teaching their children.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

What I mean by WHY is that it was a choice. It would be wrong for an employer to discriminate against the appearance of traits one is born with, but since this was a choice then they are well within their rights to factor that into their decision to employ him or not. He is employed so it seems they are okay with it, which is fine by me too. It's their call, but he should just realize that not everyone is going to make that same call and hire him.

You're focused on the job prospects thing but I think you can see that's not always the main problem. It really did use to be that if you got a tattoo people would say "you'll never get a job with that". We know that is not the case these days. Now his face tattoos and eyes (more the eyes) are still on the extreme side of the tattoo world but still. I think he does understand, I'm not sure why we question his ability to comprehend that. I think he just wishes it wasn't that way (though again not him can't speak with full certainty), he's got a long way towards that route, but I can understand the sentiment.

 

[sam_gordon]

You're right and that actually makes a point. If apperance is what is making him unemployable, or hurting his job prospects so badly, you'd think the school would have let him go immediately and then it would be a story about him finding it difficult to find a job. Instead it was about adjusting what age group he was teaching.

Again, he's not unemployed, so therefore not hurting his job prospects. I think many are saying he shouldn't be surprised that his CHOICE to do this COULD lead to problems.

 

[BrianL]

You're focused on the job prospects thing but I think you can see that's not always the main problem. It really did use to be that if you got a tattoo people would say "you'll never get a job with that". We know that is not the case these days. Now his face tattoos and eyes (more the eyes) are still on the extreme side of the tattoo world but still. I think he does understand, I'm not sure why we question his ability to comprehend that. I think he just wishes it wasn't that way (though again not him can't speak with full certainty), he's got a long way towards that route, but I can understand the sentiment.

Well, maybe he does understand, but I just don't think it would be "wrong" if any employer chose not to hire him. That aspect doesn't really need to change because the physical traits in question are a choice. It'd be no different than me showing up to a job interview in torn/sloppy clothes - I'd be judged for that and I wouldn't blame them.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Again, he's not unemployed, so therefore not hurting his job prospects. I think many are saying he shouldn't be surprised that his CHOICE to do this COULD lead to problems.

That comment was in response a poster talking about it hurting his job prospects (and the poster said it should affect his job prospects not just speaking in hypothetical). I agree he shouldn't be surprised.

 

[RamblingMad]

How the person looks shouldn’t impact their ability to teach or influence. If this is really a problem, then you can argue that overweight teachers shouldn’t teach kids as it would lead to childhood obesity.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Well, maybe he does understand, but I jsut don't think it would be "wrong" if any employer chose not to hire him. That aspect doesn't really need to change because the physical traits in question are a choice. It'd be no different than me showing up to a job interview in torn/sloppy clothes - I'd be judged for that and I wouldn't blame them.

With respect, I don't agree that torn/sloppy clothing is the same as what he did. That's old school way of thinking; almost down to a T.

Of course an interviewer could still judge you and choose not to hire you but in today's age tattoos aren't just seen as "you don't care about your appearance do you" (the eye dying like I said is quite extreme still) like they used to be. though facial tattoos are on a more gradual acceptance here. I don't disagree that an employer may choose not to hire him and there's legally nothing wrong with that. But ethically I think the tide is shifting. Snap judgements are snap judgements. We're becoming better at not making those, we've still got a few more generations I think before it really is prevalent though.