Myspace... or MyCompany'sSpace... Hmm

This also was a comment on Heather V.'s blog - but I would like to make it a post.

I read the myspace article and was also quite bothered, annoyed, angered, and confused. So, I get the whole: teachers are public servants thing. I get that politicians, clergy, police officers, etc. participate in a public eye and also, that they represent certain ideals set forth by who knows who. So, when these public figures/role models have conduct that suddenly speaks against those ideals, people don't quite know how to react other than to point fingers (and they probably should point fingers at themselves while they're at it).

The point is: all of these roles are filled by humans. Humans with basic needs and desires: sexual, companionship, lust, humor, liberty, etc. which get conveyed in mediums of expression, such as Facebook or Myspace at varying degrees.

I agree that teachers should behave appropriate to context - that they conduct themselves professionally in a professional setting: the classroom, and that while they are around students (especially underage students), they should be considerate and cognizant of their conduct.
When creating their own space, such as Myspace or Facebook, they should be allowed to express their multiple identities as the context allows for it. When employers go "snooping" around, they are bringing their "professional" context into an arena that is meant to be non-professional. They are crossing boundaries, and while they cross, they are bringing "rules" into an environment where their rules don't *necessarily* apply. (Child porn is one area where concern would, of course, be rational.)

While I know that Myspace and Facebook are public forums and that privacy is not expected, what should be expected is that viewers will see PEOPLE. That the people are separated from their "role." Already students fail to see their instructors as people with lives: that they grocery shop, do laundry, date, drink, play pool, etc. It is this ignorance and naivete that contributes to the shock factor when someone stumbles upon a "sperm cartoon" on a teacher's page (or whatever it was).

Moreover, if teachers cannot express themselves in mediums like Myspace, Facebook, or ANY other public forum, in relaxed, human ways, we essentially say that they are not allowed to be human and that they are owned by the company/institution that hires them for the rest of their working career. It certainly is "good" to be professional, but letting loose in relaxed arenas seems only a logical action. If one is always being "watched" or feels that s/he cannot participate in community-creating activities, I believe they call it the "chill effect." This could result in feelings of resentment and poor morale - certainly not beneficial to the company.

While companies say that their employees represent them - of course, I can't negate this. But it is the fault/ignorance of the viewer to assume that a "sperm cartoon" denotes poor moral character (especially just because a "teacher" posts it) first, and second, automatically linking the thought that the company/institution endorses people who like sperm cartoons.
Essentially, there seem to be many who jump to conclusions about someone or a company without really exercising critical thought about the situation.

CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.

Such as in the case of the "retard." So, this instructor teaches special ed students and is accused of using the word "retard." First, she never ever called her own students retards - she probably wouldn't even dream of it. The context in which the word was used was completely divorced from her special ed students. I doubt that when the word was used, her students ever entered her mind. Instead, it is the viewer who is linking the word to the students - and perhaps the viewer should be faulted for this assumption.