
Eubanks had a truly Orwellian take on the situation: “I think we have a right to privacy, but when we take inappropriate information or pictures, we had best make sure it remains private. Students had access to very inappropriate pictures of a teacher.” What? The student did not have “access.” He stole a phone. Under Eubanks’ approach, a bank robber is given “access” to safety deposit boxes.
Eubanks seems to believe that the mere fact that a cellphone was unlocked is a matter for termination. Does that mean that teachers with unlocked cars or coats hanging in the teacher’s lounge would also be fired for a theft by a student?
For her part, Arthur forgives the 16-year-old student and says that teenagers can do some really stupid things. Arthur shows far better judgment and understanding than Eubanks or her superiors in Union, South Carolina.
