I changed "maintaining a sexual relationship with a minor" to "molesting a minor" to fit the language used in the reports on the incident.

Hi K,

You are referring only to those elements of that second newspaper editorial that are favorable to your opinion and in order to justify the suspension of Panse.

My friend, you completely ignore the fact that Mr. Panse has denied all previous allegations that he used inappropriate language with his students. A memo in anyone's personnel file does not constitute proven fact or verified finding. If that was the case then he should have been suspended in 1997 as that would have been more of a heinous offense (if true).

The "crucial distinction" that you make as the keystone for your anti-Panse stance ignores the fact that:

(a) Mr. Panse denies that he was never told not to recommend the nude classes (which I assume is where the "sexual comments" tie-in, as much of a stretch that is) in advance of his suspension and that

(b) Accordding to Panse his supervisor was fully aware and in approval of his recommendations for figure drawing classes, and that in fact, his supervisor had offered to award high school credit to Panse's students who had studied nude figure drawing at the New York Academy of Art during the summer of 2005).

If Panse's recommendations that students take an extra-curricular nude drawing class from him or somewhere else were "sexual comments" and if Panse's supervisor endorsed them (by your logic)perhaps he also should be suspended or reprimanded?

In fact, I think that you bolster my case!

(a) Panse recommends that his students take nude classes - his supervisor allegedly apporves that idea.
(b) But recommending that a student take nude classes is now akin to being construed by some students as "sexual."

You also write that: By offering to conduct a high school class outside the purview of Middletown High School, Panse does not appear to have acted with sensitivity to the rules, the feelings of some of his students' parents, or his own marked record.

But you ignore that (from the Yoder article) "this proposed course would also be open to area art teachers, and would have required that parents serve as chaperones to ensure a strong adult presence," and also that "Panse told his students that if his own figure drawing class materialized, he would be obligated to submit any advertisement to the school principal for approval."

These are the facts:

1.) Mr. Panse was not suspended, arrested, charged, tried or convicted for anything with respect to allegations contained in the referenced memo.

2.) Mr. Panse denies all of the allegations that are contained in the memo in question.

3.) Mr. Panse did nothing immoral, illegal or against written school policy for which he should have been suspended with respect to suggested or recommending that his art students take nude model drawing classes.

4.) Mr. Panse merely suggested that his students pursue an opportunity to expand their portolios by participating in a nude model drawing class. He was suspended for exercising his right to free speech.

It's a good argument to discuss over a few beers...

Warm regards,

Lenny

Hey Lenny,

Thanks for the thorough response. I'll say this: I think that the short list of bloggers and editorial writers who have picked up this story have discussed it as having something to do with aesthetics—something about the value of nude figure study. That strikes me as a mischaracterization of the case, especially given the updates filed in the Times Herald-Record.

Of the two disciplinary hearings Panse faced, one was "for recruiting, soliciting or encouraging students to take his private lessons." That has little or nothing to do with the nature of the lessons; it's a matter of procedure, the articles suggest. You quote Yoder as saying that "Panse told his students that if his own figure drawing class materialized, he would be obligated to submit any advertisement to the school principal for approval"—which appears to illustrate that Panse was organizing with students first as opposed to teachers or parents.

The second disciplinary hearing concerned a restriction on Panse in relation to his 1997 reprimand. You are right that I should note that Panse allegedly made said comments to his students, and he disputes the claims; I'll update that line. But it's at best a conditional defense—rightly or wrongly, the reprimand still stands, and both school administrators and parents ought to have input in or information regarding the kinds of extracurricular activities teachers.

Possibly the second hearing is about nudity and a belief among some that Panse intended to lead private classes that amounted to pr0n. Now, obviously "the practice of teaching figure drawing including nude models by advanced art students does not constitute any kind of sexual impropriety"—once you have taught students that lesson. That can be a difficult, possibly even painful lesson for some students, one fraught with political, religious, and personal-history faultlines that should be navigated with sensitivity. Panse might have had the best intentions for his students in mind, but those might not jibe at all with the parents' best intentions for their kiddos. And that's why we have school boards, and that appears to be the direct subject of disciplinary hearing number one.

So the fact that, as Yoder writes, "this proposed course would also be open to area art teachers, and would have required that parents serve as chaperones to ensure a strong adult presence," doesn't really matter, since it comes after the fact—he didn't pitch the course to those parents but instead to the students.

You might say that I'm appealing to bureaucracy. I'm hoping to refer to the rules of Panse's employment, rather than to what you and I both know to be the value of a live figure study. It does sound to me like an overreaction that would have been better served by an inquiry rather than an immediate disciplinary hearing, but that's neither here nor there. I don't read this as a militant infringement against Panse's speech rights or against nudity but a reaction to Panse's efforts to circumvent normal procedure.

Yeah, that's unreasonably long.

Hey K,

I'm lost... how do you teach students the lesson that "drawing from the live model does not constitute any kind of sexual impropriety," if you are forbidden from discussing drawing from the nude model in the first place? Or anything that could be remotely construed as "sexual impropriety"

From charge 2, it seems that had he tried to teach students the lesson that "drawing from the live model does not constitute any kind of sexual impropriety," THAT itself would have been a potential sexual impropriety, so he's back in trouble.

On Wednesday, when I read both articles from the Times Herald-Record and viewed the Geraldo TV story, I felt that they simply added gasoline to the issue by bringing forth a 1997 reprimand that the man denies (and that was ironically signed and given by Robert Sigler!) And when you read the actual reprimand, it soon seems to border on the weird.

So, let's pretend that he was pitching an extra curricular art class for profit that would focus on drawing ducks.

Would he be suspended?

He was suspended because he wanted the students to draw the nude, and the board (wrongly in my opinion) equates drawing of nudes as "sexual."

I agree that for some, nudity should be navigated with sensitivity; all nudity.

But Yoder also adds that "the ninth grade art history survey course includes dozens of images of nudes. Mr. Panse's students had completed that unit previously, and are now upperclassmen."

Time for the Board to review that course?

Presumably the Board did review the course, so they don't object to nudity per se. They do object to teachers who try to circumvent the normal channels for implementing extracurricular classes: that's the (rather mundane) subject of charge one. I assume they also object to the fact that Panse said he had discussed this class with his department head when he had not, which is also alleged in charge one.

Whether Panse disputes the allegations from his previous reprimand is immaterial—he agreed to the reprimand's consequences. As I've said, I absolutely agree that discussing the nude figure in no way constitutes an infraction of his oath not to discuss sexual material with his students.

But there's more to it than that: He was warned against discussions that could be construed as sexual in nature. These are teenagers he's dealing with, and he should have known better than to assume that a proposal to meet off campus to draw nude models would be greeted with adult maturity by all his students. That was a mistake in judgment. But it wouldn't have come to that if he had gone about this through the proper channels: by discussing it in a faculty meeting, proposing it in a school board hearing, whatever. Claiming after the fact that he intended all along to involve parents and chaperones and administrators doesn't cut it.

In this case, I don't know whether I'd have suspended him or just hauled him into the office for a Q&A or tongue lashing. The severity of Panse's punishment may reflect other factors to which we are not privy. But if the question is whether this investigation amounts to a gross injustice or infringement of free speech, no, I really don't think so.

OK my friend, we'll agree to disagree, although I don't know how you are so certain and sure that his intentions to involve parents as chaperones were "after the fact" - we don't know that do we?

I imagine that he's suing, so the courts will determine who is right (in the courts' opinions - we'll always have ours!)

Warm regards,

Lenny

Okay, this is relatively minor, but Middletown ain't Catskills area, despite being near the Catskills. Think of it as the northern edge of the NYC exurbs, and you've pretty much got it.

I say this as an area native, which might suggest that I have something first hand of value to contribute, but sadly, I don't. I will say, though, that I had teachers "recruit, solicit and encourage" me to take private classes while in high school -- voice lessons with the chorus director -- and there was never any intimation that this was problematic. I went to Pine Bush, the district next door to Middletown, so quite possibly the rules are different; but still, it seems like an odd restriction. I'd be interested in learning more.

Finally, if you're new to the Times Herald Record, I have to suggest taking it with a decent-sized grain of salt. You won't need the whole shaker, but going sodium-free is not advised.

I would like to just chime in as one who has both taken figure drawing classes and taught them for three years (to community college students, mostly one or two years older than a high school upper classman).
I have never received or given the sort of "sensitivity training" regarding drawing the nude that Kriston implies is mandatory for new students. I've never even heard of such a thing. I'm tempted to say that such instruction would potentially do more to underscore the sexuality than not mentioning it at all and simply trusting in the students' maturity, but I don't even think THAT is the truth. The truth is that students are well-informed in advance that the class features nude drawing, and those who object to such practices avoid the class. Those who do take their first figure-drawing class often do approach it with an air of self-conscious titilation, which evaporates immediately after plunging into quick gesture drawings that require a more objective frame of mind. After 10 minutes the model might as well be a potted fern or any other complicated object to be rendered in charcoal on paper. Those who cannot make this adjustment, if any (I've never met such a person), will quickly realize they're terrible at figure drawing and leave in search of an easier A.
For the record, I believe the facts that are available to us support Lenny's point of view. This is a case of semantics and beaurocracy being used to fight a Puritanical battle.

Lenny says, "[Panse] was suspended because he wanted the students to draw the nude, and the board (wrongly in my opinion) equates drawing of nudes as 'sexual.'" I don't get that from the Times Herald-Record reporting on the subject, though that reading is readily apparent from the site that Lenny cites, which is one writer's editorial opinion. Obviously, if and as more facts come to light, I'm happy (and I imagine Lenny is as well) to reconsider.

I don't think there needs to be anything so formal as "sensitivity training" preluding a nude drawing class; the official-ness of a class conducted in a school, with all the associated approval and consent (and oversight) of parents, faculty, and administrators, seems enough to curb against the thrill of the illicit. How much more "self-conscious titilation" would be introduced in a sort of Dead Poets' Society setting, conducted outside the purview of the classroom? Well, this depends not just on how professionally Panse (or whoever) conducts the class but on how students—and parents—receive it. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that some teenagers would see this as the class that the Principal doesn't want them to take.

Maybe it is the class the Principal doesn't want students to take. It's certainly weird to me that live nude figure–drawing isn't a part of the "official" art curriculum. It could and may be the case that the school district has ass-backwards views about art or nudity and that Panse stepped out of bounds in trying to skirt the regular process. So, whether the Middletown School Board is stacked with frumpish schoolma'arms has no bearing on the allegation that Panse lied about consulting his department head beforehand. Also, Panse being disciplined for procedural reasons over an activity that we all agree to be A Good Thing isn't evidence that the MSB is stacked with dowdy churchladies (even if we all that with bureaucrats this usually applies).

Ben, thanks for the geography lesson.

I also took private lessons during school and don't remember a lot of litigation being involved, but it was an established part of the class by the time I was in school. I really do think that a big part of Panse's headaches stem from the school board's perception that he was going about starting this class in a cagey way.

If "the official-ness of a class conducted in a school, with all the associated approval and consent (and oversight) of parents, faculty, and administrators, seems enough to curb against the thrill of the illicit," then I don't understand why, in an earlier post, you maintained that "It is these adults on the campus who must instruct young students that the nude figure has artistic applications that are free of and distinct from the body's sexual connotations."
(A lesson that was already apparently taught as early as freshman art history)
It was due to this assertion that I shared my experiences, which you have largely chosen to ignore. Instead you grossly exaggerated the meaning of my last line in order to attack it, which doesn't really help your case much. I think the point has been made elsewhere, and well, that this whole fiasco would never have become an issue without an overreaction to the nudity. This is not simply a case of a man who didn't follow protocol or may not have talked to administration when he should have (we don't, and will likely never, know the truth of who said what to whom and when).
Finally, do you really think this may be perceived as "the class the Principal doesn't want them to take" if the students will need parental consent and chaperones? Or that there's a danger of titillated teenagers when their moms are sitting next to them? That Panse told the students of this class before telling their parents may be unfortunate, but is sort of irrelevant. It's certainly not cagey if we know he told the STUDENTS there would be parental notification and chaperones--the kids never had the chance to think they may be in for anything other than art class.

"A child will never be as damaged by seeing a tit as they will be by adults going insane over a child having seen a tit."

- Lewis Black

On further reflection, though, I have to admit that if K exaggerated anything, it was my own exaggerated use of the word "Puritanical". That wasn't warranted. I don't think the problem is necessarily that the school board or community is afraid of nudity or sex. I think the basic problem is a lack of understanding of how the drawing process works--of the need to be utterly objective in order to draw realistically.
Most people have no experience with nudity in a non-sexual context. People don't even go to art museums, and it doesn't help that thhere are so many stories of great painters sleeping with their models anyway. Until you attend a figure drawing class it can be hard to comprehend how staring at a naked man or woman for three hours isn't at least a little perverted. I believe if the school board were only made to sit and draw a nude in the right setting, this issue would largely blow away.

Wow, Lenny, that's a great quote.

That Panse told the students of this class before telling their parents may be unfortunate, but is sort of irrelevant.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I don't think it is irrelevant. It's the subject of the first charge that the school board laid out against Panse, and it's the reason cited by Cahn in the later T H-R articles (for what that's worth). I think it's really easy to look past that first charge because the possibility of a nudity/sex/mores/free speech crisis is so much, well, sexier. But it's just as possible, and I think more likely, that the investigation and suspension is the result of Panse not following the rules. He seems to have acted in a shady manner, which ought to raise an eyebrow even on a school administrator who properly appreciates such a class (i.e., in the way you describe).

And it would be fantastic to know that there's some Okee-from_Muskogee bench of bureaucrats in upstate New York that's so utterly conservative they're willing to attack the classical approach to art. That's practically slapstick.

erm, do any of you actually live in Middletown? Have any of you read the 97 memo?

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/01/27/1997memo.pdf

he may have denied them, but are all people really that honest? You did not have him as a teacher, he really DID these things. I should know, I'm a student. I don't want him as a teacher, he taught me absolutely nothing in the 6 months that I had him. That's plenty of time to at least impress me, which he did not, but people from, gee, OUTSIDE MIDDLETOWN shouldn't even get INVOLVED

wake up, guys, this isn't your problem. It's ours. It's our decision to fire his or keep him as students/parents/teachers of Middletown High School. Why would anyone's view in California matter? Well, it wouldn't. so back off.

What he was doing was illegal. As some have stated, it was basically 'shady'. He only told his advanced class, which, in my opinion, was not much more advanced than a sixth grader's work. Most kids were new, and most just took the class because it looked interesting. The class couldn't even draw folded cloth correctly, what makes them ready for a freaking figure drawing class?

Suggesting one would have been fine. But solictiting one? No. He picked people out and made fun of them and their parents if they said "no" to the idea. If things aren't done his way, it's wrong. Isn't there a possibility there are other ways of drawing than the "Peter Panse" way? not in HIS class.

Yeah, seeing nude figures was not the problem, it was the soliciting. Middletown does not need another perverted teacher, thank you very much.

Once again, thank you California, Vermont, Canada, whatever... but you don't matter to us... This is OUR decision. Not yours. We *appreciate* your "Well parents obviously suck because blah blah blah idiots." comments...

BUT THE REAL REASON HE WAS IN TROUBLE WAS BECAUSE OF THE STUDENTS.

Think, please, for a moment. A group of students were the ones to first complain, not the parents. if you want to blame someone, blame us. It was the icing on the cake that he should tell us this. It went along so nicely with other sexual comments and actions.

The art world is the largest world of all. The profoundness of the history is eternalized by the refinement of the enduring classical aproach.All is art. The regulators of the art field is the greatest artists of all time.Their legacy steers the way. It is a collective of conciousness preserved in stills that enriches the cause of mankind.
The knowledge of a true patron of art is truly reserved in what is out there to be viewed. A truly knowledgable art teacher purpose is to steer the passions of the student to the heights of the field. It is the knowledge of teacher of what is out there that is the teachers personal responsibility to convey what is nessary for a student sucess filled carreer path. It is nessary for the teacher to forgo their personal interpitations to truley tell the truth of what is required out there in the university entry level requirments. Peter Panse did presisly that.
If you look at Peter Panse Portfolio in his one man shows you would find your self what really drives his passions. Apon looking at his art shows you would quickly find out that the most of Peter's work is what is generally catigorized as field art. This would clearly send a message to a intuitive person that the one thing that Peter is being persicuted is not his real love, that being the ongoing to perfect the nude. It is out of his personal sacrifice and the correcting the false impressions that field art will prepair you for art college enty.
I commend Peter for his honesty for he is not engined by sexuality. He put aside his prudishness which if you knew him,you would quickly find out he is a devoted one woman husband and pefers to stay within the relm of field art.
It is only out of pure knowledge of the requirments of the field that he personally has seen the short comings of his own and other artists having a unbalanced portfolio suffer from poor guidance.
The strength of Peter Panse is that he is a world class acomplished artist who's joy of art is so strong that he desired to share his passions to fuel the youth is the true story.
I personally know this to be true for if he gave up his teaching job and painted professionally he would go down in history with the greatest artists of all time.
This accomplished great man is of the level to be painting kings and queens and princes.I commend Peter for his sacrifice in saving the youth of America from the staleness of instant potato's photo approach. He is a true reincarnation of the greatest masters of all time.Any person who has had the great honor to have a moment of guidance with have the greatest inflection added into their style