Jarry, formerly a second grade teacher at Thalberg Elementary School in Southington, Connecticut, participated in an "Ugliest Guy, Hottest Wife" contest on The Howard Stern Show. She donned a bikini, baring her toned body, and her husband, Aaron, removed his shirt to bare his gut. She made a few sexual jokes at her husband's expense while he expressed adoration for his wife's hotness; they won $5,000.
The local media in Connecticut got word of this and soon, Jarry was forced to resign from her job, due to behavior popularly deemed "inappropriate" for a second grade teacher.
I won't argue against the overall tackiness of the contest, but this is enough to cost the teacher her job? Really? When at least one parent otherwise reported his child's satisfaction inside the classroom?
There was no nudity involved (not that it should particularly matter) and the physical image that she conveyed was one that society deems appropriate for families on beaches. I recently published a picture of myself wearing a bikini in the newspaper for which I write and I teach children, too. The hypocrisy is that no one would likely object to my bikini photo because it was part of a narrative article, illustrating my personal experience of climbing a waterfall in Jamaica.
The negativity conveyed by parents in Jarry's case was largely pointed at the crudeness of The Howard Stern Show, itself, so it hardly seems fair to attack the teacher for that. Granted, she appeared on the show of her own free will. Yet, few would argue that this is a show that is appropriate for children. It is intended for ADULT viewing. This is why parental controls exist.
The bottom line is, Jarry chose to participate on this show in her own personal time and it in no way impeded her ability to do her job. If her bikini picture were published in a newspaper and her students asked, the parents should tell them that it's because she won a beauty contest; this should satisfy second graders. Her choice to participate was tasteless, but should not have cost her her job.
