I was looking forward to his piece because I figured we'd agree for once. Oh well...

Hitchens fails to understand the double-edged sword of media saturation that he cites. Yes, those of us who are utterly disinterested in celebreality news are inundated in it anyway - a mild form of psychological molestation.

What he fails to realize is that Hilton is a "role model" for many young girls. She should not be. She's not qualified to be. Parents should not allow her to be so interpreted. Yet, I repeat, she is a role model to young girls. Many young girls take her for such, at the very least.

I'm a teacher. I regularly have to make the case why Paris is no role model, in terms of her attitude, her lifestyle, her choices, or her painfully embarrassing frivolity.

She broke the law, (however a law-and-order conservative would like to marginalize/minimize/mock/dism­iss that) THREE times. It was on her second offense of driving on a suspended license, for which she could/would not take personal responsibility, that she faced legal penalties.

So sad when the lifestyles of the rich and famous intersect with the hopeful reality that this is still a nation of laws. Everyday, people are actually shafted in the system. Paris got the proscribed sentence for her recklessness.

I think Hitch, like Coulter and company, likes to say whatever riles.

Where are your vaunted principles here, Mr. Hitch?

You are very correct that Paris Hilton is a role model but you are incorrect in stating she should not be: some of her actions are not worthy of being models for anyone else and it pains me to see any young person desire to imitate her. However, she represents for teenage girls—and also many gay male teens—a sense of agency. Hilton may seem like a brat but she's empowered because she's rich and a celebrity. She deconstructs normal taboos and shows that beauty and wealth have value, and while these values in and of themselves are not worthy ones, the concept of express agency to get these mechanisms of social standing are in fact worthwhile. You need not be an older white straight male to have power, you need not bow to every social convention to have it, you can come by it via various and multiform means.

I do not in the least endorse the fact that Hilton violated the law or that she was driving drunk. But she should not be dismissed otherwise because she has in the tradition of movie stars of old shown that there is still such a thing as being a socialite. I think in an obtuse way that still matters. While we don't need teens to wish to have exactly her life, we can allow them to garner from her example the good aspects and leave the rest behind. You say you're a teacher: if you do not see that teens will be able to discern the good from the bad in a public figure then you're very myopic in your view of teens and probably should sit back and think things over for a bit.

Myopic? Hmm.

Anything that bucks a white male patriarchy is a good thing even if it's not a good thing . . .

Being a socialite has social value . . .

That my post about a certain but vocal minority of my students who place any (which is too much) credence in Miss Hilton makes me discriminatory against all teens . . .

That I should rethink . . .

You do not know a thing about me, and your willingness to make grandiose generalizations and assumptions about me based on an incomplete understanding/reading of what I actually wrote shows a great deal.

I could go on. I could take your post apart point by point. I won't. I'll simply invite you not to open yourself to criticism by attacking on prejudicial, presumptuous, and premature grounds.

Most of those who regard and respect her do so vicariously, as though she presents anything that a role model should have - i.e. something the admirer can emulate. She basks in her own ignorance and snottiness. She is aloof to commoners. She plays the fiddle as Rome burns. Her wealth allows her to mock us all, but we should thank her for being . . . what. . . an uber-feminist? Is that what you're saying.

Agency . . . . puh-lease.

No, I don't know you, but like Hitchens you seem to value your own ability to craft together words that sound smart and even carry some wit on the surface into vast statements that extend your views and neglect all others. Even in stating "I could take your post apart point by point" you seem to be saying that you're smarter than I am or more able to evaluate this issue and that approach is, again, myopic and rather arrogant.

I never said anything about your overall ability as a teacher, but simply said that if you do not fully understand the attraction of youth to someone like Paris then that view is myopic in that you apparently feel your opinion of Paris is worthy of lecturing your students on why she is not a proper role model. Do you allow your students to express their own views in response and argue with you or do you simply tell them, also, that you could take their arguments apart point by point?

Paris Hilton is in many ways a poor example but she's also a bridge for a certain youth subculture towards better understanding the dynamics of society. I have a number of friends who found inspiration in Paris while in high school and early college because while their parents and teachers argued that the amount of time they invested in their looks and fashion sense was trivial and silly, they cultivated their interest into aspects they could actually do something with . . . when I was in high school I also had teachers who delimited my sense of agency and mocked people whom I admired.

It's not th job of teachers: the role of the teacher is to instruct in their subject and provide general education but to say who should and shouldn't be a role model is expressing an opinion and if done in the language you've responded to my comment above in, it would also seem very patronizing. And students don't need that.

When you point your finger . . .

You aspire to defining good teaching. Are you a teacher? Do you think sitting in a classroom as a student allows you to define good teaching? I'll wager I've spent more hours in classrooms as a student than you have. And I'm a trained, qualified, and highly successful teacher (I have nothing to prove to you). Your presumption, again, inspires my ire.

I am a teacher of the Humanities. Conversations regularly bend to relevance in modern culture. Your definition of a teacher's responsibilities is sadly and legally lacking, at least insofar as my state is concerned. I'm obligated to be a role model, and my personal life and decisions are a basis for judgment of my character and my ability to serve. And I'm not even a celebrity. I'm obligated to interact with students with regard to their moral principles. The State of Connecticut says so. There are wrongs in this society. Some ideas are wrong. Authority figures disagreeing with you is a part of being taught. Park your ego outside. Using this language of delimiting and agency is solipsistic, to say the least. It would seem that someone taught you that you cannot be wrong - that any such argument is delimiting of your agency. That is the ego preventing understanding. Not mine.

Authority figures like coaches, parents, and teachers are OBLIGATED to wrestle with young people on behalf of their values and perceptions. That's how education happens. Insofar as a school would validate what students already think and want to think, no learning happens there.

I am invested in my students and care deeply about their success. Praise of Miss Hilton cannot help them achieve that (see below), like many other ideas and attitudes. It's my job to teach my students to learn, how to learn, to succeed, how to succeed. THAT is my job. My job is not to expostulate dryly on a narrow subject and then go home. If that was your experience then you have my sympathies and regret.

You can say I'm arrogant. Feel free. However, you contradicted yourself repeatedly in trying to contradict me. That's the basis of my argument that you are wrong. Yes, wrong. People can be wrong. I can be wrong. I get paid NOT to be, and when I am wrong, I am held to account. You can cite your right to hold any/all opinions you want. I am held culpable where I am mistaken.

If I did not intervene if a student worshipped, say, Hitler, I'd be accountable. Legally. I'm not saying Hilton is comparable to Hitler, at least not in scale; but I am confident that I can prove that she is deleterious, by substance and nature, to ANY EDUCATIONAL GOAL. I have yet (and this is the fact of my reality and experience, which you cannot deny) to meet a student who worshipped Hilton who was a self-professed "reader." If I am to educate anyone, I must first deconstruct barriers to learning.

Please be humble enough to admit that you do not have practical knowledge of pedagogy. I am a teacher, and I know my passion, compassion, and prerequisites for the job. I know my responsibilities and the law. I know how and when learning happens - that's my professional purview. I KNOW MY STUDENTS. And I know what I need to do to enhance or even jump-start learning.

Paris is a perfect de-motivator for learning.

I have read your remarks and now that I am not in the tremendous rush I was when I wrote my previous comments, I can reflect on things a bit more. In part, you are right: when we are wrong it’s far better to admit such and learn from it. In part, I was wrong, in at least not constructing as effective an explanation in my argument of what exactly I was trying to defend and I was also wrong in allowing my personal emotions and personal history guide my views here more than they should.

I am a journalist but have also worked as a teacher and tutor of English as a second language at the college level—both in a paid and a volunteer capacity. I have won awards for my efforts in this respect. I believe in the power of education and I also believe in helping students of all ages realize their dreams and find the energy to set their own course in life. Also, I come from a background very similar to Paris Hilton’s and ever since at least middle school I have been the target of thinly-disguised insults that “it must be nice” to have the financial agency to not have to worry about things. Such remarks have come from peers, from teachers, and as an ESL tutor from a superior. Nonetheless I’ve always been a very hard worker even though, as people seem to like to remind me, I don’t really have to be one. On the subject of pedagogy I won’t contest your acumen or experience but I will say I have about 15 years worth of undergraduate and graduate education since high school . . . and that’s a lot by anyone’s standards.

My fear from your comments was that you would quickly shoot down your students’ assertions of Paris Hilton being any sort of role model . . . you are right that she’s not the best of examples, but I feared that you would (and validly, perhaps you don’t in the least) present students with a commanding presence of intellectual superiority—as several of my own instructors in high school AP courses did when I countered their own opinions and tried to form my arguments articulately. But again, that may not be the case. While I stand behind my core assertion that Paris does, to her younger fans, represent something beyond what Hitchens’ article or most of the following Fray comments have explicated, I will also say that I thank you for being in your profession and bringing to young people your obvious acumen and love for learning.

Thank you for giving me the courtesy of a re-read and an honest reflection. I never expect two people to agree or get along.

You've paid me the highest intellectual compliment there is, though. You re-visited and re-considered my words.

I assure you that in the last 17 hours I've thought of little else besides our discussion. Given that I have final exams to write and give that's a disaster! ; )

Thank you for getting my blood boiling. It keeps me young.

You are right to defend yourself and your views. I am glad that you have played your hand in the teaching arena.

Best of success and luck in all future endeavors.

Bsdetector, I've enjoyed reading what you've written. I'm getting my MAT now, and you've inspired me. Cloud, of course teachers need to talk about more than facts, despite what No Child Left Behind tells us. What Bsdetector is doing is teaching kids to think critically, a skill that gets lost when teachers have to pretend that opinions don't exist, or should never be challenged. He/she is doubly a good teacher by teaching that critical thinking isn't just an academic excersise - it involves things we experience in daily life. He or she won't change all opinions, but at least those students will have actually heard something thoughtful on the subject.

Also, agency is very important. But most people in this country will have to learn to achieve that without being millionnaires and having the press at their beck and call. That's what we need to be teaching them. And they should be taught to use wealth wisely and responsibly, which Paris does not do. In addition, I question Paris's agency: what kind of agency would she have if it weren't for wealth, privilege, and fame? The evidence seems to show that there just isn't much Paris there without those things.

"a sense of agency"

I have three points to make on this:

1. Almost no one in our culture today is challenged in terms of having a "sense of agency."

2. Paris doesn't display a "sense of agency" at all. She is slave to her lust, hedonism, and fame. Someone genuinely exercising a sense of agency doesn't lose their sense under drink and screw random people. Agency isn't simply stumbling after whatever easy "fun" can be had.

"She deconstructs normal taboos"

No, she doesn't. She breaks taboos that aren't really even taboos anymore. Casual sex is the norm now; the old, staid puritans just have more of an interest in making a loud fuss about the whole thing. (Both of those are just as off-base as the other, by the way.)

What did Paris Hilton do for the removal of sexual taboos by being penetrated by a man whilst being filmed? Let's review what happened, too, after she was filmed: First, the tape was released against Hilton's will. Some agency and female empowerment there: her ex releases a cheap, bad porno of her and makes a killing off it without her permission.

Second, the mocking that ensued, as mocking and joking about ostensibly taboo subjects always does, only reenforced what little of the taboo may remain.

"shows that beauty... [has value]"

Beauty does have value, but Hilton isn't beautiful. This isn't (merely) a jab at her looks; she is perhaps glamorous, but "glamor" is a very distinct property from beauty as discussed and treated by thinkers throughout history. One is simply showing off in order to provoke envy and sexual arousal; the other is the aesthetic properties of a sublime physical form, whether human or otherwise, an concrete expression of high goodness.

"wealth [has] value"

No, it really doesn't. It enables one to get stuff that has value, useful tools and so on, but it doesn't have value itself.

Hilton's wealth has, apparently, not been translated into any real value at all, instead being wasted on sustaining an empty lifestyle.

"the concept of express agency to get these mechanisms of social standing are in fact worthwhile"

Who cares about "social standing?" Often throughout history, those who have put the most good into their lives were the most opposed- Socrates lost his social standing, but led a full life.

Teenagers, in fact, and all people, need to be worry and think much less about the "mechanisms of social standing," and rather about more weighty matters and the development of themselves as individuals.

If anyone needs to be shown that agency is something other than being "empowered" to debase oneself, it's teenage girls and gay males. Both are reguarly pressured to sex themselves up, dress like whores, flirt randomly, objectify themselves, do nothing of consequence, and abandon their will and sexual expression to something rather close to chance.

"You need not be an older white straight male to have power"

Well, obviously. A quick look through the television channels will show young pundits debating, Oprah, and Ellen. The taboos are gone from mainstream society; once more, it is only that those who uphold them are skilled at making a squawk about it.

Also, race and orientation have nothing to do with Hilton. She is white and, as far as I know, heterosexual.

I'm also going to point out all of her power comes from inheriting money made by an older white straight male and being recorded being penetrated by a white straight male who would later sell the recording against her will.

"you need not bow to every social convention to have it"

Anyone with any sense knows that those with power got it by distinguishing themselves, i.e. by seperating from social convention in one way or another. Bill Gates, for instance, dropped out of college and went dumpster diving behind other software companies to get ideas.

"you can come by it via various and multiform means."

But this doesn't address the issue of whether those means, or the end of power in and of itself, is good. Hilton is not good, the sort of power she has is not good, and she did not come to it by goodness or merit.

"she has in the tradition of movie stars of old shown that there is still such a thing as being a socialite"

What value is there in being a socialite, or leading the sort of superfical lives that socialites or old movie stars led? They were often talented, unlike Hilton or her contemporary socialites, but that doesn't mean their private life is something to be emulated or respected. Bogart smoked; should we?