Some people think the administrative case against former Northeast High School science teacher Laurie S. Cook is about sex.
Both the lawyer for the Anne Arundel County Board of Education, P. Tyson Bennett, and Ms. Cook's lawyer, M. Cristina Gutierrez, think so.
On the first night of the hearing, Mr. Bennett told the examiner appointed by the school board that the case is about "lies, sex and videotape." He alleges that Ms. Cook had sex with a 14-year-old student, lied about the relationship and then went on television to talk about her case.
Ms. Gutierrez argues that the case is about "money, sex and race."
Although the defense's strategy is fuzzy at this point, Ms. Gutierrez seems to be alleging that the student is lying about his involvement with Ms. Cook because either:
A) He is confused by his racial identity.
B) He somehow was hoping to get money by making up the story.
C) He was unnaturally preoccupied with sex, or
D) All of the above.
Some journalists think the case is about sex, too. Six television news vans didn't line up outside the school board's office on a Friday night just to hear allegations that Ms. Cook falsified hall passes and gave a boy answers to test questions.
Those who have been following the case to hear the lurid details have not been disappointed. On the first night, a rather nervous police detective who investigated the case described the acts of fondling and oral sex Ms. Cook was alleged to have performed.
The detective's testimony contained some interesting revelations. The science teacher is alleged to have insisted that the student use proper biological terms rather than gutter slang to describe parts of the body and sex acts. And Ms. Cook was reported to be fascinated with the boy's interracial family and wanted to have his baby.
The next time the hearing convened, the alleged victim himself testified, telling about how his relationship with Ms. Cook evolved from innocent friendship to kissing, fondling and eventually oral sex. And on the third night, a female student who was sexually abused by another teacher, Ronald Price, testified that Ms. Cook wrote her passes that allowed her to meet the now-incarcerated Price without arousing suspicion.
But while the allegations being laid out in the hearing are complete with scintillating details, let's not forget that a county Circuit Court jury already has found Ms. Cook innocent of sexually abusing the student.
The question is not whether she had sex with the boy.
The question is whether she is fit to teach.
If she did have sex with one of her students, there would be no disagreement that she is an unfit teacher.
But even if she did not have sex with the student, she still may be guilty of conduct that warrants her dismissal. And that is the question the school board must decide.
There is no law against fraternizing with students. No law against writing hall passes to get students out of class for false reasons. No law against giving a student test questions in advance. Yet Ms. Cook ought to be fired if she did any one of those things.
The board must determine whether Ms. Cook crossed the line that separates compassionate teaching from inappropriate behavior.
And unlike the jury, which had to be certain "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Ms. Cook had committed a crime, the school board must only find Ms. Cook unsuitable to teach based upon the "preponderance of the evidence."
Ms. Gutierrez insists that Ms. Cook did nothing wrong.
She is portraying Ms. Cook as a dedicated science teacher who befriended a student who needed a little extra attention, then became the victim of a mass hysteria that swept through Northeast High School after Price admitted on television's "Geraldo!" to having sex with students.
Ms. Gutierrez says Ms. Cook worked long hours and kept her doors open to students so that they might come in and talk about their problems. The football player was just one of many students she helped. And her compassion extended to his family as well. She hired his father to do odd jobs and she encouraged one of his sisters to go to college, even buying her books and taking her to school. All of those things were acts of a woman born to teach, the lawyer says.
The school superintendent's version of events is different. She has charged Ms. Cook with four counts of misconduct. Superintendent Carol Parham says Ms. Cook crossed over the line and acted inappropriately. She was not a friend to the students; she was an accomplice and perpetrator in child abuse, the superintendent alleges.
The hearing officer will spend at least six days during the next month soliciting testimony.
Students and school officials will be brought forward and compelled to reveal in public intimate secrets of their personal lives. Their motives will be questioned and scrutinized.
The drawn-out process will be embarrassing and painful. But the reason for the public airing is not to titillate. It is to determine whether Laurie Cook ought to again be trusted to teach children in Anne Arundel County.
Liz Atwood is The Baltimore Sun's editorial writer in Anne Arundel County.