POLL: Is there a double standard to two NJ sexting cases?

Here’s a quick question for you:

Should a Bound Brook teacher accused of sexting nude pictures of himself from a school computer receive more than a 120 day suspension without pay; while Brick students sending nude pictures of themselves from their own cellphones be expelled from school and possibly prosecuted?

Students in Brick were warned about the consequences of sexting from district Superintendent Dr. Walter Uszenski, who wrote in a letter that it is illegal to create/manufacture, transfer, transmit or possess child pornography. And that these acts fall under New Jersey Stature 2C:24- 4, "Endangering the Welfare of Children."

He’s given the students who may have engaged in such activities till 7 AM on Tuesday to delete such images or else they’d be subject to the above stated statute and removal from school.
Quite harsh.

Who will enforce this? The school? The cops?

Now, compare this warning with the punishment being doled out to a Bound Brook High School math teacher who’s been suspended for 120 days without pay - this for using a district-issued laptop to send suggestive emails and nude pictures of himself.

While the district sought to have the teacher, Glenn Ciripompa, brought up on tenure charges and dismissed for using the computer to transfer the image and send inappropriate messages to female coworkers; arbitrator Michael Peckler reduced the penalty to the suspension.

His finding was that the behavior toward the other staff members didn’t merit his being fired – and that he had no prior history of such behavior.

This despite being caught with more than 100 emails with pictures of nude women on his computer – including solicitations on Craigslist that included pictures of a naked man – reported to be that of Ciripompa himself.

The revelation included emails between Ciripomoa and couples seeking sexual trysts – and 4 of his coworkers testified having received unwanted advances from him.

Now you tell me this isn’t a double standard at work?

While not in favor of kids sending nude pictures of themselves to each other, they don’t have the protection of tenure. Hence, they can be arrested and eventually expelled from school for engaging in such activity.

The teacher, on the other hand, uses a school computer to send and receive nude pictures, troll for sexual partners, and makes unwanted advances to female coworkers.

For that, he’s not fired, but is on unpaid suspension for 120 days. And the arbitrator feels he’s done nothing egregious.

Who’s punishment should be more severe? Kids sexting one another or a teacher using a school computer soliciting sex?