Tuesday, May 1, 2012

I Support Miss Jess

Earlier tonight, I tripped over a Facebook page called I Support Miss Jess, and wondered who Miss Jess is, and why she might need the support of strangers. The following explanation is on the page:  I support Miss Jess

This page has been created by some concerned parents at Caloundra Christian Community Kindergarten as a result of the recent firing of one of our well loved kindergarten teachers. We believe that this decision is unfair, unjust and inappropriate in today’s world and we choose to voice our concerns and take whatever action we can to let the principal and the school authorities know that we do not approve. Ideally we hope the school will choose to reverse this decision and have the school policies which have resulted in this action changed for the future. This page is intended to be a place where people can show their support for Miss Jess and voice their concerns, share their actions and communicate openly about the issue. Please note that this page is not being run by Miss Jess. We respect her privacy and understand that she cannot be involved in such a forum for legal reasons. This page simply represents the people who want to show their support for her and want to communicate about the issues. We DO NOT want to create any extra problems by operating this page. We know that this issue is one that will raise lots of concern and that each person will have a different opinion – to which they are completely entitled. We invite your comments to be posted on this page but will not tolerate any abusive language or defamation. Any comments which are deemed to be abusive or inappropriate will be deleted and such users blocked from the page if necessary. If you would like further information or facts we recommend that you contact the school yourself or any of the principal parties involved.

Right. Now I understand, except that I still have no idea why Miss Jess was fired, or why I should care. Intrigued (and a little annoyed that I've been sucked in), I skimmed the comments on the Facebook page. 

The short version: Miss Jess is a single Mum, teaching at a Christian/Baptist kindy. The Facebook page alleges that she was fired because her current pregnancy is considered at odds with the values of the Christian school.

Miss Jess isn't involved in the Facebook page; it's been set up by her sister Jamie, specifically to stir the community to action.  As of about 8pm tonight, over 800 people had 'Liked' the Facebook page, and the story, with Miss Jess's full name, had been picked up and reported in Queensland media. If attention was the purpose of the Facebook campaign, it worked.

The school principal has confirmed the requirement that staff at the school exhibit the appropriate Christian values, as detailed in a Lifestyle Agreement each member of staff has to sign. He also denied that Miss Jess's termination was related to her pregnancy. The Brisbane Times reported 

"It's not to do with the pregnancy, though she did contravene the lifestyle agreement," he said, contradicting what Miss Jess told her sister Jamie. When asked if he was saying he did not sack Jess for being pregnant and unmarried, Mr Hodges said he could not answer because of privacy concerns. 

To confuse matters further, Melinda Saunders, one of the Mums with children attending the school, met with the school principal. When asked for an explanation for Miss Jess's sacking, the principal gave Ms Saunders a copy of the Lifestyle Agreement.

So, was Miss Jess sacked because she is pregnant? Was it because of some other breach of the Lifestyle Agreement? Or was Miss Jess's employment terminated for other reasons, unrelated to her lifestyle choices?

We don't know the full story. 

The stress of being a single Mum would be bad enough; being an unemployed single Mum must be worse, and if Miss Jess was sacked because of her pregnancy, it's unthinkable.

But let's add the fun and excitement of being pursued by media. That's sure to lower her blood pressure. Then, there's the likelihood that Miss Jess will bring legal action against the school for wrongful termination. Relaxing, isn't it? 

Australian Law does not permit employers to fire or discriminate in any way against pregnant women because they are pregnant. It is legal, however, to fire a pregnant woman for other reasons - unsatisfactory performance, misconduct or genuine redundancy. 

Perhaps she was fired not because she is pregnant, but because her pregnancy is proof of sexual activity without benefit of wedlock, hence 'misconduct'. It could be that convoluted, although the Human Rights Commission might take a dim view. 

In any case, the reputation of Caloundra Christian Community Kindergarten will take a hit, the system loses another experienced educator, and Miss Jess goes from being a respected teacher and parent to being just another pregnant-and-single Mum on welfare. 

Tell me how sacking this woman has improved anything.

52 comments:

  1. I find it interesting how religious schools/places have the right to fire people if they don't gel with their 'values' despite us having EEO laws. I still remember when I first started looking for school counsellor jobs, there were several independent schools of various Christian backgrounds that required the applicant to have a priest as one of their referees. So while they didn't explicitly say you had to be of a Christian faith or a practising Christian, the fact that you need a priest as a referee implies that you must be one!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the concern is for Miss Jess and the stress to her unborn child, why does not the father support them? It should be taken into consideration that the christian community and the long suffering Australian taxpayer has supported and educated her to be in a position to be self sufficent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As taxpaper I will probably have paid more in support of this woman's children then the father's have and i have not even been involved with her, nor would i be because i am a pratising christian.

      Delete
    2. Is Jess short for Jessebel? lol

      Delete
    3. No, but I was wondering how long it would take before someone would crack that joke. It only took a week, a bit slow. lol

      Delete
  3. Hmmm ... A very interesting and controversial topic, that is for sure! I would imagine the key word to be found in the CCC Lifestyle Agreement is 'fornication' (or words to that effect). And Miss Jess would've been aware of that requirement when she accepted the position. It would seem that her morals are at odds with her employer's, in which case she should've had the good sense to stay well away! No?!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The school has stated that the contravention of the lifestyle agreement was the reason. They refer to the total exemption given to religious employers: (See the bit that starts "(3) It is not unlawful for an employer to discriminate with respect.."

    Anti-Discrimination Act 1991
    Section 25

    25 Genuine occupational requirements
    (1) A person may impose genuine occupational requirements for
    a position.
    Examples of genuine requirements for a position—
    Example 1—
    selecting an actor for a dramatic performance on the basis of age, race or
    sex for reasons of authenticity
    [s 25]
    Chapter 2 Discrimination prohibited by this Act (complaint)
    Part 4 Areas of activity in which discrimination is prohibited
    Page 28 Reprint 9C effective 23 February 2012
    Example 2—
    using membership of a particular political party as a criterion for a
    position as an adviser to a political party or a worker in the office of a
    member of Parliament
    Example 3—
    considering only women applicants for a position involving body
    searches of women
    Example 4—
    employing persons of a particular religion to teach in a school
    established for students of the particular religion
    (2) Subsection (3) applies in relation to—
    (a) work for an educational institution (an employer) under
    the direction or control of a body established for
    religious purposes; or
    (b) any other work for a body established for religious
    purposes (also an employer) if the work genuinely and
    necessarily involves adhering to and communicating the
    body’s religious beliefs.
    (3) It is not unlawful for an employer to discriminate with respect
    to a matter that is otherwise prohibited under section 14 or 15,
    in a way that is not unreasonable, against a person if—
    (a) the person openly acts in a way that the person knows or
    ought reasonably to know is contrary to the employer’s
    religious beliefs—
    (i) during a selection process; or
    (ii) in the course of the person’s work; or
    (iii) in doing something connected with the person’s
    work; and
    Example for paragraph (a)—
    A staff member openly acts in a way contrary to a requirement
    imposed by the staff member’s employer in his or her contract of
    employment, that the staff member abstain from acting in a way
    openly contrary to the employer’s religious beliefs in the course
    of, or in connection with the staff member’s employment.
    [s 26]
    Anti-Discrimination Act 1991
    Chapter 2 Discrimination prohibited by this Act (complaint)
    Part 4 Areas of activity in which discrimination is prohibited
    Reprint 9C effective 23 February 2012 Page 29
    (b) it is a genuine occupational requirement of the employer
    that the person, in the course of, or in connection with,
    the person’s work, act in a way consistent with the
    employer’s religious beliefs.
    (4) Subsection (3) does not authorise the seeking of information
    contrary to section 124.
    (5) For subsection (3), whether the discrimination is not
    unreasonable depends on all the circumstances of the case,
    including, for example, the following—
    (a) whether the action taken or proposed to be taken by the
    employer is harsh or unjust or disproportionate to the
    person’s actions;
    (b) the consequences for both the person and the employer
    should the discrimination happen or not happen.
    (6) Subsection (3) does not apply to discrimination on the basis of
    age, race or impairment.
    (7) To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (3) does
    not affect a provision of an agreement with respect to work to
    which subsection (3) applies, under which the employer
    agrees not to discriminate in a particular way.
    (8) In this section—
    religion includes religious affiliation, beliefs and activities.
    selection process means a process the purpose of which is to
    consider whether to offer a person work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Dan. In relation to subsection 3(a) then, the case will possibly turn on whether Miss Jess' defence team can successfully argue that: 1. she did not fornicate openly; and 2. her fornication was not connected to her work. Hmmm ... interesting!

      Delete
  5. By the way, the facebook page has totally vanished.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you so much for this info and follow up. If the school has acted within the law, then Miss Jess is in a tough position. Thanks again, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. And I believe this is why the school has insisted that she was not dismissed for being pregnant. Being pregnant is not a sin in the eyes of fundamental Christians. However, having sex outside of marriage is!

      Delete
  7. Some say good ole Miss Jess but what does the crowd say.
    No surprise the facebook page has vanished.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Miss Jess is 29 years old and surely had knowledge of birth control, with STD's causing such concern she should have insisted that her partner use a condom. The Department of Health has put out enough information about safe sex. This woman's morals are of no concern to me but I would not like my children taught by some-one so lacking in common sense and personal safty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, who said the dodo was extinct, there is a couple breeding at Calourdra. lol

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ms Davidson portrayed herself as sharing in the philosophy of christians to obtain a position in a good teaching enviroment. After her pregnancy and dismissal she did what she was entitled to do and took her case to the teacher's union where it should have stayed. The plot thickened when a Ms Saunders took the cause up on Ms Davidsons behalf and set up a support facebook site. Once this was done Ms Davidson hid behind legalities and would not comment, but convenienty had her sister in tow to explain all to the media. I think Ms Saunders whose heart might well have been in the right place was a dupe
    and should have stayed well away from this sensation. Ms Davidson should have informed her that it was being dealt appropriatey by the teacher's union and NO to the facebook site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miss Jess is a girl who just can't say NO. How do you think she got herself in the position in the first place.

      Delete
    2. Maybe Miss Jess thought her sister appearing on TV representing her in her best going out tarpaulin and clown make up could do a better job then the Teacher's Union. The mind wobbles.

      Delete
    3. Maybe Miss Jess thought her sister appearing on TV representing her in her best going out tarpaulin and clown make up could do a better job then the Teacher's Union. The mind wobbles.

      Delete
    4. Is Jess short for jessebel? lol

      Delete
    5. Too late, the Jessebel joke has already been cracked. Timing is every thing, better luck next time.

      Delete
  11. As a christian it saddens me that Miss Jess has had been treated this way by a school. My thoughts and prayers are with her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Jesus died on the cross for every-one, even Miss Jess. My very own cousin several years ago went with a worldly man and got in the family way, after I prayed for her she repented and returned to our church fellowship humbled, chastened and a much better christian person. Ater fellowship luncheon today, myself and the christian sisters lifted Miss Jess up in prayer. I do not judge this woman one bit and I have personally put her name on the church list to be prayed for by all our saintly prayer warriors.

      Delete
  12. Look up your bible - Mary conceived Christ while she was unmarried! No doubt if Mary worked at the college she would have been sacked???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some so called christian think there too good for the common people and if Jesus who was so humble applied for employment at their school or church would have been looked down upon and rejected. Thank God not all Christian are like that. Miss Jess has the support of true Christian.

      Delete
    2. Could Miss Jess also be accused of being one of these so called christians who thinks there too good, she was haughty enough to sign on to the college belief system when it suited her to look down on others with a different lifestyle choice. She took up the sword of self rightness and aligned herself with the college. The moral to this story is ever-body wants to live by the sword but no-body wants to die by the sword or in christian lingo you reap what you sow.

      Delete
    3. As far as Jesus being conceived out of wedlock, the circumstanses are diferent Mary was a virgin and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God. It should be remembered that in bibical times, it was unacceptable for Mary to be pregnant and as a result Joseph married her. So what are you saying, Miss Jess child was born of the Holy Spirit? As there is no Joseph at this stage to step up and marry her, the welfare system will prabably foot the bill. She already had two children, and was not impregnanted by the Holy Spirit, the circumatances are different and Miss Jess is no Vigin Mary. Look up the bible yourself.

      Delete
  13. I believe this school has been involved in controvesy before. I seem to remember that in 1997 thirty students suffered effects which they ascribed to "being touched by God". If my memory serves me correctly fifteen families withdrew their children (twenty six children in total) from the school.
    It is not relevant to this matter, but I would appreciate it if anyone can provide information to curb my curiosity please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The situation that the parents withdrew their children was because in 1997 there was a movement of the spirit of god. The problem was that children are very suggestive and the parent were concerned that tne children imagined the experience.

      Delete
  14. The christian school that hired Miss Jess might think about in future employing staff only after they have worked in the public school system. I know as having been employed in a public school would have rather worked in a christian school. If Miss Jess was given employment over others because of her disadvantaged circumstances, she is ungratful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know that Miss Jess was not employed elsewhere and why do you think she was employed by over others because of her circumstances? With respect, it would appear that this is simply supposition on your behalf. Also, I am not sure you would like to work for the school - the Lifestyle Agreement they mention is quite a bizarre, prejudicial and unnecessarily restrictive document. Perhaps you might like to get a copy from the school and see for yourself what I mean. The average Australian worker would be quie horrified if they knew the full extent of the control the school wishes to exert over their staff.

      Delete
    2. There seems to be more questions than answers, I would urge the average working australian to have the good sense not to sign agreements that are bizarre and prejudical. Nobody forced this teacher to sign, she must have agreed to the Lifstyle Agreement to sign, and shouldn't complain now. Anyway Ms Davidson must be in favour of the agreement because she wants to keep her job in this bizarre and prejudical environment. Only the person who posted the original comment can answer other questions

      Delete
    3. I wonder what pressures she was under at the time to sign the agreement? Perhaps the best thing for her in the longer term would be to get another job in an environment that does not suffer from the same misguided religious nonsense as this particular institution. Anyhow - what is it the bible says about sin and forgiveness? Is the school not at odds with with their own alleged values?

      Delete
    4. Miss Jess has my compassion, she might have been under ecconmic pressure and that is why she signed something she clearly could not live by. Rice christians are not just in third world countries

      Delete
    5. If miss jess was employed elsewhere why did not she stay at that school instead of signing onto a workplace agreement at odds with her own life style? One would suppose that she was not employed elsewhere and her circumstanses were that she was under ecconmic pressure to do something that deceitful. That is the only conclusion to be reached from the information revealed so far. The Calourdra Christian College seems to be made up of honourable people, it is a shame that they were misled about Miss Jess because she signed their agreement. We can only pray that peace will be restored to both parties and their damaged reputations. All due respect to the Caloundra Christian College who stand by their word and lifestyle choice.

      Delete
  15. Ms Davidson has a good case against the Caloundra School and even if she didn't were in 2012 not the dark ages.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have only just read this site. It is hard to understand the issues, but is is quiet clear that Ms Davidson thinks she is more important than she really is. Also who is this Ms Sauders setting up a webpage and having the hide to direct people to the school principal for the Work Place Agreement. The school is in the business of educating pupils and if she so wants people to read this document Ms Saunnder should arrange for them to receive a copy from her, instead of making a nuisance of herself to the school by involving the media to stir up the general public . She also states that she respects Miss Jess privacy and understands she can not comment for legal reasons. Miss Jess is not a person of note, she is not a Rock Star, if it is not an option for her to set up a webpage to annoy the school nobody else should. Have some respect for the privacy of the school and not Ms Davidson who brought all this on herself and the school before disappearing like up rat up a drain pipe. The statement that you do not want to create extra problems for Miss Jess is very considerate, how about showing some respect and consideration for the school and not create extra problems for them as well. If self respect and dignity was demonstrated this would never have been thrown into the public arena.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I can't fathom what the main issues are either but talk about getting caught with your pants down, big time.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The writer of the comments of the 3 June states he/she does understand the issues and yet launches into a diatribe, and makes harsh and unjustified comments against Miss Jess. Let me correct you. I will discuss the points roughly in the order you have raised them. Miss Jess has not claimed she is important or a rock star- this is a value judgement made on your own behalf. Ms Suanders has every right to set up a website. The school has offered to discuss the workplace agreement (it is available on the internet actually). Anyone, including Miss Jess has a right to raise matters with the media and the public is allowed to form its opinions. While you claim the school is an educatonal body, the only education they are interested in providing is what they call a "quality christian education". I am happy to explain this further if you wish. Ás far as concern and privacy for the school is concerned, people have every right to question the goings on in alleged educational institutions. Concerning respect - it is bizarre that you insist the school be treated with respect but have no problem with the school or yourself treating Miss Jess (and Ms Saunders now) with disrespect in other ways. The perversity of your morality defies description. I only hope that when you have problems with the school you will remember your own advice. And far as being an unmarried mother, do not forget Mary was single when she conceived Jesus and was put in that conditon by God himself. Have you got any comments you would like to make about Mary, Jesus or God, - or are they so holy they are beyond the purview of the school's misguided high moral ground and can not be relied upon for the purposes of precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Does anyone know if the teacher (Miss Jess) kept her employment at the college?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dunno, too busy enjoying the cat fight between 8 June and 3 June, bring it on ladies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The last I heard was Miss Jess has a teaching position at Caloudra Christian College until the end of this school term.

      Delete
  21. When trying to figure out what the issues are for and against in a debate that has opposing views, I take it one step at a time and work backwards. In this situation it is revealed that a teacher is being sacked because of her pregnancy, take several steps back, the teacher signed a workplace agreement in keeping with her own life choices and the schools. The teacher then re-evalueated her life choices which also resulted in her pregnancy, her life and her choice. The CCC still abided by their workplace lifestyle agreement, which is fine also. It is my conclusion that the teacher should have just changed employment when she changed her life value system. It would have been better for this teacher not to dishonour herself by being employed by the CCC when she no longer shared their values. As the story gets more convoluted the facts get lost in muddied waters. The real issue is, why didn't the teacher just move on when she changed her mind about the CCC and it's agreement? I hope that the others on this blog will keep it simple and stay within the facts. Perhaps it wasn't the best idea to get the media involved but this is only an opinion not a fact. Once again when entering into a forum know the difference between a fact and an opinion and the truth will reveal itself. The teacher changed her mind about her lifestyle and the CCC has stood by their lifestyle agreement, people can blog all they want but never the twain shall meet. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong but everybody is entitled to an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  22. To 8 June 6.19 PM - 8 June is not a lady - I am a man who is annoyed at nutters who rush to take what they consider the high moral ground, based on spurious religious grounds, to justify doing things which are actually quite despicable.

    How quickly they punish someone over a breech of their lifestyle agreement and yet do not even consider such agreement constitutes an unreasonable intrusion into, and control over, other peoples lives. Then they (and others) have the hide to suggest that if someone disagrees with them, they are being unreasonable. Quite frankly, if you care to look deeply into the history of this particlar group, I think you would agree that they are not really qualified to dictate morality to anyone.

    And how quick everyone is to make value judgements and admonish someone who may have made a mistake, or others who may not share their particular views about the world - as if they themselves are perfect. If the school was as familiar with their own religion as they profess, none of this would have happened - instead they would be rushing to offer help, assistance and spiritual support.

    They had better hope that I am never in a position to pass judgement on them - I would have no problem in judging them in the same fashion in which they choose to judge others. Most pleased that you are enjoying the dicussion. :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. There has been other mentions about CCC history on different blogs, could somebody enlighten us about the school history and why they are not qualified to dictate morality.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Good question. As an interested observer I would not like to denegrate the school. However, you might like consider that there is currently this particular staffing problem (enough said). Then there is the above comments about the visits God made to the school in 1997 (interesting). Then there is the lifestyle agreement which they require people to sign - and the equally dreadful Teacher Application Form and Confession of Faith. Then there is the fact that that they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible (which they do not seem to follow anyway) and the fact that their curriculum is taught from their particular God "centred view of the world". Any alarm bells?

    Did you know that the Westboro Baptists protest at funerals of servicemen, and at one stage baptists actually accomodated the keeping of slaves? Also, they often teach creationism as science (Kent Horvind taught this in three baptist schools in America - he is currently in jail for tax fraud). Unfortuantely some key baptist have also been found guilty of sexual abuse just like some other religious groups. I am not sure I would be happy sending my children to this, or any other religious based school. I would rather they got a real education, and a balanced set of values and morals. I can not help but think that Miss Jess is better off out of this particular group.

    What do they say on other blogs by the way? Any links to these please?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes - these groups are great at talking morality while they themselves use weird religous logic to justify their own dreadful behaviour. I personally can not stand the way they fill childrens heads full of nonsense to the stage where they actually believed God visited them in 1997. The whole thing is a form of child abuse. No doubt God will know how to deal with these pious self-righteous pratts when the time comes.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If the CCC did not take action about Miss Jess's situation no doubt mud would also be slung at the church for continuing to employ her.

    The blog would go like this-
    Yes - these groups are great about talking morality while they themselves employ teachers at their so called Christian Schools, who have unprotected sex outside of marriage. Did you know that the Caloundra Christian College stood by one their teacher's behaviour and didn't dismiss her, although it makes them guilty of being at odds with their own beliefs. I would not be happy to send my children to this religious based school. No doubt God will know how to deal with these pratts who support hypocrisy

    Come on guys cut the CCC a bit of slack, in the termination of Miss Jess's employment the Caloundra Christian College is dammed if they do and there dammed if they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is a blog to support Miss Jess and yet 11 June wishes to use it support the college - and in doing so does not address any of the issues raised by previous contributors. I think this is called trolling by the way.

    In any event, nobody has said that the college should ignore the situation. What has been suggested is that the college is out of line in dismissing her. What has been suggested is that the college should be offering help, guidence and assistance -including spiritiual assistane if needed. How they would be damned for doing this escapes me. In any event, clearly this is beyond them - and beyond your comprehensinon as well.

    Comprehend this - "a bit of slack" cuts two ways. You want the college to be treated well and yet you do not consider the possibility that the college could extend the same privilege to Miss Jess. Did you know that the last time a large well known religious organisation took this beligerant hard line it gave us 600 years of the Inquisition. You logic is not dissimilar. You really must try harder and hope that the college's same unreasonableness is not directed towards yourself one day.

    By the way, if 11 June is an employee of the college, check your wages. Apart from other problems with these colleges, some Baptist colleges are well known to underpay pay their staff as well. I can provide a reference on that one if you like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'll be closing comments on this post fairly soon; it's all pointless for people to comment anonymously.

      Delete
    2. The subject matter is going to be dealt with legally, so it is understandable that comments are anonymous. I am sure people do not want to be in some type of a law suit. On the whole the comments gave food for thought and I am amazed with the extent of peoples emotions on this subject.

      Delete
  28. Sal - Thanks for giving people the opportunity to comment in support of Miss Jess. Shame others have used it to try and support the college or raise other issues. I have no doubt that the college will dismss Miss Jess when the time comes. I am sure it will be hard for her, but once she establishes herself outside this particular system I am sure she will never look back. My thoughts go to her and her children, and others who, for whatever reason, are still caught up in that vile system which they justify on the basis of their own particlar religious predilections.

    My most heartfelt best wishes to Miss Jess.

    Max

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am pleased that someone has finally mentioned Miss Jess's children, it would seem they have had a lot of turbulance in their young lifes. I do hope the men that have created the children with her will step up and take parental responability. It takes two to make precious life and so far Miss Jess is the one to carry the responability. Where was the father of this lastest baby, when this poor woman at 29 years old had to go to the principal like a school girl and report her pregnancy and grovell to keep her employment. All this woman wants is to work to support herself and the children, I can hope the college will allow this to happen. It does not matter what day and age we live in, men still get of scot free and woman are left holding the baby.

    ReplyDelete