Fired for working in the adult film industry in the past

[MillCreek]

teacher in florida  gay sex star  back teaching
http://gawker.com/5836593/porn-star-teacher-allowed-to-go-back-to-the-classroom

I wonder if my wife would like me in a bowler, Union Jack briefs and an umbrella.  Must ask.

[DustinD]

...lawyer...

Don't you mean past work as a lawyer barring someone from being excepted into porn? I am sure even the worst fetish producers have standards.

But more seriously I don't have a problem with porn stars moving into other fields. I especially doubt engineer would be an issue.

[BryanP]

I know it's simplistic, but for me it comes down to one simple fact: What she did in the past was not illegal. If a parent has a problem with her teaching their child, then let them pull their child out and send them to another school. Otherwise they need to shut their prudish little Scarlet Letter cakeholes and let this woman continue working.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

teacher contracts still have a morals clause?

[Ron]

If "in loca parentis" is still the operating principle of our education system then all the self righteous bloviating about it not mattering is proven to be nothing more than that, self righteous bloviating.  

My tax dollars = I get a say in who stands in my place.

Don't like it then pull your kid out of school and enroll her in stripper school for all I care.

[Perd Hapley]

I know it's simplistic, but for me it comes down to one simple fact: What she did in the past was not illegal. If a parent has a problem with her teaching their child, then let them pull their child out and send them to another school. Otherwise they need to shut their prudish little Scarlet Letter cakeholes and let this woman continue working.

Ok, so porn actors are welcome, but those whose sexual ethics are more demanding than yours are invited to leave. Yah for tolerance and diversity.

Like Ron said, the schools are there to help parents educate their children, not to be a jobs program.

[Strings]

That would be a rather radical reading of the text there, fistful.

Want to have teachers following a moral code that matches yours? Enroll them in a religious school of your choice.

Seems to me that a public school has no business enforcing their morality on their employees, especially for something in their past. No different than if they fired someone for having guns, or hunting, or... get the drift?

[Ron]

Some peoples tax dollars are more equal than others.

[Ron]

Want to have teachers following a moral code that matches yours? Enroll them in a religious school of your choice.

Convenient argument when the morality matches your position. The worm always turns Strings.

Publicly funded schools in a multicultural society are destined to divide the people, not bring them together.

[Perd Hapley]

That would be a rather radical reading of the text there, fistful.

Nope. He said those who had a problem with her past could leave.

Want to have teachers following a moral code that matches yours? Enroll them in a religious school of your choice.

Oh look, you said it, too. But no one's asking for the teacher to have a moral code that "matches" that of the parents. They're just asking for teachers that weren't in porn. That counts as prudery now, apparently. 

Seems to me that a public school has no business enforcing their morality on their employees, especially for something in their past. No different than if they fired someone for having guns, or hunting, or... get the drift?

1) When the government is put in charge of children, it has to be a bit of a nanny state. Can't take that? Then take your children to a country that doesn't have public schools. Or eliminate the public schools here.

2) If we cannot draw distinctions between pornography and guns, then we will just be a nation of lunatics. If we cannot agree on a few basic moral principles, then we can't be a nation at all. Or at least, we'll have to be a nation based on the power of an elite (like most nations), and not a nation of principles.


The ugly truth is that government cannot be neutral on every social issue, all the time. It is a pipe dream that we need to stop chasing.

[Hawkmoon]

2) If we cannot draw distinctions between pornography and guns, then we will just be a nation of lunatics. If we cannot agree on a few basic moral principles, then we can't be a nation at all. Or at least, we'll have to be a nation based on the power of an elite (like most nations), and not a nation of principles.

I guess we aren't a nation, then, because the populace of the United States clearly is not in agreement regarding a number of issues, among them abortion, homosexual marriage, birth control, guns, the pledge of allegiance in schools, prayer in schools, illegal immigrants, and pornography.

But I fail to see what moral principle is being upheld by firing this teacher. She wasn't doing poles dances in the classroom. She wasn't sleeping with the football team. There is no allegation that she is making porn flicks today. There is no mention whatsoever of any legalistic or moral transgressions involving her teaching. It's nothing but a witch hunt, punishing her for the way she paid (past tense) for her education.

[Perd Hapley]

I guess we aren't a nation, then, because the populace of the United States clearly is not in agreement regarding a number of issues, among them abortion, homosexual marriage, birth control, guns, the pledge of allegiance in schools, prayer in schools, illegal immigrants, and pornography.

Yet we have laws that "enforce" a certain opinion on all of those issues. It is something nations do.

But I fail to see what moral principle is being upheld by firing this teacher. She wasn't doing poles dances in the classroom. She wasn't sleeping with the football team. There is no allegation that she is making porn flicks today. There is no mention whatsoever of any legalistic or moral transgressions involving her teaching. It's nothing but a witch hunt, punishing her for the way she paid (past tense) for her education.

If anyone bothered to pay attention, one of the claims is that her presence is a distraction. Nothing moralistic there, just the recognition that her past is a pragmatic problem that impedes her job performance. If you want to push a moral agenda, you can get all moralistic about her right to do stuff in her spare time. Oh wait, you are.

And to think some of you complain that teachers are too hard to fire. Now for this one to be fired is a miscarriage of justice. 

[zxcvbob]

If anyone bothered to pay attention, one of the claims is that her presence is a distraction. Nothing moralistic there, just the recognition that her past is a pragmatic problem that impedes her job performance. If you want to push a moral agenda, you can get all moralistic about her right to do stuff in her spare time. Oh wait, you are.

And to think some of you complain that teachers are too hard to fire. Now for this one to be fired is a miscarriage of justice. 

Kids don't have a long enough attention span for *anything* to be a distraction for more than a day or two unless the adults keep bringing it up over and over again.

I don't approve of her former career, but it's none of my business.  Teachers should be hired and fired based on their ability to teach, and hankypanky in the classroom.  I'm all for firing teachers who can't teach or are found screwing their students (literally or figuratively)  That doesn't seem to be the case here.  Maybe it is and we don't have all the information -- but I doubt it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Kids don't have a long enough attention span for *anything* to be a distraction for more than a day or two unless the adults keep bringing it up over and over again.

highschool kids would remember this


and it is in real life a job performance issue

[Strings]

Reading back over the article, I'm a lil torn. I'll be honest: when I was in middle school, I would CERTAINLY remember any rumor that the attractive science teacher had been a porn actress. So yes, it CAN be argued that she would be a distraction.

I'll also admit that my irritation at "moral judgements" is colored by something that I encountered here in Wisconsin a few years ago. Pagan meet 'n' greet at a local restaurant, and a new person came in. She was acting VERY timid and quiet as she joined our discussions. Turns out, she was a public school teacher in a "nearby" town (roughly 30 minutes south), and she was afraid of losing her job if the administration found out about her faith.

That kinda thing kinda causes a kneejerk reaction when I hear about teachers dealing with "moral judgements"...

>Convenient argument when the morality matches your position. The worm always turns Strings.<

Yes it does. Especially when you want public schools to enforce YOUR morality, which doesn't match mine (or many others'). Personally, I don't want my tax dollars going to indoctrinate children in ANYONE'S personal moral code, beyond "what is legal or not".

>If we cannot draw distinctions between pornography and guns, then we will just be a nation of lunatics. If we cannot agree on a few basic moral principles, then we can't be a nation at all. Or at least, we'll have to be a nation based on the power of an elite (like most nations), and not a nation of principles. <

But as has been shown, we (as a nation) are NOT in agreement about a great many issues, including pornography and guns. In many cases, to the point of violence.

And, since you speak of "principles": it has always been my understanding that one of the basic principles of the American system is that one can move on from their past, growing and achieving their dreams despite their background or actions when younger.

[MicroBalrog]

If we cannot draw distinctions between pornography and guns, then we will just be a nation of lunatics.

I would certainly prefer this lunacy to your sanity.

[Perd Hapley]

I would certainly prefer this lunacy to your sanity.

So we have seen.

[zxcvbob]

Reading back over the article, I'm a lil torn. I'll be honest: when I was in middle school, I would CERTAINLY remember any rumor that
the attractive science teacher had been a porn actress. So yes, it CAN be argued that she would be a distraction.

Then it would already be a distraction and they would have fired her for poor performance.  Oh wait, we can't actually fire bad teachers who can't or won't teach...

[Perd Hapley]

Reading back over the article, I'm a lil torn. I'll be honest: when I was in middle school, I would CERTAINLY remember any rumor that the attractive science teacher had been a porn actress. So yes, it CAN be argued that she would be a distraction.

That's the problem with threads like these. We speculate about whether or not it would be a distraction, and then judge the situation based on our musings. That's why I'm so thankful that the decision is being made at a local level, where at least they have some way of knowing whether it actually is a distraction. They may still make the wrong decision, but at least they are not making a one-size-fits-all prescription. That's the sort of central planning we're always railing against. (You'll notice I never said she should be fired.)

>If we cannot draw distinctions between pornography and guns, then we will just be a nation of lunatics. If we cannot agree on a few basic moral principles, then we can't be a nation at all. Or at least, we'll have to be a nation based on the power of an elite (like most nations), and not a nation of principles. <

But as has been shown, we (as a nation) are NOT in agreement about a great many issues, including pornography and guns. In many cases, to the point of violence.

Like I said, the whole point of having government is to crack down on the things that won't be tolerated. So we have to have some agreement about what will be tolerated, and what won't. For many of us, whether a porn star teacher is tolerable is an easy question to answer. Unfortunately, a lot of us find opposite answers to be equally self-evident. The point is not that a nation of people must agree on everything. The point is that someone will always think their rights are being violated. We will never reach a place where the government is morally neutral. That would be a contradiction in terms.

And, since you speak of "principles": it has always been my understanding that one of the basic principles of the American system is that one can move on from their past, growing and achieving their dreams despite their background or actions when younger.

Yet we also understand that there are consequences for our choices, and that no one owes us a job.

[Tallpine]

Well, when I was in college I had some classes with a 10 years younger than me, good looking Texas belle professor.  That was certainly distracting 

One of the traditional age (18-20) male students asked if she had a younger sister 

[Ron]

Education is just another battlefield where the collectivist mindset needs to be challenged and broken.

[SADShooter]

Education is just another the key battlefield where the collectivist mindset needs to be challenged and broken.

FTFY.

[Perd Hapley]

Makes you wonder. If she had taken a job as executive director of a white separatist organization, could that be forgiven? After all, it was legal, and she needed the money, and she doesn't do that sort of thing anymore.

[roo_ster]

It is astonishing what poor judgment some folks will excuse, as long as the poor judgment had something to do with sex.  "If we fire the ex-porn star, the terrorists bluenoses will have won."

For my own part, in college I was offered a job as an "Escort" (traveling bouncer to protect the lady/ladies from rowdy clients) and an "Escort" (fashion accessory for professional women of means out on the town in need of a presentable man*) by a fellow who saw me dressed well and in a "kinetic situation." 

I was much more "morally flexible" back then and considered it, but declined because I was not a dumbass.  Even at age 19, I figured that sort of job WILL come up to bite you in the tuckus in the future at the worst time.

I'd fire her on GP. 




* Part of the description of this was that some of the gals, uh, had not much use for men, but wanted to keep up appearances.

[BryanP]

Makes you wonder. If she had taken a job as executive director of a white separatist organization, could that be forgiven? After all, it was legal, and she needed the money, and she doesn't do that sort of thing anymore.

Sure.  If she's not doing that anymore, if she doesn't espouse those views to her students, then I don't care that she used to do something that stupid.