Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on October 26, 2012, 11:53:09 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/stacie-halas-former-haydo_n_2019466.html
Should a teacher, doctor, lawyer, engineer, soldier or anyone else be fired for working in the adult film industry before becoming a teacher, doctor, lawyer, engineer, soldier or anyone else? I would not want my wife, daughter or sister working in that industry, but I am thinking that it is irrelevant to the current employment, it was a legal job before the change in career, and it should not be grounds for firing. If we can have disbarred lawyers convicted of felonies or physicians who were screwing their patients returned to their career, why the heck would we look to fire this person? I have read other accounts describing her as a good teacher respected by the kids.
-
Nope, no ones business about what I did in the past.
-
No. But it's fair game for jokes until it gets old (it'll never get old)
-
Teacher I would object to. Enough problems with schools without Jenna Jameson teaching my 14 year old son.
Other professions more negotiable.
But pr0n stars should also recognize that many people don 't appove of such a career choice, and they should consider any subsequent discrimination a hazard of the trade.
-
She was fired for lying on her resume according to the article.
The truth came out when both students and fellow teachers reported making the connection.
Something being legal doesn't mean it is necessarily acceptable behavior for a person that is entrusted with the care and instruction of children/youths.
For my fellow APS'rs let me give you some advice. If you want to have a career where you are entrusted with other peoples children, don't get involved in the adult film industry.
-
Not this stuff again.
Let the parents and the local school system make the call. They are close to the situation; you are (more than likely) not. They probably know what is going on better than you do, and will have to deal with the consequences. If the school loses a good teacher, it is their loss. If they keep the teacher on, and his/her past is a problem in the classroom, that is their loss as well.
Obviously, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'm not making that silly argument about how group x can't judge group y. Unless, of course, group x is the people in situ, and group y are the people making ill-informed judgments from 1000 miles away, based on articles on the web-ernets, written by journalists, who seldom get anything right.
-
She was fired for lying on her resume according to the article.
It doesn't say that. It says she omitted that job from her resume, but we don't know if the resume says to list ALL previous jobs held. Most job applications don't ask that ... they ask for all previous jobs that may have helped prepare you for the job being applied for (or something along those lines). The article does say something about lying to her boss, but if she wasn't under oath I don't see how that could be a firing offense.
-
It doesn't say that. It says she omitted that job from her resume, but we don't know if the resume says to list ALL previous jobs held. Most job applications don't ask that ... they ask for all previous jobs that may have helped prepare you for the job being applied for (or something along those lines). The article does say something about lying to her boss, but if she wasn't under oath I don't see how that could be a firing offense.
Oxnard school officials are unsympathetic. They say that they never knew she had appeared in pornographic videos until April, and that lying to her boss was grounds for dismissal, according to district spokesman Tom DeLapp. He said the fact that Halas listed being a lifeguard and working at Subway as prior employment but omitted her porn star past “is very telling.”
All I have to go on is the story linked and the quote from school officials.
-
School officials view the situation differently, however, and maintain Halas’ past is too much of a distraction to allow her back in the classroom. She was put on administrative leave in April and eventually fired after some students and teachers reported they had seen her in a video they described as "hardcore pornography."
I'm more concerned about the students and other teachers watching hardcore porn. (watching it together? [barf])
-
Not this stuff again.
Let the parents and the local school system make the call. They are close to the situation; you are (more than likely) not. They probably know what is going on better than you do, and will have to deal with the consequences. If the school loses a good teacher, it is their loss. If they keep the teacher on, and his/her past is a problem in the classroom, that is their loss as well.
Obviously, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'm not making that silly argument about how group x can't judge group y. Unless, of course, group x is the people in situ, and group y are the people making ill-informed judgments from 1000 miles away, based on articles on the web-ernets, written by journalists, who seldom get anything right.
Oh where's the fun in that?
This is America, where we give our uninformed and misinformed (and combinations thereof) opinions on every topic under the sun. In fact, there are entire websites devoted to....errr....ummm....opine away !!!!!
-
There's really no sense in wasting electrons discussing whether terminating her was "right" or "wrong" - unitl she decides to take the case to the EEOC and those worthies render a decision we can either agree or disagree with.
In the meantime, we could discuss various ways in which an employment candidate might address certain time periods they would rather not recount with the blunt truth. Would it have been lying to have listed that time as something like "character actor" and let people presume she wore an oversized animal costume instead of nothing at all?
The "rules" for being allowed to teach our children have changed over the years. http://blog.ivman.com/teachers-rules/ and
http://www.iptv.org/iowapathways/mypath.cfm?ounid=ob_000254
What seems to remain a constant is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZPBUu7Fro .
stay safe.
-
Teachers are held at a much higher standard than most other professions. For such a low paying job it's sad.
My wife has to be careful we're we go out for on dates and shopping. All hell has been known to break loose f a teacher is spotted drinking in a bar by a parent. When we are shopping and a student and parent spots us, it's not uncommon for the paret to scan the basket to see what she's buying.
It's a job. When on the clock it matters what they do, they all have a past and personal life like rest of us.
Joking with the wife I suggest we stop at a novelty store and get ER something.... Her first reaction was about what if a parent saw her in the store, she would be fired. That should NOT be on the radar IMHO.
-
It would depend how the parent/teacher conferences went. Three-way conferences are interesting as well.
It's more of a distraction issue for me,rather than a moral issue.
Never understood why SOME people are punished when they try to turn their lives around.
If she was an ex homeless crack whore- everyone would be praising her.
-
i would be very surprised if her app didn't have boilerplate at the sig line that said some version of fibbing is grounds for termination. i had it on apps for chefs jobs 20 years ago
-
It doesn't say that. It says she omitted that job from her resume, but we don't know if the resume says to list ALL previous jobs held. Most job applications don't ask that ... they ask for all previous jobs that may have helped prepare you for the job being applied for (or something along those lines). The article does say something about lying to her boss, but if she wasn't under oath I don't see how that could be a firing offense.
I couldn't even begin to list all the "jobs" that I have had over the past 40+ years.
Many of them were a few days or less, working as a handyman type but not officially running a business.
Even the ones that were official employment are too many to mention, and there is no way I could remember all the names and addresses. Some of the people that I have worked for are long since dead (I had nothing to do with their demise :angel: ) or out of business (I may have had something to do with that =| ).
My "professional" resume only lists the engineering projects that I have worked on. It's not really any concern of current/future "clients" (I work as a contractor through an engineering firm) that I was a gas station attendant/mechanic, sawmill hand, timber faller, owned operated a logging outfit, hardware store clerk, carpenter, laquer booth operator, etc etc etc.
-
All employment applications I've seen recently asked only for the most recent five positions, or the last ten years, or for all jobs relevant to the position being applied for. At may age, any of those leave out a lot -- for a young teacher, I suppose it's not that cut-and-dried.
That said, I find it disconcerting that the same educational mafia that wants to teach kids that homosexuality is normal also want to punish this teacher (and others -- this is not the first such incident) for engaging in heterosexual activity entirely outside of the school system.
-
Some of the people that I have worked for are long since dead (I had nothing to do with their demise :angel: ) or out of business (I may have had something to do with that =| ).
With the exception of my current employer, every single place I've worked at for the last 20- years is defunct. In most cases I have no idea how to get hold of anyone.
-
With the exception of my current employer, every single place I've worked at for the last 20- years is defunct. In most cases I have no idea how to get hold of anyone.
The really funny thing for me is that my "boss" at the engineering firm that I contract with, was also my boss at the previous firm that I worked for =D
When that company shut down one of it's offices, many of the folks hired on with my current employer. So it looks really weird to list the same contact person for my "last two" jobs. =| But it is really a pretty small industry in terms of numbers of engineers that do this particular kind of stuff.
But I've hardly ever got a job by filling out an app anyway. ;/ Usually I get hired and then they say "oh yeah please fill this out for our records" and they don't care about the past employment section anyway - just the basics. My resume is normally just used for prospective clients of my employer when they are looking to place me in a project.
I still can't believe the hypocrisy of parents/students watching porn and then saying the teacher isn't fit to be in a classroom. This is just a little Peyton Place and they're all Harper Valley Hypocrites :mad:
-
I still can't believe the hypocrisy of parents/students watching porn and then saying the teacher isn't fit to be in a classroom. This is just a little Peyton Place and they're all Harper Valley Hypocrites :mad:
That depends on whether the person(s) that found her out are the ones wanting her removed. You would expect whoever saw it to have told someone else, who told someone else, until all of the teachers, students and parents learned about it.
-
I still can't believe the hypocrisy of parents/students watching porn and then saying the teacher isn't fit to be in a classroom. This is just a little Peyton Place and they're all Harper Valley Hypocrites :mad:
This. And if porn is such a moral outrage to the parents, why are they so uninvolved with regards to the rearing of their children that the kids are watching it.
... after some students and teachers reported they had seen her in a video they described as "hardcore pornography."
Now for my parting question: Why is it okay to discriminate against someone for engaging in one particular morally distasteful act (making porn) but not okay (and actually a federal crime) to discriminate against someone for engaging in a different morally distasteful act (being homosexual, and thus presumptively having gay sex)?
-
This. And if porn is such a moral outrage to the parents, why are they so uninvolved with regards to the rearing of their children that the kids are watching it.
See my above post.
Now for my parting question: Why is it okay to discriminate against someone for engaging in one particular morally distasteful act (making porn) but not okay (and actually a federal crime) to discriminate against someone for engaging in a different morally distasteful act (being homosexual, and thus presumptively having gay sex)?
Interesting question.
-
Now for my parting question: Why is it okay to discriminate against someone for engaging in one particular morally distasteful act (making porn) but not okay (and actually a federal crime) to discriminate against someone for engaging in a different morally distasteful act (being homosexual, and thus presumptively having gay sex)?
What if she was making lesbian porn?
-
That not a valid comparison. It's not the activity in question, it the video piece.
I'm sure the same issue would be there if the movie involved gay sex.
Most school issues involve subjects that are distractions to the routine, whether it's dress codes, free speech, or something like this. Lesson for the kiddies is that it is nearly impossible to run from one's past in this digital age.
-
teacher in florida gay sex star back teaching
http://gawker.com/5836593/porn-star-teacher-allowed-to-go-back-to-the-classroom
-
That not a valid comparison. It's not the activity in question, it the video piece.
The comparison is not a video of a sex act versus a sex act in general, the comparison is applying moral judgment to someone in one case and not another. Morals are not universal and in the instance of human sexuality run the gamut from ancient Greek pederasty to Victorian age prudism. For this reason they make very poor rule-of-law leading to arbitrary, capricious and at times spiteful oppression of citizens where, as in this case, no demonstrable harm is present. I see discrimination against someone based on their prior legal activities as no better than the retributive witch-hunts engaged by employers against their employees who speak out about unsafe or illicit business activities. At best, at best, this could be called an instance of malum prohibitum determination, however I counter that compromising someone's livelihood and their ability to provide for themselves and their family because of a personal moral stance is most definitely malum in se.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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.
-
teacher contracts still have a morals clause?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Some peoples tax dollars are more equal than others.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :facepalm:
-
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. :facepalm:
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
I would certainly prefer this lunacy to your sanity.
So we have seen.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 :lol:
One of the traditional age (18-20) male students asked if she had a younger sister :facepalm:
-
Education is just another battlefield where the collectivist mindset needs to be challenged and broken.
-
Education is just another the key battlefield where the collectivist mindset needs to be challenged and broken.
FTFY.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Whether you like it or not, actions have consequences. You may not like it, but when you make bad decisions, they can and often do come back to bite you (legal or not). IMO, the whole idea that we let the past be the past is a rather modern thought. From what I have heard, punishing bad decisions was more pronouned in past decades than it is today. I think even people who are rather tolerant of some things are often intolerant of others.
This reminded me of the scene in the Shootist where the school teacher was moving out to avoid any bad appearances or associations after John Wayne shot a couple men.
IMO, this woman might be a good teacher, but she is going to have to put some more distance between herself and her past before it goes away (if it ever does). I don't think this was the best career choice.
-
I have to laugh whenever folks talk about .gov not "enforcing morality." All laws are a form of morality. Ditto with schools teaching morality. It's impossible not to. All that argument is saying is "I don't like your morality and want .gov to enforce and schools to teach my own." And yet folks get so proud of themselves for wanting to enforce and teach their morality, simply because they phrase it a different way.
-
I have to laugh whenever folks talk about .gov not "enforcing morality." All laws are a form of morality. Ditto with schools teaching morality. It's impossible not to. All that argument is saying is "I don't like your morality and want .gov to enforce and schools to teach my own." And yet folks get so proud of themselves for wanting to enforce and teach their morality, simply because they phrase it a different way.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
-
How is it illegal to stand on a street corner and sell your self for money but its ok if you do it in front of a camera?
Why cant some one simply bring a camera with them when picking up hookers and if busted just claim they're looking for new actresses?
-
How is it illegal to stand on a street corner and sell your self for money but its ok if you do it in front of a camera?
Why cant some one simply bring a camera with them when picking up hookers and if busted just claim they're looking for new actresses?
I like the way you think =D >:D
-
How is it illegal to stand on a street corner and sell your self for money but its ok if you do it in front of a camera?
Why cant some one simply bring a camera with them when picking up hookers and if busted just claim they're looking for new actresses?
They already do....not sayin how I know....
-
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Yup. I don't know what you meant to accomplish by quoting that, but I'm going to assume you realize that "securing rights" is another way of "enforcing morality." Not many people do...
-
Yup. I don't know what you meant to accomplish by quoting that, but I'm going to assume you realize that "securing rights" is another way of "enforcing morality." Not many people do...
We're going to have to disagree on that one.
Not that the two might not often coincide, but the line between your morality and my rights is whether someone's life, liberty, or property are harmed.
-
^^THIS^^
I think that's the real crux of the issue: some of us are seeing "liberty" as meaning more than others.
-
life = Thou shalt not kill
property = Thou shalt not steal
liberty = distilled nicely in the DOI as coming from the ultimate source of morality, the Creator. Free will is a very Christian concept, esp American Christianity.
Not sure where you think the founders picked up their moral notions. They may not have believed like modern evangelicals in all things but they were cultural Christians at the very least.
-
^^THIS^^
I think that's the real crux of the issue: some of us are seeing "liberty" as meaning more than others.
Er, no. Tallpine was stating a moral code that he wants to see enforced. To the extent that Tallpine wants any government at all, he believes that government ought (that's the essential word of any moral system) to protect rights and not infringe them.
But you seem to be expecting some kind of ultra-liberty, while having government take charge of children at the same time. That's just not feasible.
-
*sigh*
>But you seem to be expecting some kind of ultra-liberty, while having government take charge of children at the same time. That's just not feasible.<
Umm... no. I'd be happy to see schools run strictly by private enterprise. Or, if run by the government, ONLY teaching necessary skills and such (the three R's don't require any moralizing).
>liberty = distilled nicely in the DOI as coming from the ultimate source of morality, the Creator.<
Of which you have your version, and I have mine. And both are VERY different (although both DID grant us, Their creations, free will)
>Free will is a very Christian concept, esp American Christianity.<
Depending on how you define "American Christianity". I've had a huge number of "American Christians" tell me that questioning anything in the Bible is sin and evil, which (to me) negates the whole concept of free will. However... THAT particular discussion, we should probably take to PM...
-
I didn't say you favored public education, just that you don't see that moral judgments go right along with it. You could have schools that only teach the three Rs, and teachers would still have past lives.
-
And past lives shouldn't be involved in the discussion of a teacher (assuming she's otherwise doing a good job) staying employed by the school
If she teaches science well, and the kids are learning, I personally don't care if she served a term for murder for the john she had to kill back when she was turning tricks. People CAN change and move on.
I like the idea of "actions have consequences". However, especially in the age in the internet, the consequences can easily go beyond the level of the actions. People should be allowed to move on with their lives...
-
Strings, there's a few "if's" in your post.
IF she can teach a class and the kids do well, then what she did in the past is not an issue. It becomes an issue--and this is something that can only be determined by what happens in the classrooms--if her past is a distraction.
There wasn't an internet when I was in school. Hell, photography was in its infancy. But if there had been some porno photos of my hot German language teacher somewhere, I would have crawled over broken glass to see them. That's the nature of hormonal boys. And that could become a distraction.
As was said before, decisions have consequences. If her prior decisions make her performance as a teacher suffer, then she should go. The school administrators should first determine whether distractions exist, by watching how her class performs, not how she performed in the past. (Which I'm sure many of them did over and over again).
-
Not sure where folks get the idea that even if this gal was a wonderful teacher, the porno gigs were not a distraction, <stack any number of unknown factors in her favor>, she is owed a job as a teacher. I just saw lots of folks who were good at their job and had clean backgrounds get laid off at work. So this gal's background caught up with her, big whoop. She isn't owed diddly beyond what she & her employer agreed to and if she deceived on her end, she isn't even owed that.
This foolish woman may end up in a tight spot, given her choice of schooling & credentials that may be rendered nigh useless given her background. She made her bed.
And past lives shouldn't be involved in the discussion of a teacher (assuming she's otherwise doing a good job) staying employed by the school
Bullhockey.
There are any number of "past lives" that employers may not want in their employees. Just because this particular unsavory "past life" is of a sexual nature doesn't exempt it from coloring her prospects.
If she teaches science well, and the kids are learning, I personally don't care if she served a term for murder for the john she had to kill back when she was turning tricks. People CAN change and move on.
The folks paying the taxes and who hire the school educritters may think otherwise and it ought to be their call to make. Some place else might find her past unobjectionable. Let those that pay the costs be the boss.
Most folks don't change barring something really significant/traumatic smacking them in the noggin. And for those that do, the taxpayers aren't required to subsidize them on their journey to better things.
I like the idea of "actions have consequences". However, especially in the age in the internet, the consequences can easily go beyond the level of the actions. People should be allowed to move on with their lives...
IOW, you like the idea, but not the practice.
You do have a point in that networked commo and persistent databases can be debilitating for folks who want to shake off their past. I have contemplating starting a thread about this, examining the good & bad of it.
-
We're going to have to disagree on that one.
Not that the two might not often coincide, but the line between your morality and my rights is whether someone's life, liberty, or property are harmed.
You realize that your stating a moral code there, but just calling it something different right? The choice isn't (and has never been, and can never be) between a moral code and a set of laws. Laws are just a moral code, even if that moral code is supremely lax.
-
To paint the firing of this woman as a "consequence" of her ostensible action basically absolves anyone who made a decision to fire her from any responsibility, and presents the firing as a sort of inevitable, natural circumstance of her original 'past time' - as if we wanted to avoid entirely the discussion of this termination in a moral context.
"Actions have consequences" has turned, in our culture, into a code of unlimited social bullying.
-
"actions have consequences" is something that goes back hundreds of years and longer. There are lots of old sayings that say the same thing. It has not turned our society into anything. It has always been there and always will be. Many times it is a good thing and sets a good example for others. Sometimes it isn't. I am sure it almost always sucks for the person who made the bad choices. Most often, those same people knew it was a bad choice and did it anway.
My company won't hire felons. Most every chemical company around here has a similar policy and do background checks prior to hiring. Those past actions have consequences. Are there hard working felons who would be good employees? Sure there are. Won't change our policy though.
I will say again that "School Teacher" is NOT the best career choice for someone that is trying to put a porn career behind them. There are lots of jobs out there where that sort of past might be ignored, but school teacher is probably not one of them.
-
Perhaps it has. In modern society it has expanded in its use.
It's most obvious because these days we have electronic databases and people's past lives are far harder for them to live down.
(And because far more things are a felony, in your case).
-
There is too much government involvement in education currently.
There needs to be a push not for more government standards and bureaucratic meddling but less.
There should be minimum standards set by the state in the areas of reading/writing, US/world history (including geography), mathematics and science (hard science only, no "social science").
Then open it up to the free market.
Situations like this teachers past would then be dealt with by market forces. There would be more choices for all, all around.
-
To paint the firing of this woman as a "consequence" of her ostensible action basically absolves anyone who made a decision to fire her from any responsibility, and presents the firing as a sort of inevitable, natural circumstance of her original 'past time' - as if we wanted to avoid entirely the discussion of this termination in a moral context.
"Actions have consequences" has turned, in our culture, into a code of unlimited social bullying.
Nonsense on stilts.
The folks who hired the gal are responsible for hiring someone (the locals may consider) unfit to be a teacher. If she is deemed unfit, you can be sure whoever fires her is going to do their best to claim credit. May even be a scuffle to be the first. Especially if they were the one who hired her.
Whining about "bullying" by adults when their actions are criticized is merely an attempt to forestall criticism. It is analogous to the accusation of racism meant to cut off debate.
More folks (and especially libertarian-leaning ones who ought to know better) these days seem to think that they are entitled to do whatever they want without having to hear any un-supporting voices. Well, if folks wanna flash their tuckus at their neighbors while diddling a goat on Main Street, they'd best be ready to be downgraded for poor technique, at the very least.
-
You realize that your stating a moral code there, but just calling it something different right? The choice isn't (and has never been, and can never be) between a moral code and a set of laws. Laws are just a moral code, even if that moral code is supremely lax.
Okay, so my "moral code" is "keep your gorram hands off my life, liberty, and property" :P
But I don't suppose you think my code (see also J.B. Books ;) ) is very moral.
As far as the teacher in question, I have no idea if she should be retained or fired based on her performance. I have known teachers who shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near other people's children, based on their (then) current behavior and not anything known of their past.
-
I have to say, I agree with Ron in this one. That said...
"Actions have consequences" should not mean "albatross hanging around your neck for all eternity", in most cases. However, with the information age, it often does.
There was recently a young lady that flashed a guy on a webcam, and the resulting fallout drove her to suicide. But I guess that's just one of the consequences of her actions, right?
-
I have to say, I agree with Ron in this one. That said...
"Actions have consequences" should not mean "albatross hanging around your neck for all eternity", in most cases. However, with the information age, it often does.
There was recently a young lady that flashed a guy on a webcam, and the resulting fallout drove her to suicide. But I guess that's just one of the consequences of her actions, right?
Nope. The consequence was that the photo got distributed. She didn't handle it too well, unfortunately.
I agree and I hope that past bad decisions can be left in the past. I also agree that databases and information hang around a lot longer than they should in these days. Yes, it does suck, but that is reality. People judge you by your actions. If past bad decisions come to light, people will judge you by that also. In this case, I thought I saw that the porn career was only several years ago. That isn't all that far in the past.
Personal story I thought of: My parents moved out to a small town when I was a kid. They liked the Church they went to in Houston and got tapes from that Chuch instead of joining a new one. I didn't know it at the time, but she said she knew a number of people who tended to judge us because "we didn't go to Church". I have no idea if there were any consequences to that or not, but there are lots of things people judge you over.
-
As far as the teacher in question, I have no idea if she should be retained or fired based on her performance.
I wouldn't know as I haven't see her "performances". :angel:
I was also thinking that in the self defense threads, we have talked about our posts on these forums being used against us also.
On that thought, are there services that can be utilized to block out or remove online information that you want gone? Not official stuff, but pictures and that sort of thing?
-
If you've posted something in any kind of public forum? Not really: anything can be screencapped and saved, thereby preserving our stupidity for posterity.
I ran into that issue a few years ago. BIG discussion on a pagan board about how anything posted in public, you have to expect it to travel all over. Couple weeks later, I was banned (long story), and some people started forwarding me stuff folks were posting about it. The guy who had made the above statement (and was instrumental in my banning) went livid when he found out I was getting his posts...
-
"Actions have consequences" should not mean "albatross hanging around your neck for all eternity", in most cases. However, with the information age, it often does.
Yep. Good and bad results from this persistence of records. More persistent than the tattoos of one's youth.
BAD
No more moving to a new state and stating a new life with a blank sheet of paper, like was possible in 19th Century America.
GOOD
OTOH, harder to move around place to place, embezzling/murdering/whatevering then skeedaddling before the law or your neighbors catch on and string you up from a tree.
Like most issues, a good start on a solution begins with, "Reduce gov't involvement." First and foremost by reducing the number of legal and regulatory pitfalls. Then by eliminating the income tax and the need for fed.gov to have all that sort of information.
I doubt we will ever get back the the 19 Century state of affairs outside of a new Dark Age. Like record & film companies, we are going to have to adapt to the new reality.
-
>OTOH, harder to move around place to place, embezzling/murdering/whatevering then skeedaddling before the law or your neighbors catch on and string you up from a tree.<
Actually, no: still fairly easy to do. Dealt with it this past year: con men can still get by if they talk smooth enough.
-
You realize that your stating a moral code there, but just calling it something different right? The choice isn't (and has never been, and can never be) between a moral code and a set of laws. Laws are just a moral code, even if that moral code is supremely lax.
Sure. But one can use good judgement in what moral codes you include into law.
We have plenty of Jewish and Islamic citizens in the US. I rarely have heard them trying to ban bacon.
With the Ten commandments, only three and a half are codified in law. Adultery sorta is covered at times. Forbidding worship that does not hold God as primary deity, graven images and/or showing affection to any other gods, blasphemy, no work on Sunday, mandatory honoring of parents, and not coveting neighbor's stuff are not really codified in law, and I'm not sure why they should be. They're not tied to property rights or the sanctity of your body. Mandatory honoring of parents with no provos would make for bad child welfare laws, which are unfortunately a necessity. No work on Sunday would suck if you had no police, hospitals, IT folks or utility folks on one out of seven days.
It's not necessarily about being lax. In my opinion, it's a "Render unto Caesar" thing. It's not necessarily a lose/lose situation. We need laws, and those laws should be mindful of the morals of the folks being governed or you hit a social contract issue. Prohibition is a perfect example of trying to enforce a type of morality not shared by a large segment of the population. It tramped the citizenry underfoot, enhanced organized crime and enhanced government power. Thankfully, it was abandoned as a failed social experiment in attempting to enforce morality against the will of the people. And only 10,000 people were intentionally killed by methyl alcohol poisoning in this enforcement.
Neither bacon nor blasphemy need to be codified into law, even if they are parts of moral codes. Laws should stick to property rights, taxes, etc that are fairly mundane and secular in nature. They should reflect the moral or cultural norms of the society, but also protect folks that do not toe the line on those moral or cultural norms but are harmless in any objective or materialistic sense. Otherwise, the law loses any sense of legitimacy outside naked force. "We have more guns than you, so you obey or get sent to the gulag." This appeals to a surprising number of folks. Who never seen to realize that anyone willing to enforce that mentality WILL inevitably turn on their creators.
-
Rev for President, or possibly Dictator
-
Rev for President, or possibly Dictator
I don't remember the exact quote from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Someone (mostly jokingly) wanted to install an anarchist as the King, to said anarchist's horror. "Sir, if nominated, I would denounce it. If elected, I would abdicate!"
-
I wouldn't know as I haven't see her "performances".
It's possible that she has the boys really excited about math. :lol:
-
I hate when I get to the interesting threads late...
1. Wasn't she fired for lying to her employer? Isn't that reason enough for termination? I help out with hiring around here, and if someone lies on their resume, they are out. Period. You may argue that she felt she had to lie because of her former employment, but the botto line is she knowingly lied. She made that choice, and this is the consequences for that choice.
2. Yes, there is (apparently) nothing illegal about being a porn performer (though I do agree that I can't understand the difference between paid to have sex on film vs. paid to have sex in private/prostitution difference as far as crime goes). But like it or not, as a part of the puritan origins in this country, sex is still dirty/bad, and those who openly admit to enjoying sex outside of a monogomous relationship are villified by general society. Hell, it's why sex scandals take out politicians! While people/individuals may not oppose sex, enjoyment of sex, professional sex, etc., people/group are outraged by such behavior, and won't put up with a person in responsibiliity having that backgroud. School officials who count on public support for votes/tax dollars/volunteers at school, etc., will generally do what the people/group want, regardless of what people/individuals may say.
3. At least in Ohio, a teacher must have a teaching license, and these licenses have a morals clause, and require that a person be "of good moral character". See Administrative Code Section 3301-24-05. When my dad was a principal, he told me about a high school teacher who was fired when he was cited for possession fo marihuana and public indecency (public urination) in another state while on vacation. Basis was "immoral behavior." Of course, this superintendant was later caught on his desk with his secretary...
-
While people/individuals may not oppose sex, enjoyment of sex, professional sex, etc., people/group are outraged by such behavior, and won't put up with a person in responsibiliity having that backgroud.
Yeah, just think about what might happen if a President started screwing around with one of his female staff in the Oval Office ... =|
-
Yeah, just think about what might happen if a President started screwing around with one of his female staff in the Oval Office ... =|
Yeah, we wouldn't want that to happen! :rofl:
-
Wasn't she fired for lying to her employer? Isn't that reason enough for termination?
Yes. No problem with that.
I help out with hiring around here, and if someone lies on their resume, they are out. Period. You may argue that she felt she had to lie because of her former employment, but the botto line is she knowingly lied. She made that choice, and this is the consequences for that choice.
That hasn't been established yet. Did she put something false on her resume? Or did she leave something out that she didn't think was relevant or helpful to getting the job.
I think the employer is lying. But of course it's OK for the boss to lie. :police:
-
Good point,in that many people omitunglatterinng information from a resume. And I too question if the story from the schools is accurate. Too bad we'll probably never know...
-
Nope. He said those who had a problem with her past could leave.
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. ;/
Well, yeah, 'cause it is.
She's (apparently) not doing it anymore. Is she a competent teacher? THERE'S what you need to be concerned over.
For that matter - do you give more than (or even JUST give) lip service to the notion of trying to make good on what you view as your past mistakes? Do you REALLY believe in forgiveness and redemption? Then why howl for her head? Let the woman teach, as long as she's not recruiting in class (or after school) for Naughty Schoolgirls 47-and-a-half.
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.
The notion that some of us are up in arms because she got paid to be filmed having sex, but decided to do something else for a living later - that is, now - just boggles my mind. You'd think she committed murder or something, the way some people can't get past the fact that she once was a porn actress - sins of the past, and all that. She harmed *NO ONE* by doing what she did, but that can't be let go of, or forgiven, by those in the so-called "moral majority".:facepalm: Again, the only real concern I see is, is she a competent teacher?
Now, if there was ACTUAL LYING on the resume, I don't think I could argue that THAT wasn't ground for termination. Most small-print I've seen states something to the effect that if you are found to have lied on the resume, that's considered grounds for firing, so if that's the case, obviously she doesn't have a leg to stand on - but then, it better not be even INTIMATED to be about her being in porn previously, it needs to be exclusively that she lied on her resume. I don't consider omitting a job listing to be lying, though - if they're concerned over it, let them ask, "So what did you do from 2001-2006, anyways?"
"So, Mr. Fistful, do you now or have you ever owned or used firearms, or advocated publically in any way for RKBA? Yes? See-ya, have a nice life."
Why's that wrong but firing her for having sex isn't? What's the difference, Fistful? Because I'm truly not seeing ANY difference, and that notion, that it's okay to fire someone competent for doing something which hurt no one and was entirely legal is something which should frighten all of us, IMO.
-
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
No more so than for any other hot teacher, IMO. Kids have... active imaginations, generally. And yet, most of 'em still make it through Algebra and English and Civics, even if the teacher is a 5'2" 110-lb 30-year-old woman, rather than a 5'9" 250-lb 65-year-old man.
-
I don't consider omitting a job listing to be lying
Me, neither.
Typically, an application form only has space for the most recent three jobs.
Any other/previous jobs may or may not be listed on a resume depending on relevance. For instance, if applying for a software development position, I probably won't volunteer that I was an axe murderer (logger) =D
On the other hand, I'm not so sure that I would want to hire someone who has worked in government concentration day-camps =| I do have my standards :P
-
They're just asking for teachers that weren't in porn. That counts as prudery now, apparently.
Well, yeah, 'cause it is.
False.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prudery?s=t
excessive propriety or modesty in speech, conduct, etc.
There's simply nothing excessive or unusual about desiring that your kids' teacher not be a former porn actor. People have made such a self-righteous crusade out of non-judgmentalism, that having normal attitudes toward sexual deviance is the new deviance. And we deviants must be kept in check.
-
No more so than for any other hot teacher, IMO. Kids have... active imaginations, generally.
if her pics hadn't showed up no big deal. they did and actions have consequences
-
So . . . about redemption. This may be a bit of drift, but a little drift now and then never hurt anyone.
Anyone who has been obsessive enough to follow me around the various boards where I post will note that I'm a big fan of redemption. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5734065#post5734065)
For example (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=6355672#post6355672):
There are other things that I find I can't support, like the idea that it is not possible to rehabilitate a man, that real change is not possible, and that it is only right that a man who commits a crime should be denied the opportunity to rejoin society as a fully participating member and fully qualified citizen. I know first hand that rehabilitation is possible and that the full restoration of a rehabilitated man involves the reclamation of his dignity. This isn't necessarily easy or fast but it is very possible. We seem, as a culture, to have adopted the stance that it can't happen (or, if it does, it's too rare to consider seriously), and have nonetheless engaged in one of the driest ironies I've ever seen: warehousing criminals in facilities owned and managed by the "Department of Corrections," secure in the knowledge that "correction" will seldom, if ever, actually happen. We "know" that redemption isn't possible, so we punish and call it "corrections." It is to weep.
There's more, of course, this post (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3125982#post3125982), in the epic and legendary Jim Zumbo thread. This one (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4777646#post4777646) in a follow-on.
Anyway . . .
Redemption. We seem to have resigned ourselves culturally to this idea that redemption simply isn't possible.
We find that someone has [unsavory item] in his past and we can't get past it. The government does nothing to discourage this kind of thinking, and enshrines it in law -- particularly gun control law -- where "being a felon" is officially unforgivable, where PTSD is rapidly becoming "incurable," and where any kind of domestic violence accusation is prima facie proof of unsuitability for firearms ownership. Basically, if you've ever been bad, you can never be acknowledged as good.
Permit me to say this about that: asinine.
Did our teacher lie? Maybe, and if so, and while that may be a firing offense, then why would she lie by omission? Is it possible that regardless of any actual redemption of character she is acutely aware that, as a culture, we are more interested in self-righteous condemnation and/or trial by gossip than we are in the idea that it's possible for a person to shed youthful stoopid and attain maturity?
Perhaps it's wishing for more understanding than humanity at large is capable of, but I've seen real redemption, have assisted in it, and walked that bit of highway myself.
What would it take, I wonder, for us -- as a culture -- to embrace the idea that redemption is actually possible, and to encourage people to "go and sin no more."
-
Well, yeah, 'cause it is.
She's (apparently) not doing it anymore. Is she a competent teacher? THERE'S what you need to be concerned over.
For that matter - do you give more than (or even JUST give) lip service to the notion of trying to make good on what you view as your past mistakes? Do you REALLY believe in forgiveness and redemption? Then why howl for her head?
Snort. You talk as if I wanted her to be punished for something. Ya know what? I haven't said that she should lose her job. I haven't said that porn actors should never be teachers. I did, however, make the terrible mistake of pointing out that the locals (parents/administrators/school board) can use their own best judgment, and superior command of the facts on the ground, to make the decision. Is her past too much of a distraction? Is she a bad role model for the kids? Did she fail to disclose things she was asked to disclose on her resume/job application? The folks on the scene will have to sort it out.
But some of you can't handle that. You think she's being punished, persecuted for letting her freak flag fly. Horrors! Well, sure, maybe that's what's going on. More than likely, she's just reaping the consequences of screwing up. (No pun intended.)
"So, Mr. Fistful, do you now or have you ever owned or used firearms, or advocated publically in any way for RKBA? Yes? See-ya, have a nice life."
Why's that wrong but firing her for having sex isn't? What's the difference, Fistful? Because I'm truly not seeing ANY difference, and that notion, that it's okay to fire someone competent for doing something which hurt no one and was entirely legal is something which should frighten all of us, IMO.
Sorry. I'm not interested in thought experiments that start out with absurd equivalences between two totally unlike things.
-
>Sorry. I'm not interested in thought experiments that start out with absurd equivalences between two totally unlike things.<
Not as unlike as you think, save that one is enshrined as a Constitutional amendment.
If the left were to get it's way, being a gun owner (or, more correctly stated, having been a gun owner at that point) wi ould be considered prime evidence of instability and violent tendencies, unsuitable to be around polite society (especially kids)...
-
No more so than for any other hot teacher, IMO. Kids have... active imaginations, generally.
if her pics hadn't showed up no big deal. they did and actions have consequences
You honestly think that this would inspire any more daydreaming than any other hot teacher? Boys have been fantasizing about attractive (or not-so-attractive) teachers since there've been schools; with the prevalence of internet porn, just about everyone
knows what the parts look like and how they fit together. I can't see this being any kind of legitimate issue.
As Fistful so kindly pointed out: prud·er·y [proo-duh-ree] Show IPA
noun, plural prud·er·ies for 2.
1.
excessive propriety or modesty in speech, conduct, etc.
2.
pruderies, prudish actions, phrases, or words.
Also, from the same page: World English Dictionary
prude (pruːd)
— n
a person who affects or shows an excessively modest, prim, or proper attitude, esp regarding sex
This, a billion freaking times. It's SEX. People do it. Maybe even the people who are complaining about her (who LOOKED HER UP AND WATCHED HER PORN!). Despite Fistful's stated opinion on the matter, this does indeed qualify as prudery, in my opinion, and mine's at least as valid as his. We've got teachers we can't get rid of in various locations in this country who CAN'T TEACH OUR KIDS, or who really ARE sexually abusing them, and this is the target du jour? I keep coming back to, nobody seems to be saying this woman is an incompetent teacher, they just got the creepy-crawlies because she let people take pictures and/or video of her having sex. SO. WHAT? She is, apparently, not doing it anymore, it didn't hurt anyone, and from the article in OP had a pretty good reason for taking the work. Further, from a related article posted in May, also on HuffPo:
"When the Oxnard school board voted unanimously to remove Halas in April, the decision was unrelated to the teacher's conduct in school, Superintendent Jeff Chancer told the Associated Press.
"We're dealing with the disruption that we believe it would cause our district, and the schools in our district, if she were to return back to the classroom," Chancer said. "Maybe it's not a crime as far as the penal code is concerned, but we feel it's a crime as far as moral turpitude is concerned," he told the Los Angeles Times in March.
Halas' contract, however, does not contain a moral turpitude clause. California state law prevents those who have committed certain crimes from working in public schools, but since no criminal offense has occurred in this case, Halas can only be disciplined or fired if officials can determine with evidence that her private life is affecting student education, according to the Ventura County Star." {emphasis added}
Now admittedly, I might not have all the facts here, but it *SOUNDS* to me as though they're taking an action for which they have no valid or defensible basis. And in addition, the school district stirred the matter up by making sure (after teachers came and tattled after searching for her on their smartphones, per the article) that everyone in the district KNEW about her former profession, claiming afterward that they "didn't know" if that would actually incite the students to look her up ( ;/ ). It really does seem to me that the district is at fault for any distraction that might result and has no right to complain about it, so long as she was actually DOING HER FREAKING JOB.
The more I see about this, the more I'm convinced that she deserves her job back and that the district was in the wrong. I'm not seeing ANYTHING about how there was a clause in her contract requiring her to have disclosed that she did porn previously, or even anything like that, which would seem to take out the "she lied to the district" bit, and the district is presenting the case as "Ewwww, she did PORN before she became a teacher!", not as "she lied on her resume." Sympathy for the district? NONE, based on what I've seen thus far.
Well, yeah, 'cause it is.
False.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prudery?s=t
There's simply nothing excessive or unusual about desiring that your kids' teacher not be a former porn actor. People have made such a self-righteous crusade out of non-judgmentalism, that having normal attitudes toward sexual deviance is the new deviance. And we deviants must be kept in check.
Yes, it IS excessive and unusual, and it's NOT false - does her having done porn in the past actually affect her competence as an instructor? Not that I can see. In which case, this *DOES* qualify as "excessive propriety or modesty in speech, conduct, etc.", because it has nothing to do with whether she can do the job. Further, she appears to have at least started in the field - porn, that is - for the very best of reasons, to feed herself and her family. If being able to feed yourself and your family is your definition of "sexual deviance"... :facepalm: Because, y'know, not everyone regards sex as icky and wrong. And they aren't wrong to believe that - it's a beautiful thing, between consenting participants. That she appears to have decided that she liked being in porn after getting started does not change that fact.
And I continue to note a staggering lack of response to the whole notion of forgiveness and redemption for what you fondly imagine to be crimes which HURT NO ONE ELSE - and may or may not have even hurt HER. She's trying to do something which I think few could suggest is a bad thing (well, except for working for the government-run junior-league concentration-camps, of course =D), and get away from something she doesn't want to do any more. What, once she's done porn, she can't do anything BUT that (or, maybe, fast-food)? Come on. She's trying to do better for herself, do something more "socially-acceptable", and she's being denied not because she's incompetent, but because some hypocrites think it's icky that she let people watch and film her have sex?
Snort. You talk as if I wanted her to be punished for something. Ya know what? I haven't said that she should lose her job. I haven't said that porn actors should never be teachers. I did, however, make the terrible mistake of pointing out that the locals (parents/administrators/school board) can use their own best judgment, and superior command of the facts on the ground, to make the decision. Is her past too much of a distraction? Is she a bad role model for the kids? Did she fail to disclose things she was asked to disclose on her resume/job application? The folks on the scene will have to sort it out.
But some of you can't handle that. You think she's being punished, persecuted for letting her freak flag fly. Horrors! Well, sure, maybe that's what's going on. More than likely, she's just reaping the consequences of screwing up. (No pun intended.)
Sorry. I'm not interested in thought experiments that start out with absurd equivalences between two totally unlike things.
Good thing that's not what I did, then. There's NO DIFFERENCE. Two things which harm no one else, which many people disapprove of for no good or valid reason. They are *EXACTLY* the same. But you approve of one and condemn the other.
And she's NOT "letting her freak flag fly". She's NOT DOING PORN NOW. The district has fired her because someone found her videos and brought them to the district, WITHOUT there being a BS "moral turptitude" clause in her contract, and no evidence of any excessive distraction in her classes - at least, not until after the freaking district made sure to let everyone in the area know to look her up. How is that NOT punishment? When THEY caused any potential problem with distraction, I don't consider that they have any valid case for "excessive distraction." No one has said she's an incompetent teacher, they're only saying that she shouldn't be permitted to be a teacher because she did porn 5 years ago. All I'm seeing is a lot of faux-moralizing and condescension, a lot of "well, she deserves it because of something completely irrelevant to her actual job." And that's not okay.
>Sorry. I'm not interested in thought experiments that start out with absurd equivalences between two totally unlike things.<
Not as unlike as you think, save that one is enshrined as a Constitutional amendment.
If the left were to get it's way, being a gun owner (or, more correctly stated, having been a gun owner at that point) wi ould be considered prime evidence of instability and violent tendencies, unsuitable to be around polite society (especially kids)...
Pre-zactly.
-
I still can't believe the hypocrisy of parents/students watching porn and then saying the teacher isn't fit to be in a classroom. This is just a little Peyton Place and they're all Harper Valley Hypocrites :mad:
I think that went over everybody's heads. (that's a frequent problem with literary references)
-
EricTank, you present a really good argument, especially for the teacher suing the district.
-
The fact that this thread isn't filled with diatribes against government run education shows you just how FUBAR'd we are.
Even here on APS, where we purportedly value liberty above all else, we are arguing about who gets to have control of the governmental levers of coercive power over those we disagree with.
The "Republic" is not doomed, it is already a phantom.
-
^^^ Terrible, I know, that not everyone shares your opinion on all things. Clearly a sign of the coming Apocalypse. ;/
-
*chin-rub* I already gave my argument back on page 1, so I think I'll just toss out another question for y'all.
If the teacher was a combat veteran whose job was to decide which high value targets (people) that our military should explicitly try to kill, would it be okay for the parents and school board to push for their firing on the basis that they don't want a "cold blooded killer" with their moral turpitude teacher their children?
-
>Sorry. I'm not interested in thought experiments that start out with absurd equivalences between two totally unlike things.<
Not as unlike as you think, save that one is enshrined as a Constitutional amendment.
Porn is covered under the 1st Amendment. So technically, they're both enshrined under the constitution. ;)
-
kgbsquirrel, I don't think that's a good analogy. Most of the country appreciates veterans, even though most of the country (and probably veterans more than the rest) don't like killing. The same can't be said for porn, or at least porn or porn makers and children.
-
kgbsquirrel, I don't think that's a good analogy. Most of the country appreciates veterans, even though most of the country (and probably veterans more than the rest) don't like killing. The same can't be said for porn, or at least porn or porn makers and children.
Well, we are talking about California here....
Sarcasm aside, I'm already aware of the sentiments of the military and the majority of civilians towards the military. I just wanted to instill the thought of: Is porn worse than the killing of another human, justified or otherwise, and if so, why?
-
I don't understand the notion that the JUSTIFIED killing of a person is bad. Justified pretty much means the decedant was or had been actively engaged in an activity that made removing them from the gene pool a good thing. Armed robbers, rapist, child molesters, serial killers,
telemarketers are just a small sample of the type where homicide would be justifiable, either caught in the act or post conviction.
-
Well, we are talking about California here....
Sarcasm aside, I'm already aware of the sentiments of the military and the majority of civilians towards the military. I just wanted to instill the thought of: Is porn worse than the killing of another human, justified or otherwise, and if so, why?
You may recall some time back, like 2005 (?), San Francisco banned (or tried to) military recruiters in some context (school campuses?).
The same sentiment that drove that "thinking" could well result in a "porn more acceptable than military murder" viewpoint.
Given the antics I've see filmed at "pride" parades, that's not a big stretch.
-
I think that went over everybody's heads. (that's a frequent problem with literary references)
as well as musical ones :cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZPBUu7Fro
-
Yeah, I'd say that Jeannie C. Riley doesn't quite rise to the level of "literature". ;)
-
Okay, so my "moral code" is "keep your gorram hands off my life, liberty, and property" :P
But I don't suppose you think my code (see also J.B. Books ;) ) is very moral.
As far as the teacher in question, I have no idea if she should be retained or fired based on her performance. I have known teachers who shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near other people's children, based on their (then) current behavior and not anything known of their past.
I think your code is very moral, albeit also very incomplete.
There are a LOT of folks on this thread putting words into other folks mouths, then getting all angsty about the strawman they've built. It's really kind of pathetic guys. I don't like fisty all that much, but all he's said is that the locals probably have the best information to make the call about whether this woman should be fired. And that is howling for her blood? I think I sprained my eyes from rolling them so hard.
-
Eric,
I got to hand it to you, man. A real tour de force. Let me see if I can keep up.
We've got teachers we can't get rid of in various locations in this country who CAN'T TEACH OUR KIDS, or who really ARE sexually abusing them, and this is the target du jour?
Um, this is one school system here. They're not in charge of teachers "in various locations in this country." Unless there is some incompetent or abusive teacher in her district that they know about and haven't dismissed, those other teachers aren't relevant.
I keep coming back to, nobody seems to be saying this woman is an incompetent teacher, they just got the creepy-crawlies because she let people take pictures and/or video of her having sex. SO. WHAT?
The "so what" is in the article that you quoted:
"We're dealing with the disruption that we believe it would cause our district, and the schools in our district, if she were to return back to the classroom," Chancer said.
You can claim that "they just got the creepy-crawlies," but they have given a much different reason. They say it would be a distraction. You may doubt that, but that is only speculation by someone far removed from the situation. (Unless you live there, maybe?)
How is that NOT punishment?
Because it isn't. The fact that something bad happens does not make it a punishment. Punishment implies that someone is being brought to justice, or is being taught a lesson. This lady (rightly or wrongly) is just being let go, by an organization that no longer feels she is an asset.
She is, apparently, not doing it anymore...
Although, FWIW, she did work in porn while holding a previous teaching job.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/stacie-halas-teacher-dism_n_1543480.html
Further, from a related article posted in May, also on HuffPo:
"When the Oxnard school board voted unanimously to remove Halas in April, the decision was unrelated to the teacher's conduct in school, Superintendent Jeff Chancer told the Associated Press.
"Maybe it's not a crime as far as the penal code is concerned, but we feel it's a crime as far as moral turpitude is concerned," he told the Los Angeles Times in March.
Halas' contract, however, does not contain a moral turpitude clause. California state law prevents those who have committed certain crimes from working in public schools, but since no criminal offense has occurred in this case, Halas can only be disciplined or fired if officials can determine with evidence that her private life is affecting student education, according to the Ventura County Star." {emphasis added}
Now admittedly, I might not have all the facts here, but it *SOUNDS* to me as though they're taking an action for which they have no valid or defensible basis. And in addition, the school district stirred the matter up by making sure (after teachers came and tattled after searching for her on their smartphones, per the article) that everyone in the district KNEW about her former profession, claiming afterward that they "didn't know" if that would actually incite the students to look her up ( ;/ ). It really does seem to me that the district is at fault for any distraction that might result and has no right to complain about it, so long as she was actually DOING HER FREAKING JOB.
The district has fired her because someone found her videos and brought them to the district, WITHOUT there being a BS "moral turptitude" clause in her contract, and no evidence of any excessive distraction in her classes - at least, not until after the freaking district made sure to let everyone in the area know to look her up.
According to the articles in huffpo, the students did the original "tattling." That right there could be evidence that her private life is affecting student education. (It could be. Might not be. You and I don't know.) And what planet do you live on, if you think the administration had any choice but to inform parents? In the most litigious society on Earth? And you blame the school for the fact that the students found out? The students were the ones that told the admins. If any of the kids found out from the letters that went out to their parents, sounds like the parents are to blame for that one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/stacie-halas-fired-porn-film_n_1437467.html
Student claims that the teacher was moonlighting as a porn star were initially dismissed after school officials said they couldn't find any images of her on the Internet. The investigation was quickly restarted, however, when other teachers showed administrators downloads from smartphones.
It turned out that the school computer system blocked access to sex sites....
The district sent a letter to parents of students at all three of its junior high schools, asking that their children not search Internet sex sites for the teacher's image.
"It has been alleged that one of our teachers is depicted in at least one pornographic video and possibly others on the Internet," Chancer said in the letter.
The district is presenting the case as "Ewwww, she did PORN before she became a teacher!", not as "she lied on her resume."
??? They ARE claiming that she lied. They are also claiming that her past is a distraction. So...???
Yes, it IS excessive and unusual, and it's NOT false - does her having done porn in the past actually affect her competence as an instructor? Not that I can see. In which case, this *DOES* qualify as "excessive propriety or modesty in speech, conduct, etc.", because it has nothing to do with whether she can do the job.
Again, just speculation on your part. Those on the scene say otherwise.
Below is a collection of beliefs you accuse me of holding.
If being able to feed yourself and your family is your definition of "sexual deviance"... :facepalm:
Because, y'know, not everyone regards sex as icky and wrong....
...what you fondly imagine to be crimes... [i.e., pornography]
What, once she's done porn, she can't do anything BUT that (or, maybe, fast-food)?
And she's NOT "letting her freak flag fly". She's NOT DOING PORN NOW.
Not guilty of saying or thinking those things. =|
And they aren't wrong to believe that - it's a beautiful thing, between consenting participants.
I don't think sex is icky, either. I know about sex. I have done it before.
Good thing that's not what I did, then. There's NO DIFFERENCE. Two things which harm no one else, which many people disapprove of for no good or valid reason. They are *EXACTLY* the same. But you approve of one and condemn the other.
Porn is harmful, and many people disapprove of it for good and valid reasons. Failed analogy is failed.
And I continue to note a staggering lack of response to the whole notion of forgiveness and redemption
I can't help but read that in an Al Gore voice. :laugh: No one's saying she shouldn't be forgiven, or that she can't be redeemed. But forgiveness is not a magic wand that does away with consequences, at least not on this earthly plain. And no one's saying that she can't have a good job somewhere. She's just made it difficult for herself. Besides, forgiveness is a function of individuals; not school districts; certainly not government schools. The individuals in charge can forgive her; the parents can forgive her; but that doesn't necessarily mean they should pay her to teach their children. That whole distraction thing, and the honesty thing, again. These are their kids, you know?
-
Yeah, I'd say that Jeannie C. Riley doesn't quite rise to the level of "literature". ;)
How about Tom T. Hall ? :lol:
-
Out of curiosity, would we feel the same way about this situation if the teacher had made a series of video sex tapes with her husband before becoming a teacher, and they got posted to the Internet? Is the issue that she was a paid performer the key factor here?
-
A couple of points...
First, I find the veteran vs. porn debate interesting, especially in terms of a combat vet vs. porn star. In each case, you have a human who volunteered to do a job for money. In polite society, that job is not generally condoned (killing others and sex for money). In many cases, those who have done the work say something similar, along the lines of "I did what I had to do." Now, a vet has the distinction of doing that job to stay alive, or in the name of freedom/country/etc, while porn work is done to pay the bills. But, you ofen hear the same basic "I did what I had to do" excuse for doing an ugly job. Now, from reading the article, it seems our teacher was doing it for extra cash and the kicks, so this argument fails for her. But it's interesting nonetheless.
Second, much of this argument falls on the issue of employment law. I am an at-will employee. If the judge comes in one day, doesn't like my tie, he can fire me right then and I'm out. Period. I'm going to assume that this teacher had an employment contract taht was probably part of a collective bargaining agreement between the teacher's union and the school board. Most of those contracts I have seen include languarge about immoral behavior or actions which would negatively impact the image of the school district being grounds for dismissal. You may be able to argue in court that her actions prior to signing the contract are irrelevent, and cannot constitute sufficient grounds for termination. I don't know enough employment law to answer that one...
Third, has anyone heard from the teacher's union on this one? The unions are generally pretty quick to come to a member's defense unless they think that the dismissal was appropriate. Silence from the union is generally pretty telling...
Fourth, why is this an indictment on public schools? I know that this board is anti-big govermnet, and pretty much anti-public schools, but I don't see how this situation is in any way indicative of a problem with public education, and believe me, there are plenty of problems there...
-
^^^ Actually, in the articles I have read, the local teacher's union is paying for counsel to represent the teacher to get her job back. I see the same thing with the nurses unions in my hospitals. The union will represent their member if they think they have been fired unjustly. If they think the firing was legitimate, they won't.
-
In each case, you have a human who volunteered to do a job for money.
Is that really true for peopel who join the military? I would bet quite a few would not say that was why they joined. I guess it depends on how you define it.
-
Is that really true for peopel who join the military? I would bet quite a few would not say that was why they joined. I guess it depends on how you define it.
I think you will find - sadly - that there are sectors of society that either think ill of veterans outright (happily they are few) or believe stereotypes of veterans as mentally-ill, likely to 'blow a fuse', etc, which had sadly been promoted a lot by the media.
-
Is that really true for peopel who join the military? I would bet quite a few would not say that was why they joined. I guess it depends on how you define it.
I was just using that example to continue the comparison that I found interesting between the jobs. I signed up for many reasons, and money was way down the list. I knew some guys who did it for the pay, and the training they hoped to use later to get better pay. Of course, I'm a Cold War vet, so lots of people in my time did join for educational benefits/training/etc.
-
Out of curiosity, would we feel the same way about this situation if the teacher had made a series of video sex tapes with her husband before becoming a teacher, and they got posted to the Internet? Is the issue that she was a paid performer the key factor here?
I think the distinction of "something not intended for public consumption" versus something that was is probably valid, but neither really affects the issues of lying on a resume and/or being detrimental to the good order and discipline of the student body.
What I think is interesting is how many folks are getting so worked up over this. If they had went with the more accurate/less sensationalistic headline "Woman fired for lying on resume sues former employer for wrongful termination" no one would care, and folks would almost undoubtedly be on the side of the employer. But because what she lied about involves sex some folks are tripping over themselves to condemn them. Again, ;/
I had to laugh when someone earlier said America thinks of sex as bad and dirty. Have they ever watched television or picked up a magazine? Outside of purely religiously produced content, casual extra-marital sex is lauded and presented as the only possible norm. Everything features highly sexualized advertising, from food to cars to furniture. Heck, it's damn near impossible these days to find a woman's Halloween costume that doesn't have "sexy" appended to the front. The "blue nosed Puritan prude" is masterfully done strawman, but kind of laughable as a major arbiter of Americna culture to anyone who has ever, you know, experienced American culture.
-
lying on resume
As far as I can see, that could only be when a person claims experience/education/etc that one does not have.
But what do I know :facepalm: Maybe she sucks as a teacher, too :lol:
-
Outside of purely religiously produced content, casual extra-marital sex is lauded and presented as the only possible norm.[/quote
I need to be paid $50 every time a mainstream television show portay non-religious characters deciding to postpone sex until after marriage so it will 'mean more'.
-
There's a reason why American families don't sit down together and watch Polly Does Plymouth Colony, every Thanksgiving. It's because we think sex is icky and wrong. What else could it be?
-
If her previous career wasn't a distraction before, it sure is now.
And distraction is a silly arguement, really. The little ones won't understand/don't care, the middle ones will fuss for a few days and get distracted by the next thing soon enough, and the older ones are already distracted by everything, so what's one more thing for them to gossip about? Hell, it might even be better, since instead of torturing one of their fellow students, they're busting on an adult, who can presumibly handle the social pressure better then a teen.
As for the nature of her previous career, she had sex, big deal. I'll bet she still has sex occasionally, she just doesn't do so on camera anymore. Morals are in the eye of the beholder, in this case. In order to know about her career, SOMEBODY had to go find it.
Making cracks about not wanting Jenna Jamison to teach your kids is silly. Personally, I wouldn't actually want Jenna Jamison around kids, either, but that's because I've seen her in a (not porn) movie and you have to be either really smart or really dumb to act that vapid (and I'm betting on dumb in this case)
But this women isn't Jenna Jamison.
I think the whole "ramification for past actions" is going to have to ease eventually, in our digital world, or else we won't have any doctors, nurses, teachers and all the rest in a few generations. Young and Dumb has been the source of more cliches then any other cliche sighted in this five page thread. In a few generations it's going to be hard to find anyone who hasn't been Young and Dumb on the internet, and most examples will probably be related to sex.
Rev is right, let the law deal with property, money and the mundane issues of society and leave the moral code unwritten for the sake of all.
As for lying on a resume/application. =| Last I checked most just ask for the past three to five jobs and ommisions arn't the same as lying, but since I don't know much, I'll leave it at that.
-
Hell, it might even be better, since instead of torturing one of their fellow students, they're busting on an adult, who can presumibly handle the social pressure better then a teen.
Yeah, and I was thinking that after her previous job experience, she's not likely to get embarrassed by much in front of a class ;)
-
I think that went over everybody's heads. (that's a frequent problem with literary references)
I caught it, and did you know Tom T. Hall wrote that one?
-
I caught it, and did you know Tom T. Hall wrote that one?
I did not know that. But that makes sense; as far as I know JCR was not a songwriter, and someone had to write it. If Dolly or Loretta had written it (and who else, June Carter?), they would have recorded it first.
-
I caught it, and did you know Tom T. Hall wrote that one?
Of course I knew that =)
-
Eric,
I got to hand it to you, man. A real tour de force. Let me see if I can keep up.
I tend to try to get everything responded to at once. That sometimes results in long posts.
Um, this is one school system here. They're not in charge of teachers "in various locations in this country." Unless there is some incompetent or abusive teacher in her district that they know about and haven't dismissed, those other teachers aren't relevant.
Guilty of generalizing to some extent, I suppose - but this is so much LESS of a problem than so many things that could occur in the realm of teaching that it boggles my mind that it's even an issue.
The "so what" is in the article that you quoted:
You can claim that "they just got the creepy-crawlies," but they have given a much different reason. They say it would be a distraction. You may doubt that, but that is only speculation by someone far removed from the situation. (Unless you live there, maybe?)
It's a distraction, largely, because they MADE it one. They have no right to make a problem and then fire her because of that problem of their own creation. And when you send out a letter to the entire district saying, "Tell your kids not to look up their teacher's sex films," what do you REALLY think is going to happen? :facepalm:
And when they base {ALMOST} their entire argument around the fact that she used to do porn? I kinda have to believe that that's their real overriding issue.
Because it isn't. The fact that something bad happens does not make it a punishment. Punishment implies that someone is being brought to justice, or is being taught a lesson. This lady (rightly or wrongly) is just being let go, by an organization that no longer feels she is an asset.
As I think I said, I might not have all the information - I'm going on what I've read in several articles. But I recall reading *ONE* allegation that she lied on her resume, which she may or may not have actually done (and I *KNOW* I stated that if she did in fact put down a lie on her application, as opposed to merely omitting stuff she might have seen as irrelevant, she almost certainly doesn't have any grounds for complaint), and the district apparently does NOT have any sort of BS "moral turptitude" clause in their contracts, I don't see that they ought to be ABLE to fire her for having done porn.
Although, FWIW, she did work in porn while holding a previous teaching job.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/stacie-halas-teacher-dism_n_1543480.html
Yup. I think that's the article where I got that she decided that she'd enjoyed it. And I don't especially think that THAT was wrong of her, either.
According to the articles in huffpo, the students did the original "tattling."
Misread that one, then. I did, I mean, I'd thought it was other teachers coming forward with the links. I don't believe it really changes things at all, myself.
That right there could be evidence that her private life is affecting student education. (It could be. Might not be. You and I don't know.) And what planet do you live on, if you think the administration had any choice but to inform parents?
Been a lifelong resident and native of Sol III, thanks for asking.
Did they feel it necessary to inform the parents of other teachers' former jobs? That John had been in the military, Jesse drove a garbage truck, Sara worked at the local bar?
No? Hmmm...
In the most litigious society on Earth? And you blame the school for the fact that the students found out? The students were the ones that told the admins. If any of the kids found out from the letters that went out to their parents, sounds like the parents are to blame for that one.
Oh, I'll agree substantially with that - though you might be surprised at what kids will find out, perhaps, even when their parents fondly imagine they're being stealthy and crafty about keeping secrets. But if you think something might be a distraction issue, the way to keep it from becoming one is NOT to send out letters to every family in the county.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/stacie-halas-fired-porn-film_n_1437467.html
??? They ARE claiming that she lied. They are also claiming that her past is a distraction. So...???
From the information that's come out, they don't have a leg to stand on, and yet again, if her past is a mass distraction, it's because THEY MADE IT SO.
Again, just speculation on your part. Those on the scene say otherwise.
No argument is being made that she is incompetent; the district is responsible for having made this into a major distraction issue and thus has no right to use that against her. I maintain that my original statement was and is correct.
Below is a collection of beliefs you accuse me of holding.
Not guilty of saying or thinking those things. =|
Fair enough - I've been taking your statements as being morally-disapproving and judgmental. If they were not intended that way, you have my apologies.
I don't think sex is icky, either. I know about sex. I have done it before.
Where's that Orson Welles clapping gif... =D
Porn is harmful, and many people disapprove of it for good and valid reasons. Failed analogy is failed.
Disagree. CAN it be harmful? Of course, in many different ways. Of course, that applies to basically anything and everything else in the world, as well. Pornography is not, in and of itself, inherently harmful or something which violates anyone's rights. Her having done porn, so long as she did so of her own free will, harmed *NO ONE*.
Correction - people can and do disapprove of it for good and valid reasons, I'll agree with THAT part. But even there, their own "good and valid reasons" may or may not be good and valid for others, and they cannot be permitted to FORCE those "good and valid reasons" on others. If they have personal issues with it, they can remove themselves from the field without harming anyone else.
I can't help but read that in an Al Gore voice. :laugh: No one's saying she shouldn't be forgiven, or that she can't be redeemed. But forgiveness is not a magic wand that does away with consequences, at least not on this earthly plain. And no one's saying that she can't have a good job somewhere. She's just made it difficult for herself. Besides, forgiveness is a function of individuals; not school districts; certainly not government schools. The individuals in charge can forgive her; the parents can forgive her; but that doesn't necessarily mean they should pay her to teach their children. That whole distraction thing, and the honesty thing, again. These are their kids, you know?
And her past job has *NO BEARING* either way on her ability to teach their kids. But the district - as embodied by the individuals in question - is seeking to destroy her livelihood over something which is irrelevant to her performance as a teacher.
Once again, I stand on my earlier statement here. Those moralizing about how she's unfit to teach their kids should, IMO, do a little soul-searching and act a little more in accordance with the religion they're using as justification for their position.
There's a reason why American families don't sit down together and watch Polly Does Plymouth Colony, every Thanksgiving. It's because we think sex is icky and wrong. What else could it be?
Might be because it doesn't have much to do with the holiday?
Of course, neither does football - but I don't watch that either.
Trying to argue that we as a people AREN'T still prudish? There's a weird dichotomy at work here in which it (hypersexualized behavior) is so popular BECAUSE we regard it as naughty and dirty. Do you think we'd be as fascinated by it as we are if it were more matter-of-fact? I really don't think so.
I mean, look at this thread for an example!
{Edited to fix quote tags}
-
It's a distraction, largely, because they MADE it one. They have no right to make a problem and then fire her because of that problem of their own creation. And when you send out a letter to the entire district saying, "Tell your kids not to look up their teacher's sex films," what do you REALLY think is going to happen?
You seem to be speculating about a scenario in which there was not a problem at the school until these letters went out. You seem to further speculate that the letters were responsible for students finding out about the issue. Maybe it happened that way. Maybe not. And since you agreed that the school had to inform the parents, then why do you blame the school for causing a distraction?
The fact that students were viewing their teacher's porn videos on the internet, and then telling adults about it, may indicate that there was already a problem. The fact that teachers decided they should prove the students' point by looking up the videos on their smart phones may indicate that the teachers were just "prudes," or that they didn't like Ms. Halas. But maybe it means that they found it to be a problem and/or distraction as well, and thought it needed to be discussed.
If you're right, and this was all stirred up by the parents finding out about it, then it only shows that the school is responsive to the input of the parents to which it should be ultimately accountable. You are being one of those people that disregards parents' judgment, thinking that you know how to take care of their children better than they do.
No argument is being made that she is incompetent;
That is one of the main arguments being advanced. If her past choices are too much of a distraction, and the school thinks it is, then she is not competent. She is not able to do her job. But, of course, you won't accept that that could actually be the case. For you, it has to be puritanical zealotry at work. Oh the noes!
Those moralizing about how she's unfit to teach their kids should, IMO, do a little soul-searching and act a little more in accordance with the religion they're using as justification for their position.
You think people have to be religious to not want their kids watching their teacher do porn? ???
Besides, the idea of forgiveness is not just something you get to guilt people with, when you don't agree with their value judgments. It's easy to say that others should forgive, when you were never offended in the first place. And when your children aren't involved.
And as I already explained, forgiveness is not a magic wand that takes away any consequences a person may face in life. Nor does it mean that you pretend nothing happened. You can forgive a person for, say, making fun of a retarded child. But it doesn't mean you recommend him, if your retarded-child-having friends are looking for a baby-sitter. Does that mean you're punishing the guy?
-
. You are being one of those people that disregards parents' judgment, thinking that you know how to take care of their children better than they do.
Decisions have consequences, remember?
The consequences of people making silly decisions is that they get mocked on the Internet.
-
Yes.
You are obligated to mock people whom you consider "silly."
-
Decisions have consequences, remember?
The consequences of people making silly decisions is that they get mocked on the Internet.
Weak. :P
It was obviously not mockery I was talking about (don't know what the parents can be mocked for, in this case), but the attitude that schools don't input from parents, and that govt. institutions are more competent to make important decisions about children's education.
-
Yes.
You are obligated to mock people whom you consider "silly."
Yes, this comes with my Internet connection.
-
As far as I can see, that could only be when a person claims experience/education/etc that one does not have.
But what do I know :facepalm: Maybe she sucks as a teacher, too :lol:
There is so much I can say, so so so much....but I know I shouldn't....darned politeness!!!! >:D :angel:
-
http://seattletimes.com/html/entertainment/2020139524_apusteacherpornvideo.html#.UPcmgOMmyhk.facebook
The courts have spoken. She does not get her job back.
-
http://seattletimes.com/html/entertainment/2020139524_apusteacherpornvideo.html#.UPcmgOMmyhk.facebook
The courts have spoken. She does not get her job back.
I hope she appeals.
As I said before, eventually you'll have an entire generation with "young, dumb and internet proof", so I don't much see the point of going after her.
-
What a dumb reason to put someone out of a livelihood.
-
What a dumb reason to put someone out of a livelihood.
What is this weird feeling...I absolutely agree with de selby
-
What is this weird feeling...I absolutely agree with de selby
=D. Simultaneous intellectual...
-
What is this weird feeling...I absolutely agree with de selby
Wow, me too. Must be contagious.
-
She should have become a minister south of DFW instead of a teacher.
-
What a dumb reason to put someone out of a livelihood.
I agree, too. She should have thought twice about doing something that dumb before she put her future at risk.
:P
-
I agree, too. She should have thought twice about doing something that dumb before she put her future at risk.
:P
Maybe she didn't think it was the biggest deal on the planet - just like many libertarians.
Religious and conservative types are supposed to help people out of joblessness, not put them into it because they once got naked on film.
-
I agree, too. She should have thought twice about doing something that dumb before she put her future at risk.
:P
Finding employment that pays extreamly well, for a limited amount of relativly undemanding work with plenty of perks is dumb?
Whodathunkit?
-
Finding employment that pays extreamly well, for a limited amount of relativly undemanding work with plenty of perks is dumb?
Whodathunkit?
You don't get it - she's supposed to take account of everyone else's hang-ups about sex.
How dare she not plan her life as if other people's religious views would someday determine her paycheck!
-
You don't get it - she's supposed to take account of everyone else's hang-ups about sex.
How dare she not plan her life as if other people's religious views would someday determine her paycheck!
:laugh:
-
How odd that parents want those that teach their children to share similar values, or at least respect them enough to not flaunt indiscretions in their faces.
-
:laugh: indeed, liz.
Cause only people who read the Bible for a living would be bothered by her past life. People who only go to church for Easter are just thrilled that their kids' teacher used to pleasure dudes for money.
Maybe she didn't think it was the biggest deal on the planet - just like many libertarians.
If she's a libertarian, she understands that other people disapproving of her choices is not the biggest deal on the planet, and not really something she has any grounds to complain about.
-
How odd that parents want those that teach their children to share similar values, or at least respect them enough to not flaunt indiscretions in their faces.
Values like what exactly?
Forgiveness for past sins?
Oh, wait, not that one. That doesn't work if you've had sex outside of marriage, right?
I guess God forgot to tell that one to Jesus, because he sure wouldn't have been friends with that Magdiline chick.
;/
-
Finding employment that pays extreamly well, for a limited amount of relativly undemanding work with plenty of perks is dumb?
Whodathunkit?
Well, in college many years/pounds ago I managed to think through an offer to work as an escort for older professional ladies desiring public male companionship. I figured it might not look too good on a resume or a background check, even if I didn't get to know them in a Bibilcal fashion. I managed to do this as a functional agnostic.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you ought to. Also, "easy money" might have strings attached or leave an unpleasant residue on your fingers. Money earned the hard way may leave you stinky & sweaty, but that washes off in the shower purty quick.
-
Well, in college many years/pounds ago I managed to think through an offer to work as an escort for older professional ladies desiring public male companionship. I figured it might not look too good on a resume or a background check, even if I didn't get to know them in a Bibilcal fashion. I managed to do this as a functional agnostic.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you ought to. Also, "easy money" might have strings attached or leave an unpleasant residue on your fingers. Money earned the hard way may leave you stinky & sweaty, but that washes off in the shower purty quick.
Having sex is dishonest?
Preforming a particular act or using a particular skill for money is dishonest?
It's not that I disagree that life choices have effect (including where you work and who you work for)
I'm saying why the hell we, as a culture, get so caught up over any of them that have to do with sex?
-
Values like what exactly?
Forgiveness for past sins?
Oh, wait, not that one. That doesn't work if you've had sex outside of marriage, right?
I think you're smarter than that. I think you know that forgiveness doesn't mean consequences magically disappear. But then, you should also be able to figure out that this really isn't about the teacher being punished for some moral failing. Of course, this was already explained, earlier in the thread.
I guess God forgot to tell that one to Jesus, because he sure wouldn't have been friends with that Magdiline chick.
Nothing in the Bible about her being sexually immoral, though that is a common misconception.
-
People who only go to church for Easter are just thrilled that their kids' teacher used to pleasure dudes for money.
Would they be okay if the teacher had just given it away for free? Plenty of those out there.
-
I think you're smarter than that. I think you know that forgiveness doesn't mean consequences magically disappear. But then, you should also be able to figure out that this really isn't about the teacher being punished for some moral failing. Of course, this was already explained, earlier in the thread.
Nothing in the Bible about her being sexually immoral, though that is a common misconception.
No, she was fired because a bunch of busy bodies had to go look up the skeltons in her closet, drag them around and make a big stink over nothing.
She had sex, in front of a camera for money. The only people that matters to is her, her employer and the dudes jerking off to it.
Why anyone else feels the need to make a stink about it is beyond me.
Oh, right the "distraction" issue. ;/ of course nobody thought maybe the problem was more responcibly solved by telling the kids to STFU and do their schoolwork? That maybe in doing so the kids could have learned a couple valuable life lessons like "it's none of your business." and "What someone else does/did is not an excuse to slack off or be obnoxious" and maybe even "in the real world you have to deal with people you don't like or don't agree with so suck it up and get used to it."
-
Would they be okay if the teacher had just given it away for free? Plenty of those out there.
:angel:
I wouldn't know a thing about that, and I've never seen a HS spanish teacher nekkid. I swear.
-
:laugh: indeed, liz.
Cause only people who read the Bible for a living would be bothered by her past life. People who only go to church for Easter are just thrilled that their kids' teacher used to pleasure dudes for money.
If she's a libertarian, she understands that other people disapproving of her choices is not the biggest deal on the planet, and not really something she has any grounds to complain about.
Predictable and legal, yep. Sensible, no. There's plenty of grounds to complain about boneheaded moral hyperventilation, even if it's (gasp!) foreseeable and permitted by law.
I'd rather have an ex prostitute teaching american kids addition amd economics than many of the lilly-historied but math illiterate teachers out there. At least they've proven functional knowledge of the concepts.
-
Predictable and legal, yep. Sensible, no. There's plenty of grounds to complain about boneheaded moral hyperventilation, even if it's (gasp!) foreseeable and permitted by law.
I'd rather have an ex prostitute teaching american kids addition amd economics than many of the lilly-historied but math illiterate teachers out there. At least they've proven functional knowledge of the concepts.
It probably wouldn't bother me, either, but people don't have the right to a job. If you don't want to deal with the hang-ups of people, then go into business for yourself or choose your employers very carefully. Many teaching contracts have 'morality clauses', so it is obvious that this profession frowns on this.
I'd love to believe that in the "real world" employers don't care about what you do in your off-time, but this is not the case. People get fired for all sorts of activity outside of work, such as Facebook posts and similar things. Most employers also look at these kinds of things before they hire people. I think a better lesson for kids is that what they do has consequences and that employers aren't under any obligation to ignore certain things. If anything, I think kids are posting way too much stuff for the world to see.
-
"in the real world you have to deal with people you don't like or don't agree with so suck it up and get used to it."
That cuts both ways.
-
Stupid hurts.
Stupid still hurts even when others misinform you that you aren't being stupid.
If you aspire to be entrusted in loco parentis maybe you should think through the consequences of the decisions you are making. Especially considering your career path is teaching children how to learn and think properly.
Personally I give her the benefit of the doubt and it is too bad her past has come back to haunt her. I've done worse in my life than make dirty movies.
I also give the parents and school board the benefit of the doubt that they have the best interests in mind of their children and the children they have been entrusted with teaching.
Just because it is about sex and personal licentiousness the libertarians want to give her a pass; ignoring the incredible lack of wisdom, fore site and discretion she has shown in her past.
-
Stupid hurts.
Stupid still hurts even when others misinform you that you aren't being stupid.
If you aspire to be entrusted in loco parentis maybe you should think through the consequences of the decisions you are making. Especially considering your career path is teaching children how to learn and think properly.
Personally I give her the benefit of the doubt and it is too bad her past has come back to haunt her. I've done worse in my life than make dirty movies.
I also give the parents and school board the benefit of the doubt that they have the best interests in mind of their children and the children they have been entrusted with teaching.
Just because it is about sex and personal licentiousness the libertarians want to give her a pass; ignoring the incredible lack of wisdom, fore site and discretion she has shown in her past.
Pretty much this.
-
Stupid still hurts even when others misinform you that you aren't being stupid.
I give her the benefit of the doubt and it is too bad her past has come back to haunt her.
I also give the parents and school board the benefit of the doubt that they have the best interests in mind of their children and the children they have been entrusted with teaching.
Just because it is about sex and personal licentiousness the libertarians want to give her a pass; ignoring the incredible lack of wisdom, fore site and discretion she has shown in her past.
Well said.
-
Stupid hurts.
Stupid still hurts even when others misinform you that you aren't being stupid.
If you aspire to be entrusted in loco parentis maybe you should think through the consequences of the decisions you are making. Especially considering your career path is teaching children how to learn and think properly.
Personally I give her the benefit of the doubt and it is too bad her past has come back to haunt her. I've done worse in my life than make dirty movies.
I also give the parents and school board the benefit of the doubt that they have the best interests in mind of their children and the children they have been entrusted with teaching.
Just because it is about sex and personal licentiousness the libertarians want to give her a pass; ignoring the incredible lack of wisdom, fore site and discretion she has shown in her past.
Again, what the hell is so darn stupid about making porn?
Is it that she got paid? Is it she had sex? Is it that she was filmed?
If she was a none porn actress would this still be an issue? Or is it only an issue as long as she never nuded up for a scene? Or maybe it's based on ratings? A little backside is ok, but full frontal, no teaching for you!?
You guys are as bad as liberals. I'd be a hell of a lot more respect if you just say "i think sex is dirty and porn is gross and anyone who gets paid to have sex or stars in a porn movie I don't want around."
-
Again, what the hell is so darn stupid about making porn?
Is it that she got paid? Is it she had sex? Is it that she was filmed?
If she was a none porn actress would this still be an issue? Or is it only an issue as long as she never nuded up for a scene? Or maybe it's based on ratings? A little backside is ok, but full frontal, no teaching for you!?
You guys are as bad as liberals. I'd be a hell of a lot more respect if you just say "i think sex is dirty and porn is gross and anyone who gets paid to have sex or stars in a porn movie I don't want around."
It's not stupid so much as just icky. It's also none of my business.
The school administrators created the alleged distraction, not her, then they fired her for their bad behavior. The wrong person was fired IMHO. I haven't seen any evidence that her past sins had any affect on her ability to teach, they just wanted to get their Self Righteous on. :mad:
If they found out she was currently filming pornos on the weekend, I might support their decision, I don't know (that's a tough one.)
-
What is stupid about working in porn?
Off the top of my head I'd say it could impact your ability to earn a living in different field sometime down the road.
Let me use the Google and see if I can find any object lessons showing this reality for you...Oh, wait...
-
Again, what the hell is so darn stupid about making porn?
Is it that she got paid? Is it she had sex? Is it that she was filmed?
If she was a none porn actress would this still be an issue? Or is it only an issue as long as she never nuded up for a scene? Or maybe it's based on ratings? A little backside is ok, but full frontal, no teaching for you!?
You guys are as bad as liberals. I'd be a hell of a lot more respect if you just say "i think sex is dirty and porn is gross and anyone who gets paid to have sex or stars in a porn movie I don't want around."
One of the advantages of not having a puritanical attitude about sex is that you don't have to feel guilty afterward.
:angel:
-
One of the advantages of not having a puritanical attitude about sex is that you don't have to feel guilty afterward.
:angel:
That's okay. There are plenty of people willing to feel guilty on your behalf.
-
What is stupid about working in porn?
Off the top of my head I'd say it could impact your ability to earn a living in different field sometime down the road.
Let me use the Google and see if I can find any object lessons showing this reality for you...Oh, wait...
Which leads again, to the million doller question, the one those of you who agree that she should have gotten fired have still failed to answer.
Why SHOULD IT? Why should this impact someones future career in another feild?
I'm am not saying it doesn't. I am not saying that in our current society such won't affect you.
I'm asking for a good reason why it should stay that way.
Otherwise, I'm sticking with she shouldn't have been fired and everyone involved should have gotten the hell over it, because this victorian esque culture of prudishness needs to keel over and just die already.
-
http://youtu.be/DvdJMkZeV1c ;)
-
I agree, too. She should have thought twice about doing something that dumb before she put her future at risk.
:P
;/
Agreed with De Selby and Birdman, among others. Sanctimonious busybodies who can't be bothered to determine whether she's actually a competent TEACHER as the determining factor in whether she should keep her job - HUGE thumbs-down.
You don't get it - she's supposed to take account of everyone else's hang-ups about sex.
How dare she not plan her life as if other people's religious views would someday determine her paycheck!
I wanted to put one of the laughing emoticons in response - but that's not really a joke in this case, is it? =(
It probably wouldn't bother me, either, but people don't have the right to a job. If you don't want to deal with the hang-ups of people, then go into business for yourself or choose your employers very carefully. Many teaching contracts have 'morality clauses', so it is obvious that this profession frowns on this.
As was (IIRC) mentioned previously in this thread, HER contract apparently had no such clause - thus any mention of such is, at best, irrelevant.
Despite all the arguments forwarded here about how she shouldn't be teaching - what's really the problem here? Has anyone bothered to show that she lacked competence or capability as a (IIRC) science teacher? To the best of my knowledge, no - it does appear that the administration caught wind that she'd done porn before coming to work for them, checked her out online, and decided "Oh teh NOES, she had SEX FOR MONIES!!!" and fired her despite her contract not having a "morality" clause. Oh, and to make sure that any distraction had the maximum possible effect, they ensured that everyone in the freaking COUNTY was informed of her (irrelevant) past. Yeah, still coming back to :facepalm: [barf]. This was really frakking stupid, and I hope she pursues an appeal.
-
The school administrators created the alleged distraction, not her, then they fired her for their bad behavior.
Sanctimonious busybodies who can't be bothered to determine whether she's actually a competent TEACHER as the determining factor in whether she should keep her job - HUGE thumbs-down.
Has anyone bothered to show that she lacked competence or capability as a (IIRC) science teacher? To the best of my knowledge, no - it does appear that the administration caught wind that she'd done porn before coming to work for them, checked her out online, and decided "Oh teh NOES, she had SEX FOR MONIES!!!" and fired her despite her contract not having a "morality" clause. Oh, and to make sure that any distraction had the maximum possible effect, they ensured that everyone in the freaking COUNTY was informed of her (irrelevant) past.
This has been debunked, previously. It's an appealing version of events for some, but doesn't seem to line up with the facts that have been reported. Primarily, the fact that students brought it up to the teachers/admins. Also, the fact that her competence and effectiveness as a teacher is affected by what her students think of her.
-
I find it amusing that a legal action taken at a younger age is condemned, and she should have known better, yet illegal actions performed by two presidents in their youth are accepted as commonplace and acceptable. Not necessarily by those on this forum, but by society as a whole...
-
Which leads again, to the million doller question, the one those of you who agree that she should have gotten fired have still failed to answer.
Why SHOULD IT? Why should this impact someones future career in another feild?
I'm am not saying it doesn't. I am not saying that in our current society such won't affect you.
I'm asking for a good reason why it should stay that way.
Otherwise, I'm sticking with she shouldn't have been fired and everyone involved should have gotten the hell over it, because this victorian esque culture of prudishness needs to keel over and just die already.
Why?
Because it shows she is a nitwit with awful judgment. She did not have to be a puritan to see the likely difficulties in the future, she just needed an IQ above room temp.
Funny thing, "this victorian esque culture of prudishness" is one of the best indicators of success in America. Even for left-liberals on the coasts. They make make noise about tahl-erance and acceptance, but that is for show. Look at the way they act and live their lives. They exhibit discipline and self-control, (to include not flashing their posterior on video for the edification of posterity). They live where others act similarly. OTOH, lack of self discipline, impulse control, and planning for the future is a good way to end up trash: white, black, or brown trash.
Trash is as trash does. And in this instance, the trash got kicked to the curb. Maybe she'll learn something. Better yet, maybe other folks will learn something from her example.
-
That's awful Christian of you.
Whatever happened to forgiveness? Jesus made friends with a prostitute for crying outloud.
The real issue here is at will employment. Either you believe in the libertarian value of it or not. I for one, do. You do not have the right to a job. Is this a BS reason to fire her? I think so. But the Roosters of the world will never let you forget your past if they don't agree with it.
Edit: looks like I found a hole in the language filter
-
Fourth, why is this an indictment on public schools? I know that this board is anti-big govermnet, and pretty much anti-public schools, but I don't see how this situation is in any way indicative of a problem with public education, and believe me, there are plenty of problems there...
This is an indictment of public schools because the public no longer shares a common system of ethics or even cultural norms in many cases.
Trying to make a government run system of education is guaranteed to alienate large swaths of folks who don't share whatever the governments prevailing world view/ethical system is that is being taught.
Government should have minimum standards regarding reading, writing, arithmetic and history that market driven schools must meet. Free education from the shackles of government slavery.
Get government out of the education propaganda business
-
Too many folks:
*on guns* Guns are my right! If i'm not hurting anyone, what guns I own and the manner in which i carry them is none of anyone's business!
*on sex* OMG That person did something with their body that is not in my approved list of body-thingies. I absolutely support discriminating against that person as a result.
Saw this in a thread on strippers a while back. Got real irritated with the implications of that thread, considering my wife was once a stripper.
-
Too many folks:
*on guns* Guns are my right! If i'm not hurting anyone, what guns I own and the manner in which i carry them is none of anyone's business!
*on sex* OMG That person did something with their body that is not in my approved list of body-thingies. I absolutely support discriminating against that person as a result.
Saw this in a thread on strippers a while back. Got real irritated with the implications of that thread, considering my wife was once a stripper.
You're not going to discriminate against some folks from having influence over your children? (assuming you folks decide to have children)
What if you have a daughter and she wants to go to Vacation Bible School at the local fundie church with a friend? You going to hand her over to the local Bible bangers for a week?
-
You're not going to discriminate against some folks from having influence over your children? (assuming you folks decide to have children)
What if you have a daughter and she wants to go to Vacation Bible School at the local fundie church with a friend? You going to hand her over to the local Bible bangers for a week?
Absolutely. I don't see what that has to do with this thread?
If i've done my job right, my child will be able to make intelligent choices. Hiding the world from children does not keep them safe from it.
How many of these silly, sex negative people will scream about a teacher who did some porn, then take their tyke to go see the latest ultra violent superhero movie?
Our society has demonized beyond belief anything related to sex.
Would you support the lefties firing a teacher because he was an NRA member?
-
Fair enough.
My suspicion is more than a few here would come up with a reason for their child not to be allowed to attend VBS.
Would you support the lefties firing a teacher because he was an NRA member?
Like JJ I believe in at will employment. So as much as it sucks. That is also why I say get government out of running the schools, we need to balkanize the system not promote this stupid institutional group think of multiculturalism.
-
My concerns would revolve around what is being taught in that classroom right now.
If we're going to drag the person's past into the arguement, why not thier religious beliefs? No muslim teachers? No hindu teachers? No Democrat or Repbulican teachers?
-
My concerns would revolve around what is being taught in that classroom right now.
If we're going to drag the person's past into the arguement, why not thier religious beliefs? No muslim teachers? No hindu teachers? No Democrat or Repbulican teachers?
This.
Was she a good teacher?
If no, fire her.
If yes, keep her. Simple as that. There are teachers that have all kinds of crap in their past. I've got all kinds of crap in my past. Current performance is what counts. I'd rather have a porn star teaching my kid than some of the mouthbreathing, collectivist brainwashers we currently have.
-
The only real question that needs answering here, is...
where's the video, and is she hawt? :angel:
I'm with Fitz and Jamis on this one. It wasn't illegal. Get over it. But, with at-will employment, no job is 100% secure (as is proper). If her ability to control a classroom or preserve respect from students is compromised, she's no longer an effective teacher. Firing just for doing teh nekkids = bad. Firing because teh nekkids makes you ineffective in education = ok.
-
I've been wrestling with this topic since it was first posted. I can see both points of view.
When I watch porn, I see some very nice-looking young women, and see their faces very clearly. I often wonder if they've considered what will happen down the road if a neighbor or relative or employer sees them in these porn movies, and what effect that may have on relationships with neighbors, family or employers. It's certainly something that should be thought through. God knows I'm still paying today for dumb decisions I made decades ago.
Having said that, if there's no moral clause in her contract, and the administration can't show that she's actually a distraction, then I don't know that they have a case. Much would depend upon the age of her students. If she's teaching 8 year-olds, her past isn't going to be as much of an issue as it would if she's teaching teens.
-
The alleged distraction makes it harder to do her job. That is the consequence of her action, but that should be all. If she can still control her classroom and teach the students, that's all that matters. If not, then fire her for poor performance.
AFAIK, teachers are not at will employees, they have a contract.
-
The alleged distraction makes it harder to do her job. That is the consequence of her action, but that should be all. If she can still control her classroom and teach the students, that's all that matters. If not, then fire her for poor performance.
AFAIK, teachers are not at will employees, they have a contract.
This.
It was a distraction because folks other than her MADE it that way. I see no evidence she couldn't control her classroom
-
I often wonder if they've considered what will happen down the road if a neighbor or relative or employer sees them in these porn movies, and what effect that may have on relationships with neighbors, family or employers.
There's a double standard in that possibilty ;/
(not necessarily from you, ML - you're just stating the obvious)
-
It was a distraction because folks other than her MADE it that way. I see no evidence she couldn't control her classroom
She provided the distraction. Unfortunately, there's no escaping one's past now that the internet is forever.
And those who found the distraction, according to the article, were the STUDENTS. I note everyone who is screaming about the libertarian sacrament of consequence-free sex positivism keeps claiming it was busybodies that were looking for ways to take her down and alerted the students to it.
As is generally the case in these situations (and those of you who attended public school should remember this) it was well-known by the students before the adults (parents and supervisors) were aware of it. Because that doesn't fit the libertarian boogeyman of FUNDIES TRYING TO IMPOSE CHRISTIAN SHARIA, you are ignoring the article.
Next, "You don't see evidence should couldn't control her classroom?" Strange, I also don't see any evidence she could. This is a news article, not a transcript of a court case. As noted before, I will believe those who are closest to the situation are best able to make informed decisions.
LASTLY, as has been pointed out many times, forgiveness doesn't remove consequences. You engage in an activity that will make teenage boys unable to think of you as anything but a sex object? I'm sorry, but I don't think you should be in a position of authority over children.
And yes, what teenage boys do IS important here because that's who she is dealing with.
But, of course, we need to ignore human nature so long as sex in involved. Because liberatarians are CERTAIN the only reason people treat sex any differently from any other activity is because they are pushing Jesus on people and have "hang-ups" about sex.
I'm not sure about the libertarians, but I'll publicly dance with my wife or play soccer or any number of other things. Not too keen about sex in public though. I guess I just have "hang-ups" about it. You libertarians, of course, have no such compunctions, though, right?
If, however, you do, why do YOU treat sex differently than playing volleyball?
-
When I watch porn, I see some very nice-looking young women, and see their faces very clearly. I often wonder if they've considered what will happen down the road if a neighbor or relative or employer sees them in these porn movies, and what effect that may have on relationships with neighbors, family or employers. It's certainly something that should be thought through. God knows I'm still paying today for dumb decisions I made decades ago.
I've been in the position where I've seen coworkers in ah... performances. Folks, if possible, please sterilize your phone before giving it to IT to fix or replace. I don't care, as much as I am allowed not to care. It can be awkward personally, but I'm paid to be a professional. I give no indication of anything I've seen. No comments, no expressions and I certainly keep my personal opinions to myself if it is not part of my job.
Other thing I wonder. If it was a male teacher, would he be equally treated? If it was not straight sex, could the person sue for discrimination based on sexual orientation? Again, I'm a little lost on why the lady was fired if she was engaging in legal activity and her contract had no moral turpitude clause. I'm gathering this is a Harper Valley PTA thing (and the lady messed up by not having decent blackmail material like in the song), but there are legit points about distraction in the classroom. Not sure why they didn't offer to switch her to teaching younger kids. I don't imagine ANYONE could argue it's a distraction for K-6 ?
Because that doesn't fit the libertarian boogeyman of FUNDIES TRYING TO IMPOSE CHRISTIAN SHARIA, you are ignoring the article.
*blink* Uhm. This may or may not be offtopic, but I don't know if it counts as a "boogeyman" if it actually exists. My school board caused a ruckus by declaring that single parent and homosexual agendas "will never be tolerated or accepted in this school." Evolution, macro and micro, was quasi banned. There was some discussion on declaring that dinosaurs were atheist propaganda, but in fairness it didn't pass. I swear to the Gods, I am not making this up. I can provide links via PM if you're doubting.
The article is stating that she was fired for omitting a former job on her resume. I'm personally unsure if porn is W2 or Form 1099 work. Does one normally list 1099 work on a school resume?
-
Does anyone else notice which side is being calm about this, and which has resorted to name-calling and stereotypes? Prudes, Victorians, sex-negative, screaming about porn, etc?
And to earn such treatment, you don't even have to suggest that she should be fired. Just saying that it might be appropriate is enough.
-
Oh come on... namecalling? ;/
-
That's awful Christian of you.
Whatever happened to forgiveness? Jesus made friends with a prostitute for crying outloud.
The real issue here is at will employment. Either you believe in the libertarian value of it or not. I for one, do. You do not have the right to a job. Is this a BS reason to fire her? I think so. But the Roosters of the world will never let you forget your past if they don't agree with it.
Edit: looks like I found a hole in the language filter
Pete: The Preacher said it absolved us.
Ulysses Everett McGill: For him, not for the law. I'm surprised at you, Pete, I gave you credit for more brains than Delmar.
Delmar O'Donnell: But they was witnesses that seen us redeemed.
Ulysses Everett McGill: That's not the issue Delmar. Even if that did put you square with the Lord, the State of Mississippi's a little more hard-nosed.
"Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid."
----John Wayne
This is a poor choice for Sex Positive Postergirl, what with her being a chowder head. All she did was the sex-positive equivalent of "Hold my beer and watch this!" and then proceeded to do something profoundly ill-advised on video. It may not be illegal to launch bottle rockets from one's buttocks, dive head-first into a ripe porta-potty, or number of other stupid human tricks; but it is also not illegal for folks to consider it disqualifying, employment-wise.
The best thing about such free & uninhibited self-expression is what is also best about free speech: it allows fools to self-label.
Oh come on... namecalling? ;/
Hey, its not just for politicians anymore at APS! Of course, enforcement is spotty at best and awfully dependent on if the enforcer's ox is being gored.
Does anyone else notice which side is being calm about this, and which has resorted to name-calling and stereotypes? Prudes, Victorians, sex-negative, screaming about porn, etc?
And to earn such treatment, you don't even have to suggest that she should be fired. Just saying that it might be appropriate is enough.
"Shut up!" he explained.
-
"Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid."
----John Wayne
This is a poor choice for Sex Positive Postergirl, what with her being a chowder head. All she did was the sex-positive equivalent of "Hold my beer and watch this!" and then proceeded to do something profoundly ill-advised on video. It may not be illegal to launch bottle rockets from one's buttocks, dive head-first into a ripe porta-potty, or number of other stupid human tricks; but it is also not illegal for folks to consider it disqualifying, employment-wise.
The best thing about such free & uninhibited self-expression is what is also best about free speech: it allows fools to self-label.
Hey, its not just for politicians anymore at APS! Of course, enforcement is spotty at best and awfully dependent on if the enforcer's ox is being gored.
"Shut up!" he explained.
Sex is profoundly ill advised?
She had sex on video. She didn't do anything different than anyone else does. She just was on film doing it.
Sure, it's something most people don't videotape. Yes, it's kinda stupid. Big deal.
Were someone to make videos of them shooting machine guns, and then parents raise hell / teacher get fired over it, I'm sure many of the same folks here talking about this "chowderhead" would be up in arms.
Also, no one is calling names, that i've seen. Which was the point of my comment to fistful
-
"Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid."
----John Wayne
This is a poor choice for Sex Positive Postergirl, what with her being a chowder head. All she did was the sex-positive equivalent of "Hold my beer and watch this!" and then proceeded to do something profoundly ill-advised on video. It may not be illegal to launch bottle rockets from one's buttocks, dive head-first into a ripe porta-potty, or number of other stupid human tricks; but it is also not illegal for folks to consider it disqualifying, employment-wise.
The best thing about such free & uninhibited self-expression is what is also best about free speech: it allows fools to self-label.
Hey, its not just for politicians anymore at APS! Of course, enforcement is spotty at best and awfully dependent on if the enforcer's ox is being gored.
"Shut up!" he explained.
So no room in roosterville for forgiveness, eh?
You've never done something stupid I presume.
-
The word for the day is consequences.
-
The word for the day is consequences.
As you should know, being a father, the positive effect of consequences diminish quickly with age.
Yes. they are the consequences of her actions. I submit they are stupid consequences
-
As you should know, being a father, the positive effect of consequences diminish quickly with age.
Yes. they are the consequences of her actions. I submit they are stupid consequences
if as some have fantasized busybodies had hunted her down yea. But since cruel.reality is that kids found the vids and brought it to schools attention she hada go. Folks pretending it wouldn't matter at a high school level are not in touch with reality. If shes a good teacher and i suspect she is its a shame. And its her own darn.fault
-
teenage boys unable to think of you as anything but a sex object
Better fire all the women teachers under 50 =D
-
So no room in roosterville for forgiveness, eh?
You've never done something stupid I presume.
It quote Shepherd Book, "Coming from you...that means almost nothing."
Plus, you lack an understanding of the concept of forgiveness. Let me make one point about it simple: I can not forgive her, as she did me no wrong. So kindly quit asking folks who do understand the concept to forgive her.
Most of the stupid things I have done (in magnitude and quantity) were done on the orders of Uncle Sam. The others hardly rate and I surely didn't sign a waiver allowing folks to market video of the event(s) far & wide.
The word for the day is consequences.
Yep, some folks wish there weren't any.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Why?
Because it shows she is a nitwit with awful judgment. She did not have to be a puritan to see the likely difficulties in the future, she just needed an IQ above room temp.
Funny thing, "this victorian esque culture of prudishness" is one of the best indicators of success in America. Even for left-liberals on the coasts. They make make noise about tahl-erance and acceptance, but that is for show. Look at the way they act and live their lives. They exhibit discipline and self-control, (to include not flashing their posterior on video for the edification of posterity). They live where others act similarly. OTOH, lack of self discipline, impulse control, and planning for the future is a good way to end up trash: white, black, or brown trash.
Trash is as trash does. And in this instance, the trash got kicked to the curb. Maybe she'll learn something. Better yet, maybe other folks will learn something from her example.
So, porn stars are trash? No impulse control (that's actually REALLY REALLY funny if you think about is... Especially for the male porn stars) can't plan for the future, and lack of self disipline (also really funny)
I'm not sure I follow. She needed money (presumably to pay for stuff like school, housing, food) so she took a job that involved a skill set (and yes, there is a skill set involved, which you may or may not be aware of. If it's a no, I really pity you) that she had.
And again, would you feel diffrently if she was just a straight actress (no sex) but still "flashed her posterior for the world to see."?
-
This one's done.