Fired for working in the adult film industry in the past

[MillCreek]

^^^ Terrible, I know, that not everyone shares your opinion on all things.  Clearly a sign of the coming Apocalypse. 

[kgbsquirrel]

*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?

[Regolith]

>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. 

[Monkeyleg]

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]

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?

[RoadKingLarry]

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.

[ArfinGreebly]

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.

[gunsmith]

I think that went over everybody's heads.  (that's a frequent problem with literary references)

as well as musical ones 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZPBUu7Fro

[Monkeyleg]

Yeah, I'd say that Jeannie C. Riley doesn't quite rise to the level of "literature".

[Balog]

Okay, so my "moral code" is "keep your gorram hands off my life, liberty, and property"  

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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"...

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.   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?

[Tallpine]

Yeah, I'd say that Jeannie C. Riley doesn't quite rise to the level of "literature".

How about Tom T. Hall ?   

[MillCreek]

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?   

[T.O.M.]

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...

[MillCreek]

^^^ 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.

[MechAg94]

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. 

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[T.O.M.]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[Tallpine]

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    Maybe she sucks as a teacher, too 

[MicroBalrog]

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'.

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[BlueStarLizzard]

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.

[Tallpine]

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   

[Tuco]

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?