Calif. teacher with past in porn loses appeal

[bob]

Society would be better off if we didn't treat sex as a giant taboo.

You say you wouldn't want your daughter working in the sex industry, but why not? Let's strip away the stigma that hangs over the heads of those in the industry and let's pretend that the sex industry is as socially accepted as the retail industry, or the music industry, or any other indistry you care to name.

What negatives are there? The only one I can think of are the dangers that are associated with prostitution - the STDs, the risk of being beaten or mistreated by pimps or customers, etc. But what else is there? I can't think of another negative.

being ostracized is a very real one.....it's one of the things that divide opinion on the subject.....universally, we seem to be saying that it would be better if this kind of discrimination based on the kind of job you choose didn't cost people their jobs....or force them to tweak their work history....

but there's a good number that say....."but....reality doesn't provide an option that is free of discrimation based on the kind of job you choose....most jobs are ok....but some are not......the question then becomes....it is worth the risks?

change is created by the risk takers, imo

 

[Nordling]

If a person indulges, as a customer, in a particular profession, but doesn't want someone they are related to, to join that profession...isn't that classic hypocrisy?

Not all. I watch UFC and boxing, I wouldn't want my kid to do either sport professionally. I've gone deep sea fishing, and watched the Deadliest Catch but I'd certainly strongly discourage one of my kids from signing up for a season fishing in Alaska. The risk in these occupations outweighs the rewards, and young people have a tendency to believe they are immortal.

Certainly, a parent wouldn't want their child, while a child, to indulge in dangerous sports, but if you support any occupation where you in some way look down on them, but would not want your adult offspring to be in that occupation, you would be practicing hypocrisy.

And this is where we get back to the OP...it's about a teacher being fired for what are obviously MORALITY reasons...a school determining that someone's past, LEGAL, occupation somehow rules their rights as a worker in a future occupation.

I don't look down on club strippers, but I've heard enough horror stories from RL friends, to not want my child being one. I don't look down on prostitutes or pornstars, but because the risk of STD's, I wouldn't want my daughter being one. I wouldn't mind her camming because most of the things I worry about don't exist in the camming world.

Understood. A safety issue. But still, we're going afield from the topic...which is should the PAST legal occupation of someone affect whether or not they should be fired as a teacher, assuming their not flaunting aspects of that profession.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Certainly, a parent wouldn't want their child, while a child, to indulge in dangerous sports, but if you support any occupation where you in some way look down on them, but would not want your adult offspring to be in that occupation, you would be practicing hypocrisy.

And this is where we get back to the OP...it's about a teacher being fired for what are obviously MORALITY reasons...a school determining that someone's past, LEGAL, occupation somehow rules their rights as a worker in a future occupation.

First reread the news article. She was fired because she was consistently deceitful, (i.e. a liar) and her background would be disruptive to the classroom. The school has an obligation to do what is best for the children not what is best for the teachers.

You seem to have this misguided belief that workers have lots of rights in this country. The only rights you have as worker are going to your boss and telling him take this job and shove it, quit on the spot without being fined or thrown in jail. (In some countries workers don't have this right). Employers have the right to hire, or fire whomever they want for any reasons at any time, subject to obeying lots of Federal and state laws Employment is at will in almost every state in the union. In general these laws tell employers they can't not hire or fire someone because, of race, sex, or a disability. These are conditions that people generally have no control over. They also aren't allowed to fire someone as retaliation for doing something that was wrong. E.g. if the teacher refused to have sex with principal or she reported that kids were cheated on their standardized testing. Almost every wrongful termination lawsuit involves trying to show the employer violated one of these narrow conditions.

The same bodies of law that let a hospital fire a nurse for refusing to take a vaccine, which you support, allow a school district to fire this teacher. In both cases the employers acted properly putting the well being of the patients, and students, (or more generally the employer) over the needs of the worker. I suggest you read the wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

[bob]

I suggest you read the wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

hmmm.....i don't know enough about the law to create a debate here....but i think that teacher was in a (public) CA unified school district.....that would make her unionized, wouldn't it?

that why she wasn't summarily dismissed, and had to have the panel's ruling.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I suggest you read the wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

hmmm.....i don't know enough about the law to create a debate here....but i think that teacher was in a (public) CA unified school district.....that would make her unionized, wouldn't it?

that why she wasn't summarily dismissed, and had to have the panel's ruling.

I would guess she a member of the teachers union also. But the union wasn't mentioned in any of the news reports so perhaps not.

 

[Nordling]

Certainly, a parent wouldn't want their child, while a child, to indulge in dangerous sports, but if you support any occupation where you in some way look down on them, but would not want your adult offspring to be in that occupation, you would be practicing hypocrisy.

And this is where we get back to the OP...it's about a teacher being fired for what are obviously MORALITY reasons...a school determining that someone's past, LEGAL, occupation somehow rules their rights as a worker in a future occupation.

First reread the news article. She was fired because she was consistently deceitful, (i.e. a liar) and her background would be disruptive to the classroom. The school has an obligation to do what is best for the children not what is best for the teachers.

You seem to have this misguided belief that workers have lots of rights in this country. The only rights you have as worker are going to your boss and telling him take this job and shove it, quit on the spot without being fined or thrown in jail. (In some countries workers don't have this right). Employers have the right to hire, or fire whomever they want for any reasons at any time, subject to obeying lots of Federal and state laws Employment is at will in almost every state in the union. In general these laws tell employers they can't not hire or fire someone because, of race, sex, or a disability. These are conditions that people generally have no control over. They also aren't allowed to fire someone as retaliation for doing something that was wrong. E.g. if the teacher refused to have sex with principal or she reported that kids were cheated on their standardized testing. Almost every wrongful termination lawsuit involves trying to show the employer violated one of these narrow conditions.

The same bodies of law that let a hospital fire a nurse for refusing to take a vaccine, which you support, allow a school district to fire this teacher. In both cases the employers acted properly putting the well being of the patients, and students, (or more generally the employer) over the needs of the worker. I suggest you read the wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

I already know about At Will laws. Their existence isn't the discussion. It's not about whether the school had a legal RIGHT to fire her; it's about whether she SHOULD have been fired. LEGAL does not necessarily equate with RIGHT or correct.

And we've already covered whether or not she posed a risk to the students. I haven't seen an argument that shows that she did. In fact, some of us believe that her past employment may be a PLUS.

This case is not the same as a stubborn nurse who refuses to put her fear of needles above the safety of her patients.

 

[Bocefish]

I wonder if there would be the same outrage if it was a male porn star that got fired?

I heard some N.C. female teacher that had sex with a 15 year old just avoided prosecution by marrying him, lol.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/4 ... n-3472119/

 

[Alexandra Cole]

I wonder if there would be the same outrage if it was a male porn star that got fired?

The male porn star wouldn't have been fired.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I wonder if there would be the same outrage if it was a male porn star that got fired?

I would hope so.

I heard some N.C. female teacher that had sex with a 15 year old just avoided prosecution by marrying him, lol.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/4 ... n-3472119/

There's a world of difference between allowing a sex offender to teach and an ex-sex worker.

 

[bob]

I already know about At Will laws. Their existence isn't the discussion. It's not about whether the school had a legal RIGHT to fire her; it's about whether she SHOULD have been fired. LEGAL does not necessarily equate with RIGHT or correct.

And we've already covered whether or not she posed a risk to the students. I haven't seen an argument that shows that she did. In fact, some of us believe that her past employment may be a PLUS.

This case is not the same as a stubborn nurse who refuses to put her fear of needles above the safety of her patients.

You and I are on the same page here, I think....at least, I'm not quick to accept the legal interpretation that condemns her for a/the lie, or b/the job description.

But again.....without being a legal beagle....the issue with the law is that most people believe it is RIGHT....not just because it is the law, but because it reinforces an ethical foundation that is pervasive, at least in that school district. Most of us here see it as pervasive....period....across society in general.

That's how I see it anyway. To describe it in a way that gains a broader acceptance, tho, there has to be people willing to take the risks.....this woman's little story is just the beginning.......another one will come along where a teacher who truly is highly respected, and has become a role model, is faced with the same fate.....there will be more parents and students in that one who question the law.

and so it goes.

 

[Nordling]

I already know about At Will laws. Their existence isn't the discussion. It's not about whether the school had a legal RIGHT to fire her; it's about whether she SHOULD have been fired. LEGAL does not necessarily equate with RIGHT or correct.

And we've already covered whether or not she posed a risk to the students. I haven't seen an argument that shows that she did. In fact, some of us believe that her past employment may be a PLUS.

This case is not the same as a stubborn nurse who refuses to put her fear of needles above the safety of her patients.

You and I are on the same page here, I think....at least, I'm not quick to accept the legal interpretation that condemns her for a/the lie, or b/the job description.

But again.....without being a legal beagle....the issue with the law is that most people believe it is RIGHT....not just because it is the law, but because it reinforces an ethical foundation that is pervasive, at least in that school district. Most of us here see it as pervasive....period....across society in general.

That's how I see it anyway. To describe it in a way that gains a broader acceptance, tho, there has to be people willing to take the risks.....this woman's little story is just the beginning.......another one will come along where a teacher who truly is highly respected, and has become a role model, is faced with the same fate.....there will be more parents and students in that one who question the law.

and so it goes.

Yes, to get off the OP track a bit, a good example is Roe v Wade. It is the law of the land and has been for decades now. But ironically, there are people, many of whom otherwise believe legal = right who will break this law, either by passing local laws that directly go against Roe but will go so far as murder people. Of course, this is a case where the law doesn't reenforce their own narrow belief system.

 

[Bocefish]

I wonder if there would be the same outrage if it was a male porn star that got fired?

The male porn star wouldn't have been fired.

I highly doubt that, especially if any parents were made aware of his past. A porn past and teaching children will always be a deal breaker. Same goes with politics and a porn past. Not fair at all, but overcoming people's prejudices when it comes to porn and their children will never change.
:twocents-02cents:

 

[Nordling]

I wonder if there would be the same outrage if it was a male porn star that got fired?

The male porn star wouldn't have been fired.

I highly doubt that, especially if any parents were made aware of his past. A porn past and teaching children will always be a deal breaker. Same goes with politics and a porn past. Not fair at all, but overcoming people's prejudices when it comes to porn and their children will never change.
:twocents-02cents:

Surprise! I agree with you. lol Well, mostly. In this situation, I would say that if the people in charge were somewhat near a balance about fire or not to fire, the male teacher would more OFTEN not be fired than the female teacher. Misogyny does exist.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I already know about At Will laws. Their existence isn't the discussion. It's not about whether the school had a legal RIGHT to fire her; it's about whether she SHOULD have been fired. LEGAL does not necessarily equate with RIGHT or correct.

And we've already covered whether or not she posed a risk to the students. I haven't seen an argument that shows that she did. In fact, some of us believe that her past employment may be a PLUS.

This case is not the same as a stubborn nurse who refuses to put her fear of needles above the safety of her patients.

We I already covered that in my first post. The penalty for lying on a resume or lying to your supervisor if they ask you did you do X and you say no, is more often than not dismissal. That applies to CEO and teachers alike, otherwise people who are honest on resumes will be at disadvantage to those who fudge. Her past already caused a disruption in the classroom, and will almost certainly cause more in the future. Other than some wishful thinking that she is some super awesome teacher and we have no evidence of this... Why wouldn't we prioritize the education needs of kids over some teachers desire to have a career after porn. Why would her past employment be a benefit??

Yet you are willing to fire by all accounts an outstanding experienced nurse, because of the fairly slim risk that her not taking a flu vaccine will endanger patients. :?

Well we are beating a dead horse.

 

[Bocefish]

I wonder if there would be the same outrage if it was a male porn star that got fired?

The male porn star wouldn't have been fired.

I highly doubt that, especially if any parents were made aware of his past. A porn past and teaching children will always be a deal breaker. Same goes with politics and a porn past. Not fair at all, but overcoming people's prejudices when it comes to porn and their children will never change.
:twocents-02cents:

Surprise! I agree with you. lol Well, mostly. In this situation, I would say that if the people in charge were somewhat near a balance about fire or not to fire, the male teacher would more OFTEN not be fired than the female teacher. Misogyny does exist.

I would think a male porn star would be way more likely to be fired if there was any question about firing just from pedophilia statistics alone. Granted, I'm assuming the stats heavily lean towards the male side in terms of frequency compared to women.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Surprise! I agree with you. lol Well, mostly. In this situation, I would say that if the people in charge were somewhat near a balance about fire or not to fire, the male teacher would more OFTEN not be fired than the female teacher. Misogyny does exist.

I think a male porn star would certainly be fired. Males with any type of perceived sexual perversion are run out of rails if they are anywhere near school kids. There was a case not long ago where a respected high school teacher, had sex with his high school sweetheart when he was 18 year old senior and she was a sophomore and accused of statutory rape. The case was pleaded down to a misdemeanor the record expunged, somebody found a newspaper clipping of the report and he got fired.

 

[camstory]

I wonder if there would be the same outrage if it was a male porn star that got fired?

The male porn star wouldn't have been fired.

Exactly my thought.

 

[camstory]

I would think a male porn star would be way more likely to be fired if there was any question about firing just from pedophilia statistics alone.

:shock: WTF!

All for now. I have to clear my head to make sense of how wrong this ^^^^ is. BRB.

 

[Nordling]

Surprise! I agree with you. lol Well, mostly. In this situation, I would say that if the people in charge were somewhat near a balance about fire or not to fire, the male teacher would more OFTEN not be fired than the female teacher. Misogyny does exist.

I think a male porn star would certainly be fired. Males with any type of perceived sexual perversion are run out of rails if they are anywhere near school kids. There was a case not long ago where a respected high school teacher, had sex with his high school sweetheart when he was 18 year old senior and she was a sophomore and accused of statutory rape. The case was pleaded down to a misdemeanor the record expunged, somebody found a newspaper clipping of the report and he got fired.

Statutory rape does not equal LEGAL adult sex worker. My hypothesis is based on the cultural norm of males being lauded for their sexuality and females being looked down on for the same inclinations.

 

[Just Me]

Guess what? A male gay porn star was fired from his teaching job due to his previous job, but was reinstated. The difference? He did not try to hide his past and did not lie under oath.

 

[DudeExtreme]

I bet the number of camgirls who have a serious issues with stalkers is significantly higher than girls who don't cam.

I'm not so sure about this... I had my one and only stalker when I was a roleplayer on IRC and had absolutely no pictures of myself on the internet yet, naked or otherwise.

ALSO, regulate sex work and you get rid of a lot of the violence and drugs associated with it. After all, employers won't want a worker on hardcore drugs (though I hope they'd be fine with anything legal). And girls will actually be able to take the abusers to court, so they won't be able to get away with it anymore.

I would be curious to know if there have been studies done in places in Nevada where sex work is regulated. If the violence and drugs associated is less in that state compared to other states.

 

[Nordling]

I bet the number of camgirls who have a serious issues with stalkers is significantly higher than girls who don't cam.

I'm not so sure about this... I had my one and only stalker when I was a roleplayer on IRC and had absolutely no pictures of myself on the internet yet, naked or otherwise.

ALSO, regulate sex work and you get rid of a lot of the violence and drugs associated with it. After all, employers won't want a worker on hardcore drugs (though I hope they'd be fine with anything legal). And girls will actually be able to take the abusers to court, so they won't be able to get away with it anymore.

I would be curious to know if there have been studies done in places in Nevada where sex work is regulated. If the violence and drugs associated is less in that state compared to other states.

Not a bad idea, but it may be difficult to separate sex work as a factor from all the other things that make Nevada unique.

 

[Nordling]

Guess what? A male gay porn star was fired from his teaching job due to his previous job, but was reinstated. The difference? He did not try to hide his past and did not lie under oath.

Good find but one instance of anything rarely is evidence of a universal truth. Not to mention that in his case, it was "gay porn," in which case the cultural norms may be totally different, as far as attitudes, than hetero porn.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

I bet the number of camgirls who have a serious issues with stalkers is significantly higher than girls who don't cam.

I'm not so sure about this... I had my one and only stalker when I was a roleplayer on IRC and had absolutely no pictures of myself on the internet yet, naked or otherwise.

ALSO, regulate sex work and you get rid of a lot of the violence and drugs associated with it. After all, employers won't want a worker on hardcore drugs (though I hope they'd be fine with anything legal). And girls will actually be able to take the abusers to court, so they won't be able to get away with it anymore.

I would be curious to know if there have been studies done in places in Nevada where sex work is regulated. If the violence and drugs associated is less in that state compared to other states.

Not Nevada as a whole, only one city in Nevada has legal prostitution, and Las Vegas isn't that city. It's a big misconception, actually.

 

[Just Me]

I bet the number of camgirls who have a serious issues with stalkers is significantly higher than girls who don't cam.

I'm not so sure about this... I had my one and only stalker when I was a roleplayer on IRC and had absolutely no pictures of myself on the internet yet, naked or otherwise.

ALSO, regulate sex work and you get rid of a lot of the violence and drugs associated with it. After all, employers won't want a worker on hardcore drugs (though I hope they'd be fine with anything legal). And girls will actually be able to take the abusers to court, so they won't be able to get away with it anymore.

I would be curious to know if there have been studies done in places in Nevada where sex work is regulated. If the violence and drugs associated is less in that state compared to other states.

Not Nevada as a whole, only one city in Nevada has legal prostitution, and Las Vegas isn't that city. It's a big misconception, actually.

There are many cities (towns more like) that have legal prostitution in Nevada. If I recall, the rule in Nevada is that any county with less than 400,000 population can have legal prostitution.

Requisite wiki link :lol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

 

[DudeExtreme]

I bet the number of camgirls who have a serious issues with stalkers is significantly higher than girls who don't cam.

I'm not so sure about this... I had my one and only stalker when I was a roleplayer on IRC and had absolutely no pictures of myself on the internet yet, naked or otherwise.

ALSO, regulate sex work and you get rid of a lot of the violence and drugs associated with it. After all, employers won't want a worker on hardcore drugs (though I hope they'd be fine with anything legal). And girls will actually be able to take the abusers to court, so they won't be able to get away with it anymore.

I would be curious to know if there have been studies done in places in Nevada where sex work is regulated. If the violence and drugs associated is less in that state compared to other states.

Not Nevada as a whole, only one city in Nevada has legal prostitution, and Las Vegas isn't that city. It's a big misconception, actually.

I forgot that in Nevada the cities over 200,000 cannot have legal brothels which would exclude places like Las Vegas and Carson City. It does look like there are 28 legal brothels in Nevada which most of them are in rural areas. Since the state has a combination of legal and illegal prostitution, it would be hard to do a study there after thinking about it.