[Liberals] Will you reinstate a suspended p*rn teacher

I am not a adult filiming regulation attorney, but from my limited knowlege , on this subject, only the CA supreme court ruled filming adult movies is legal, with restrictions, in the state. Now, let's not get technical what adult film entails for each state. That's the not main point here. I brought it up only because I read she hired a lawyer to argue that she had done nothing wrong because appearing in a adult film is legal in CA. If you are interested in adult film production in your state, assuming not CA, you should consult with an attorney specialized in that field of regulations.

 

Well, why is she not eligible? That's the question and discussion here.

 

Looks like you are suggesting a sliding scale when deciding whether to disqualify a teacher based on his/her past conduct. If a teacher has done something like this, then a little more teaching ability is required on him/her.

I like that approach, a good compromise. On one end we can't just pretend as if her teaching and crazy past would not intersect, e.g. the distration argument, but OTOH, it's her livelihood on the line here - she probably studied hard and had a master's degree.

 

Obviously, employer should consider an employee's RELEVANT past actions at hiring and during the employment to ensure that employee's fitness to fulfill the duties of the employment. As much as a prejudice that might be, e.g. once a liar always liar, one's past actions can, to some extent, help predict that person's fitness to do his current job. As said in the first post of the thread, many professions check one's background beyond whether that person has been convicted or arrested. E.g. nurse, lawyer, accountant, banker jobs etc all check extra at hiring.

That said, however, there has to be a limit how much of past actions should be considered for such purpose. While checking one's past record of veracity is very relevant in a financial service related employment, is it relevant to base employment decision for a teacher on her past actions of being in an adult film? As many have said and also obviously, that should have nothing to do with her teaching ability. Now, as for the distraction and having a bad example as a role modle, I feel these should not be the sole criterions as to whether retaining her in the classroom. For one thing, adolescent kids are distracted in many ways already in today's school environment. I am not sure the distraction she brings to the classroom would be so disruptive to warrant her removal. Also, I know her case strikes a moral judgement in terms of the role of a teacher to her student, but should we be making that judgment? Many of us probably wouldn't mind watching the film she was in intimately, but then why is it not ok for her to be teach, if there is no evidence indicating that she conducts like a adult film actress in the classroom. If there are moral requirements on teachers, whose standards should be taken into account? Where is the stopping point? Should the homosexual teacher be removed according to many Korean parents I encounted in my son's school.

I think the sensible thing for the school district involved in this case is to make a judgement only as to whether she is a competent teacher and the calculus should take her past actions into account, i.e. the potential distractions to the class. Other than that, the school should not be making any other judgment, e.g. based on how explicit the her films were. But that may be too much to ask from the school district.

 

Why is that? Many things were morally acceptably in various stages of civilization but then beame immoral afterwards. Also depending on circumstances, moral codes can vary. Take example of stealing, it is immoral to steal, but it is probably ok to steal, say in a North Korean Glug or Nazi camp, for one's survival.

There is no indication of her being a pedophile, that is just too much of logical conclusion based on her past in an adult film. When one's historical record used for employment purpose, there has to be some bases that certain things can indeed predict one's fitness to perform the job, e.g. maybe satistically a lying banker is prone to cheat his client's money. In her case, I just don't see the connection between a adult film star and a pedophile or tendency to have inappopriate relationships with her students. I don't think there is a satistical foundation for that connection. Logically, think for a minute, I would argue, having done what she had done, it is less likely for her to prey on her students than an average teacher for she has channelled out her sexual eagerness through those films. Sure, this is an imperfect logic, but maybe just as illogical as yours.

 

Just to clarify, I would not hesitate to fire her if there is EVIDENCE that she acts inapporiately in the class.