Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[Taarkin]

But if someone fights for money, is that okay?

Some high schools have football and wrestling teams. Sometimes they even perform on school grounds! in public! Better fire them.

 

[Taarkin]

Another question on the condom issue: do we have any evidence that her partners' barebacking was factored into the decision to fire her?

 

[23_Tauri]

I'm an atheist.

Darat made the point in #260 that one doesn't need to be an atheist to hold puritanical views on sex, then follow up in #264 and #265 from Darat and JFrankA. I stand corrected: one doesn't have to be a religious nut to get all hot under the collar about our jiggly bits.

 

[Puppycow]

Long past but ....



But is it bigotry or is there a functional problem with her performance as a teacher as a result her background ? I think it's pretty obvious why having a recognized porn actress teach 14yo boys could be disruptive to the learning process.

The reason why kids can't vote and are in school is that they are immature, and we can't expect otherwise. If the teacher specifically incites classroom disruption among the immature, then they really can't teach. It's a functional job requirement.

You are awfully quick to make the "bigot" accusation without any evidence. Amazingly cheap-shot at people who's motives you cannot know.

She's not a teacher, she's a secretary.

Even if she were a teacher, you simply assume that kids would never be able to handle it, and maybe you are right, but I think they could, eventually. Leaving aside the obvious point that kids aren't supposed to watch this stuff in the first place, if kids can get over the fact that their teacher is gay, or a person of a different race or religion or maybe even transgendered, maybe they can also get over the fact that their teacher was in a porno.

As far as why I think it's bigotry, let's look at the definition:

Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

So, I think firing a person for something they do which is legal outside of work time if it doesn't impact their ability to perform their duties (remember that she is in fact a secretary, not a teacher) is intolerant.

 

[Maus]

I thought I would revisit this thread (to everyone's joy).

One thing I have noticed throughout the various comments is a trending towards the attitude that the firing was a form of punishment.

I'm kind of scratching my head on this. Why do people think that? Whenever I start a job or hire someone for a job it is not for some form of control but a business decision. If I fire someone or get fired it is not punishment, it just means that the business arrangement is not working out for whatever reason.

Why do those that think the school board firing this woman was a form of punishment feel that way? I think it was rather a decision relating to their "business" as a school. I would concede that if individuals on the school board were following some directive outside of that goal then yes, it should be addressed.

Maybe I'm out of touch, but it never entered into my mind that firing someone was anything other than a termination of services primarily as a business decision. Did I miss something in the article that says they fired her because the board thought porn was bad or was that just implied by a bunch of people who read the story? I guess a court will end up deciding whether it was due to prejudices evidenced but I'm thinking that will not happen.

 

[quadraginta]

I thought I would revisit this thread (to everyone's joy).

One thing I have noticed throughout the various comments is a trending towards the attitude that the firing was a form of punishment.

I'm kind of scratching my head on this. Why do people think that? Whenever I start a job or hire someone for a job it is not for some form of control but a business decision. If I fire someone or get fired it is not punishment, it just means that the business arrangement is not working out for whatever reason.

Why do those that think the school board firing this woman was a form of punishment feel that way? I think it was rather a decision relating to their "business" as a school. I would concede that if individuals on the school board were following some directive outside of that goal then yes, it should be addressed.

Maybe I'm out of touch, but it never entered into my mind that firing someone was anything other than a termination of services primarily as a business decision. Did I miss something in the article that says they fired her because the board thought porn was bad or was that just implied by a bunch of people who read the story? I guess a court will end up deciding whether it was due to prejudices evidenced but I'm thinking that will not happen.

The practical result of her being terminated from her position in a public school environment for reasons which will inevitably be viewed as "for cause" of moral turpitude will have the effect of precluding any possibility of her gaining another position within that field unless she lies about her prior work record.

For all intents and purposes this is tantamount to punishment. Any attempt to explain it away as something else is transparent prevarication.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

The only thing better than secretary porn is school secretary porn.

Giggity giggity. Aaaallriiiight.

 

[Maus]

The practical result of her being terminated from her position in a public school environment for reasons which will inevitably be viewed as "for cause" of moral turpitude will have the effect of precluding any possibility of her gaining another position within that field unless she lies about her prior work record.

For all intents and purposes this is tantamount to punishment. Any attempt to explain it away as something else is transparent prevarication.

In the poll given, ~85% of the people polled wouldn't have fired her based on the information given. So you think she wouldn't be able to get a job in her field because of this incident? Maybe posters here aren't a good sampling of the hiring public? She has gotten some publicity, but I think despite that if she really is good at her job she shouldn't have too much trouble.

 

[jiggeryqua]

In the poll given, ~85% of the people polled wouldn't have fired her based on the information given. So you think she wouldn't be able to get a job in her field because of this incident? Maybe posters here aren't a good sampling of the hiring public? She has gotten some publicity, but I think despite that if she really is good at her job she shouldn't have too much trouble.

If they were right to sack her as a school secretary because she made porn, what kind of school would hire as a secretary who also makes porn? If it was right to sack her, her job prospects are limited. If it was wrong to sack her...well, then it was wrong to sack her.

We're probably not a good sample of hiring principals, and perhaps not of hirers in fields involving young people. But really, it's not a scientifically accurate poll, and we do not know how respondents would actually behave in the given situation.

 

[Toke]

In the poll given, ~85% of the people polled wouldn't have fired her based on the information given. So you think she wouldn't be able to get a job in her field because of this incident? Maybe posters here aren't a good sampling of the hiring public? She has gotten some publicity, but I think despite that if she really is good at her job she shouldn't have too much trouble.

So it is ok to be a bigot and fire people you don't like as long as you are in minority, because the rest of society will make up for your shortcomings?

 

[quadraginta]

In the poll given, ~85% of the people polled wouldn't have fired her based on the information given. So you think she wouldn't be able to get a job in her field because of this incident? Maybe posters here aren't a good sampling of the hiring public? She has gotten some publicity, but I think despite that if she really is good at her job she shouldn't have too much trouble.

If the people participating in this thread and the associated poll were even remotely representative of the school board there wouldn't have been any issue in the first place. The question would never have come up.

That is exactly why this discussion is taking place.

What part of that confuses you?

 

[Maus]

So it is ok to be a bigot and fire people you don't like as long as you are in minority, because the rest of society will make up for your shortcomings?

It is ok to be a bigot and it is ok to fire someone even in Quebec.

 

[jiggeryqua]

It is ok to be a bigot and it is ok to fire someone even in Quebec.

Yeah, why do you hate bigots so much, Toke? You're a bigotophobe and you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Maus]

If the people participating in this thread and the associated poll were even remotely representative of the school board there wouldn't have been any issue in the first place. The question would never have come up.

That is exactly why this discussion is taking place.

What part of that confuses you?

The only thing that confuses me is why people posting in this thread seem to think this woman's life is defined by her job and potentially ruined because a school board fired her. Social services will take care of her and her kids if she runs into issues. She's in Canada not North Korea.

Her profession is not limited to schools. Hell, I even think that being employed there probably was holding her back. If her fragile life was in such jeopardy of devastation maybe she shouldn't have taken the chance in the first place. She knew it could potentially cause her issues if it got out, that's why she tried to get the kid to take the page down.

 

[quadraginta]

It is ok to be a bigot and it is ok to fire someone even in Quebec.

It may be legal to be a bigot, and it might be legal to fire someone ... even in Quebec.

Whether or not it is "ok" is a matter of some contention. Nine pages worth and counting in this thread alone.

 

[jiggeryqua]

The only thing that confuses me is why people posting in this thread seem to think this woman's life is defined by her job and potentially ruined because a school board fired her. Social services will take care of her and her kids if she runs into issues. She's in Canada not North Korea.

Her profession is not limited to schools. Hell, I even think that being employed there probably was holding her back. If her fragile life was in such jeopardy of devastation maybe she shouldn't have taken the chance in the first place. She knew it could potentially cause her issues if it got out, that's why she tried to get the kid to take the page down.

Is her 'life...potentially ruined'? I don't recall anyone saying so, but I predict that someone will say soon after that something like "Social services will take care of her and her kids if she runs into issues." Yay me, I claim the million. So, we agree her life is unlikely to be enhanced, then? We could say she was 'punished', even.

Maybe she shouldn't have been making porn. It's not illegal, as perhaps you're aware by now, but we do have to have a second layer of 'justice', the use of malicious gossip to keep people properly in line doing things that there gubmint might let folk do, but which we decent right-thinking people know is wrong, wrong, wrong!.

You don't suppose she was making porn because she had a pressing need for additional income, do you? No, I don't suppose you do, she should think herself lucky there's a welfare system, if she wants to get her tits out she should try doing it North Korea and see how it works out for her.

 

[quadraginta]

The only thing that confuses me is why people posting in this thread seem to think this woman's life is defined by her job and potentially ruined because a school board fired her. Social services will take care of her and her kids if she runs into issues. She's in Canada not North Korea.

What confuses me is why someone would suggest it is perfectly reasonable to boot someone out of a job they were apparently handling quite satisfactorily until this issue arose, and throw them on the dole just because of other peoples' repressed sexual hang-ups.

Her profession is not limited to schools. Hell, I even think that being employed there probably was holding her back. If her fragile life was in such jeopardy of devastation maybe she shouldn't have taken the chance in the first place. She knew it could potentially cause her issues if it got out, that's why she tried to get the kid to take the page down.

The essence of the discussion here isn't about the technical legality of the firing, which most people involved have conceded (until further evidence is available), but rather whether such a decision is appropriate in a theoretically enlightened culture.

Why should she have ever been subject to such a travesty in the first place? There is no need for her to have her life disrupted this egregiously simply because a handful of self-important Neo-Puritans feel compelled to force their weird Seventeenth Century morality on other people.

 

[Toke]

I wonder if Maus have a job and would find it just a bit inconvenient to be fired for some arbitrary reason, e.g. having the wrong religion.

 

[Maus]

What confuses me is why someone would suggest it is perfectly reasonable to boot someone out of a job they were apparently handling quite satisfactorily until this issue arose, and throw them on the dole just because of other peoples' repressed sexual hang-ups.



The essence of the discussion here isn't about the technical legality of the firing, which most people involved have conceded (until further evidence is available), but rather whether such a decision is appropriate in a theoretically enlightened culture.

Why should she have ever been subject to such a travesty in the first place? There is no need for her to have her life disrupted this egregiously simply because a handful of self-important Neo-Puritans feel compelled to force their weird Seventeenth Century morality on other people.

So basically what you're trying to say is life isn't fair? You should do what you want and benefit from a society that is supported by people with such hang-ups despite it all? Society should buckle to your wants and needs because it wouldn't be fair otherwise? Where the rest of the grown-ups live it's called life and if that's a lesson to teach the tykes then so be it. You can't go against the grain of society and not expect to be struck by the consequences, no matter how unfair they are.

Sounds like a good lesson to be.

 

[quadraginta]

So basically what you're trying to say is life isn't fair?

<snip>

Is that what you think I said?

Apparently we don't share a common language.