Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[quixotecoyote]

Please stop trying to insert me into the story. I am not a part of this.

Hi Maus. You're on a public discussion board airing your opinions. You seemed confused so I'm trying to help. Let me know if you have any further questions!

 

[Taarkin]

If them firing her is ok with their community, the people the school board is held responsible by then, yes it is fine for whatever legal reason.

The fact that it is legally possible to do a thing does not mean it is a good idea to do that thing.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

This has come up in other contexts. "Harm" is not the same as "punishment". The facts you gave made the termination tantamount to harm, but that still doesn't mean she was being punished. Maus was saying that there's not any evidence that their decision was motivated by a desire to "teach her a lesson" or discourage her from doing porn; they just don't think working in porn is compatible with working for their school.

 

[23_Tauri]

This has come up in other contexts. "Harm" is not the same as "punishment". The facts you gave made the termination tantamount to harm, but that still doesn't mean she was being punished. Maus was saying that there's not any evidence that their decision was motivated by a desire to "teach her a lesson" or discourage her from doing porn; they just don't think working in porn is compatible with working for their school.

Don't you think that, seeing as someone's livelihood is at stake, the school board need to have a damned good reason why working in porn is not compatible with their school?

I could put a whole raft of analogies in here but they'll get shot down as strawmen so I won't bother.

 

[Maus]

Hi Maus. You're on a public discussion board airing your opinions. You seemed confused so I'm trying to help. Let me know if you have any further questions!

Did you say that because you don't have a job? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Maus]

Don't you think that, seeing as someone's livelihood is at stake, the school board need to have a damned good reason why working in porn is not compatible with their school?

I could put a whole raft of analogies in here but they'll get shot down as strawmen so I won't bother.

They said in the article it is because her actions (not specific) were not a reflection of their mission and values.

So I guess they felt that was a good enough reason.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Please stop trying to insert me into the story. I am not a part of this.

If them firing her is ok with their community, the people the school board is held responsible by then, yes it is fine for whatever legal reason.

I confess, you've lost me. You inserted yourself into this thread, as did I. You are a part of this discussion, as am I. You insist that there is a clear distinction between the examples of injustice that make your broad arguments of support for the school board look rather retrogressive, and the case in point, in which you claim everything is 'fine'.

But you will not be drawn on how you draw this clear conclusion of difference. Ok, we've covered that, you don't have to. You accept the consequences of your actions, even though it seems a bit unfair (that 'we' are all 'piling on you'), and that's just what you recommend this woman do. She can suck it up on welfare, and you can be classified as the sort of poster who throws a hissy fit when he's asked to substantiate claims. The community will decide.

There is actually a germ of an argument in the school board representing the wishes of the community. But the community does not exist in isolation, and if it thought segregated schools were a good idea, the school board would still be wrong to segregate. I believe the school board is wrong in this instance. I would respectfully implore you to coddle my request for understanding - why are they right to sack her because she made porn?

 

[Maus]

I confess, you've lost me. You inserted yourself into this thread, as did I. You are a part of this discussion, as am I. You insist that there is a clear distinction between the examples of injustice that make your broad arguments of support for the school board look rather retrogressive, and the case in point, in which you claim everything is 'fine'.

I was replying to someone else.

 

[23_Tauri]

They said in the article it is because her actions (not specific) were not a reflection of their mission and values.

Interesting. I wonder if we can see a copy of a written statement of their mission and values. Presumably they're written down somewhere, so everyone employed at the school knows what they're working towards.

 

[Toke]

This has come up in other contexts. "Harm" is not the same as "punishment". The facts you gave made the termination tantamount to harm, but that still doesn't mean she was being punished. Maus was saying that there's not any evidence that their decision was motivated by a desire to "teach her a lesson" or discourage her from doing porn; they just don't think working in porn is compatible with working for their school.

My bolding.

This tread have already covered all the pseudo rational reasons thrown up and we are now down to the values thing.

I suspect the values in question is about sex being nasty, porn even nastier and if you use it you should at least feel ashamed of it.
Then it makes sense to fire her, having her up close as a normal person could give people wrong ideas about porn actors being ordinary people.

The whole values excuse kind of piss me off, imagine if the school claimed to promote rational thinking and found it, regrettable but necessary, to fire anyone dumb enough to vote for the government who put a chiropractor in charge of the secretary of health.

 

[Toke]

Interesting. I wonder if we can see a copy of a written statement of their mission and values. Presumably they're written down somewhere, so everyone employed at the school knows what they're working towards.

I assume you are kidding.
In there management times there surely is one, with enough weasel words to mean anything the board want it to.
(Well, the voting for dumb governments is a legally protected right.)

 

[23_Tauri]

My bolding.

This tread have already covered all the pseudo rational reasons thrown up and we are now down to the values thing.

I suspect the values in question is about sex being nasty, porn even nastier and if you use it you should at least feel ashamed of it.
Then it makes sense to fire her, having her up close as a normal person could give people wrong ideas about porn actors being ordinary people.

The whole values excuse kind of piss me off, imagine if the school claimed to promote rational thinking and found it, regrettable but necessary, to fire anyone dumb enough to vote for the government who put a chiropractor in charge of the secretary of health.

This is what I suspect too. I doubt very much that their 'missions and values' are written down and handed out to all employees when they are appointed; or those 'missions and values' incorporated into each employee's terms of employment in the form of a Do's and Don't's list.

Perhaps a member of the board made a statement to the press exhorting the school's 'mission and values' but without providing any substance as to what they were.

Anyone want to hazard a guess at what 'values' lead a school board to sack someone for doing something perfectly legal outside of work time that doesn't impact on their ability to do thier job?

 

[23_Tauri]

I assume you are kidding.
In there management times there surely is one, with enough weasel words to mean anything the board want it to.
(Well, the voting for dumb governments is a legally protected right.)

Indeed, it was tongue in cheek.

It was just a way of saying "really?. Ok then, let's read them and see what they say about making porn" knowing full well they don't exist on paper.

 

[quadraginta]

So do you think that even though they had all the power and authority to make that decision, the school board shouldn't have fired her even though they believed their culture/society/locality said yes they should have?

Well ...

let me think.

...

...

Yes.

Yes I do.

Social progress does not result from people who derive their comfort and status by parroting social convention or seeking support by cherishing prejudices. If it did then Massachusetts would still be hanging people for being Quakers.

I can think of other examples, but I suspect that you get the idea.

 

[quadraginta]

This has come up in other contexts. "Harm" is not the same as "punishment". The facts you gave made the termination tantamount to harm, but that still doesn't mean she was being punished. Maus was saying that there's not any evidence that their decision was motivated by a desire to "teach her a lesson" or discourage her from doing porn; they just don't think working in porn is compatible with working for their school.

You can play that sort of semantic game if you find it entertaining, but it won't fool anyone who isn't intent on being fooled.

Or maybe comforted. That's the sort of self-righteous dissembling which characterizes so many efforts to rationalize prejudice.

 

[Toke]

As I said before on this tread, the school board missed a great chance to stand tall and stick it to the prudes.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I was replying to someone else.

But it's a roundtable discussion, Maus, on a public thread in a public forum. People you're not explicitly addressing will respond to the points you make. As noted, you are free to avoid answering their perfectly reasonable questions. You can't be sacked for it.

 

[jiggeryqua]

As I said before on this tread, the school board missed a great chance to stand tall and stick it to the prudes.

Yeah, I can see how you'd like to stick it to a prude...

 

[Dorian Gray]

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

Um, that's not fighting, and it's not for money, and they're high school students, not employees. Are you even paying attention?

 

[Dorian Gray]

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.

And I've made the point in numerous posts that I don't give a crap what people do in their private lives, but making a porno for money that is intended for distribution is not private. That's hardly "hot under the collar", and it's sad that you need to completely twist my position in order to knock down that strawman you've built up. In fact, a strong case can be made that you are the one getting hot under the collar, as is JQ.