Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[Maus]

Maus, your final paragraph doesn't seem to follow everything else you said. The rest of your post seems to be building up to saying the kid shouldn't be looking at porn, then it's left at the traffic lights and off into the non sequitur trading estate.

Not what I'm saying at all. Kids that age are going to be looking at porn. That's not the responsibility of the school board and is outside of their control for the most part outside of school.

The school is their environment. One of their staff has been discovered by the kids to be involved in porn. I'm saying the kids can't handle it and it will cause problems that the school board shouldn't have to deal with.

 

[Sledge]

That's what I mean. Without arguing about whether kids can handle porn, the logical conclusion if that's true is that they shouldn't watch porn.

 

[Maus]

That's what I mean. Without arguing about whether kids can handle porn, the logical conclusion if that's true is that they shouldn't watch porn.

It's not the school board's responsibility whether or not a kid can handle watching porn. It's the school board's responsibility whether or not kids interact with one of their staff members who they watched in porn and probably, being sexual confused kids, don't know how to react to that situation.

 

[jiggeryqua]

These analogies are terrible. Yeah, a dollar's worth of latex is an unreasonable safety measure.


I don't know how anyone would reasonably expect to be taken seriously working with teens after the entire school, again full of teenagers, learns they're doing porn in their off time. Do something like that, and you can't do your job effectively. I think that'd be the main problem.

Unfortunately that's not the school's reasoning.


Of course, the double standard is present. Tiger Woods cheats on his wife (off film), take away his sponsorships. He's a role model, can't do that. It's all arbitrary.

Was there any suggestion she was making porn and couldn't do her job effectively? Is there any mechanism by which the knowledge of her making porn would impact her ability to do her other job effectively? It doesn't seem she got an opportunity to continue being effective.

I'm not sure where you get a double standard from, since you're the first to mention Tiger Woods. My opinions actually have no impact on either case, even if you knew how I or any other poster felt about Tiger, please don't hold me to account for events I have no control over.

 

[Sledge]

It's not the school board's responsibility whether or not a kid can handle watching porn. It's the school board's responsibility whether or not kids interact with one of their staff members who they watched in porn and probably, being sexual confused kids, don't know how to react to that situation.

Sorry, I don't follow. We should stop kids from interacting with someone who did something that is in no way illegal because the kids aren't old enough to deal with it, even though the kids are forbidden by law from witnessing the act?

 

[Oualawouzou]

(ETA: Disclaimer: this happened close to here, and I'm *********** sick of it all. Sorry.)

The "distraction to the kids" argument is BS. She was ready to be moved to any other place of work, including places where she wouldn't be in any contact with students. There were options that were neither "keep her in school" and "fire her", but the board fired her.

She was offered the chance to keep working, but the conditions she had to follow were ridiculously restrictive. Going from memory, one of the clauses she found unacceptable was the fact she could be terminated should someone take a picture of her and put it online. Not a porn picture, not a naked picture, just a random picture anybody could take and put on facebook. It was clear from the get-go the school board was not behind her and wanted her out as fast as possible. (I'd like to offer cites, but this was gathered from a radio interview.)

I hope the school board will walk their talk and invite people to denounce teachers, secretaries, janitorial staff and anybody else working in the education system who post ads in the "casual encounters" categories of dating websites, who swap partners with other consenting adults and who, in a general way, live sex outside the matrimonial bedroom. Because such people are depraved enough to have sex in weird ways with other people because they like it !

 

[Maus]

Sorry, I don't follow. We should stop kids from interacting with someone who did something that is in no way illegal because the kids aren't old enough to deal with it, even though the kids are forbidden by law from witnessing the act?

If we are on the school board and the no way illegal act is hardcore pornography by one of your employees that the kids interact with then yes, your statement is valid.

 

[Arcade22]

Do you mean me, Arcade22? If so, please go back and re-read my posts. My opinion on this matter should be quite plain.

No, please read: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7071711&postcount=131

I should have been clearer in my post.

The school is their environment. One of their staff has been discovered by the kids to be involved in porn. I'm saying the kids can't handle it and it will cause problems that the school board shouldn't have to deal with.

They already disciplined the kid and he was apparently suspended. How would this be any different if a 30 year old found out that his female co-worker made porn and he couldn't let it go and started to obsess about it? Should they fire her too instead of punishing the other guy?

 

[jiggeryqua]

If we are on the school board and the no way illegal act is hardcore pornography by one of your employees that the kids interact with then yes, your statement is valid.

If I am on the school board, I bring my stance, I don't adopt 'the school board stance'. So, no the statement isn't valid for 'we', though it may appear valid for 'you'. It appears valid because it affirms your view, which may or may not be 'valid'. What other legal activities 'appear' to invalidate the undisputed effective work of an employee?

The nub of your argument, or so it appears to me, has been covered - porn is bad, mkay? Though I can't recall anybody answering my question: What education should teenage people be protected from? Fancy a stab at it? I'm hoping you understand, here, that the question includes a request for a robust explanation, rather than the mere repetition of your position.

 

[Maus]

They already disciplined the kid and he was apparently suspended. How would this be any different if a 30 year old found out that his female co-worker made porn and he couldn't let it go and started to obsess about it? Should they fire her too instead of punishing the other guy?

It's a public school. Your analogy doesn't even make sense.

If we're lining up analogies, how would you feel if the secretary was instead a PE teacher? A male coach of the girl's volleyball team? A female prison counselor at a male high security prison? The head of the Harper Valley PTA?

 

[quadraginta]

I voted to fire her.

The reason is that the school board had every every right to suspend while they investigated if her porn career was a breach of her employment contract with the school, which probably had a code of conduct clause inserted somewhere.

However, I think that they had no choice to fire her when the porn publisher is advertising her next movie with the publicity of her suspension on their facebook page, the same day as the school board meeting (7th April I believe), then it becomes the schools business IMHO.

But if the school board hadn't suspended her in the first place there would have been nothing for that publisher to publicize.

This is known as the "NOW look what you made me do!" cop-out.

 

[Maus]

If I am on the school board, I bring my stance, I don't adopt 'the school board stance'. So, no the statement isn't valid for 'we', though it may appear valid for 'you'. It appears valid because it affirms your view, which may or may not be 'valid'. What other legal activities 'appear' to invalidate the undisputed effective work of an employee?

The nub of your argument, or so it appears to me, has been covered - porn is bad, mkay? Though I can't recall anybody answering my question: What education should teenage people be protected from? Fancy a stab at it? I'm hoping you understand, here, that the question includes a request for a robust explanation, rather than the mere repetition of your position.

I think this pretty much defines my stance and why your statement is irrelevant:

The board unanimously decided to fire her without compensation for her "unacceptable" behaviour.

You aren't on the school board and they did fire her which I agree with. My position isn't that porn is bad, my point is that kids can't handle this particular situation and they chose to dump her.

However many ways you twist it it doesn't change that.

If you can provide evidence that kids could handle it then great. The 14 year old kid that was suspended couldn't and that is a prime example how sexually immature high schoolers can't handle it.

 

[Taarkin]

You know what's really distracting for teenagers? TV. The internet. Better fire anyone involved in those things too, lest the students' grades start slipping.

 

[23_Tauri]

If we're lining up analogies, how would you feel if the secretary was instead a PE teacher? A male coach of the girl's volleyball team? A female prison counselor at a male high security prison? The head of the Harper Valley PTA?

Eh? Why would any of these jobs make any difference? Please explain this random list of professions.

When we are not at work we are free to do what the hell we like with our time! As long as what we do outside in our free time doesn't impact on our ability to do our job (e.g. turning up at work drunk) then it is not a matter for our employer. Period.

 

[Maus]

You know what's really distracting for teenagers? TV. The internet. Better fire anyone involved in those things too, lest the students' grades start slipping.

Please provide a link to an article where this happened and maybe we can start another thread discussing that. Otherwise, what is your point?

 

[23_Tauri]

No, please read: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7071711&postcount=131

I should have been clearer in my post.

Oops! My mistake. Sorry!

 

[jiggeryqua]

It's a public school. Your analogy doesn't even make sense.

If we're lining up analogies, how would you feel if the secretary was instead a PE teacher? A male coach of the girl's volleyball team? A female prison counselor at a male high security prison? The head of the Harper Valley PTA?

The same way I feel now. What is it about porn that bothers you? I'm betting most of the PE teachers, male coaches of the girl's volleyball teams, female blah di blahs etc have sex. I'd wager a few filmed it too. Took pictures at least. Some of them probably engaged in same sex sex The usual percentage will have been nicked for corrupting our precious children. The usual percentage will have got away with the same.

Your position doesn't even make sense. Or at least you haven't shown how it does. You just repeat it and insist we're missing the point. Show me the point. Prick me with it, if you'll excuse the expression.

 

[23_Tauri]

IYou aren't on the school board and they did fire her which I agree with. My position isn't that porn is bad, my point is that kids can't handle this particular situation and they chose to dump her.

However many ways you twist it it doesn't change that.

If you can provide evidence that kids could handle it then great. The 14 year old kid that was suspended couldn't and that is a prime example how sexually immature high schoolers can't handle it.

What do you mean by "kids can't handle this particular situation"? Please be more specific. Don't you think that by keeping the secretary in her job it sends out a more positive message: that porn is not bad, or wrong, but a normal part of adult life? Instead, by sacking her a proportion of kids will get hang ups about their own sexual feelings and desire to look at porn, doubtless in the process having to reconcile some screwed up adult attitude to something that adults do. All this whilst going through the sensitive stage of puberty where we form attitudes and beliefs that can stay with us for life.

Yeah, well done school board...

 

[Maus]

What do you mean by "kids can't handle this particular situation"? Please be more specific. Don't you think that by keeping the secretary in her job it sends out a more positive message: that porn is not bad, or wrong, but a normal part of adult life? Instead, by sacking her a proportion of kids will get hang ups about their own sexual feelings and desire to look at porn, doubtless in the process having to reconcile some screwed up adult attitude to something that adults do. All this whilst going through the sensitive stage of puberty where we form attitudes and beliefs that can stay with us for life.

Yeah, well done school board...

I think I've made my position pretty clear. I don't think that's the school board's job.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I think this pretty much defines my stance and why your statement is irrelevant:



You aren't on the school board and they did fire her which I agree with. My position isn't that porn is bad, my point is that kids can't handle this particular situation and they chose to dump her.

However many ways you twist it it doesn't change that.

If you can provide evidence that kids could handle it then great. The 14 year old kid that was suspended couldn't and that is a prime example how sexually immature high schoolers can't handle it.

So you're offering a sample of one to support your argument. Not that you have the sample, you're just citing one person who decided to make life difficult for someone else . You support his decision to invoke the prejudices of the school board (which you share), while evading every attempt to discover what your point, your motivation, your argument, your reason, your prejudice might be. Ah. Your prejudice. Fair enough, carry on repeating it while steering us away from actually addressing it.

You're sure he 'couldn't handle it', rather than the equally probable 'he wanted to flex his metaphorical muscles'. She may have turned down his immature advances - he is a sexual creature, isn't he? But his ability to handle it is only different, you say, than the analogy offered of an ignorant pig of a male co-worker because of his age. But shouldn't schools be about teaching young people what is the right way to behave? What is the right way to behave here? She did nothing illegal, he's a horse's arse, teach him to keep his prudish prejudices to himself. You could do the same.