• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

The irony here, is that I don't think it makes sense to force someone to keep employees, but under the current system, the employees clearly get the short end of the stick. The solution, in my view, is that instead of simply paying someone money, they pay them shares in the business. This way, if the 2 parties no longer get along, they can get a compensation by selling their shares; or keep their shares in hopes that the business will do better later and sell them then.

You do realize that shares equal ownership, right? I'm not really interested in giving shares of my business to anyone.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

I guess you have only yourself to blame if you lied on your resume. :shrug: You might not like to hear this, but ultimately YOU are responsible for your own actions. If you lie on an application or on your resume, and you get caught, that's your own fault and NOT the people who fired you.

Nobody likes a liar.

So she should wear a scarlet "P"?
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

So she should wear a scarlet "P"?

No. Just be honest, and don't hide something that you know might come back to bite you.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

No. Just be honest, and don't hide something that you know might come back to bite you.

I seriously doubt ANY of the adults crying for her dismissal have led perfectly "pure" lives.

What she did was legal, like it or not.

The disruption argument is semi-valid.

What if she were dating Justin Bieber?

Or a former pro wrestler?

Would you ban Tom Green from teaching based on his earlier comedy?

The "omission" is simply an excuse for prudery, and firing without consequence.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

I seriously doubt ANY of the adults crying for her dismissal have led perfectly "pure" lives.

What she did was legal, like it or not.

The disruption argument is semi-valid.

What if she were dating Justin Bieber?

Or a former pro wrestler?

Would you ban Tom Green from teaching based on his earlier comedy?

The "omission" is simply an excuse for prudery, and firing without consequence.

Perhaps you can talk your local school district and/or middle school into hiring her?
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

I'm so torn on this. I fully believe people should be allowed to redeem themselves. There are civilized countries in which former porn stars served or currently serve as members of government. Sex is a natural biological process. Etc., etc., etc. And unless her videos included dangerous, illegal, or disturbing sexual acts, the only difference between her and her former colleagues is her profiting from her sexual activities.

That said, middle school students are profoundly immature in a broad sense. Her ability to educate them without distraction is severely damaged, and the quality of the education they received would likely decline. While I question the parental involvement of children who accessed pornography at the ages of 12-14, I realize the open nature of today's internet makes it significantly harder to block such exposure.

So in short, I don't know. If I were her boss and I found it impossible to overcome the situation I think I'd be inclined to do whatever was in my power to help her move on and into employment she could maintain long term. It doesn't seem to me that this woman deserves to be punished, or to suffer, simply because she participated legally in an industry that is heavily monitored and regulated in California.

That was really well said.

Personally for me it just comes down to whether or not she can still do her job as a teacher. If she can than fine.

Maybe she could even impart some of her knowledge on how damaging past actions can be especially in this day and age where kids don't think before before doing stupid things in a technological age where every single one of their peers has a video camera in their phone and making information go viral is as easy as a click of a button.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

I seriously doubt ANY of the adults crying for her dismissal have led perfectly "pure" lives.
There is no one "crying for her dismissal". She has already been dismissed. The only people crying are the ones who find themselves trying, in vain, to gloss over the fact that putting porn stars in the classroom is an inherently bad idea.

What she did was legal, like it or not.
And her subsequent dismissal was equally legal, like it or not.

The disruption argument is semi-valid.
The disruption argument is totally valid. Minimizing the truth does not help anyone.

What if she were dating Justin Bieber?

Or a former pro wrestler?

Would you ban Tom Green from teaching based on his earlier comedy?
Straw man numbers 1, 2, and 3 right there. The issue has nothing to do with celebrities. We're talking about whether or not a former porn star should be allowed to teach a class of 12 year olds. Anything else is just a diversion and a direct avoidance of dealing with the situation as it is.

The "omission" is simply an excuse for prudery, and firing without consequence.
OR... you could say that the "omission" is proof positive that the teacher herself knows full well that a person with a porn past has no business teaching 12 year olds. If that wasn't the case, why not be upfront about it?
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Perhaps you can talk your local school district and/or middle school into hiring her?

So its ok with you to.discriminate against people over legal activity.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

I believe any lie, on any job application, for any company, any where in the USofA, is reasonable grounds for dismissal.

And not disclosing or hiding past employment history is lying.

Would you want a full-fledged member of a known hate-group teaching children?

Unless the application clearly states a requirement to disclose every single job the applicant ever held, including temp and contract work outside their field, there was no lying involved in applying for the job.

Lying to avoid discrimination or oppression is morally acceptable. For example a gay person denying being gay when such an admission would get them fired is not immoral.

Re hate groups: A person who espouse a viewpoint that indicates that they would not be able to treat the students equally can be reasonably prevented from teaching. A person with a past, or a person with an unconventional sex life, does not hold views that indicates that they would not be a good and fair teacher. Someone who quit the hate group and no longer advocates discrimination should be allowed to teach unless there is evidence of discrimination.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Of course it doesn't, but there are two types of "right". The sort that is believed to be so by the individual, and the one held by the majority of the group. The latter controls what is, or is not, right in the eyes of our law.

This mirrors the community standards decision made by the SCOTUS. Also in this decision, where the community standard (that is not in conflict with the state or federal constitution or law) was used to find her guilty of a morals clause violation.

The notion that consensus opinion in a particular geographic area should determine what is legal in the media, after one is prosecuted, is unique to sexual expression and was a stupid and wrong decision by the courts.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Doing some research I have found examples of private school teachers being fired for:

Having a child while unmarried
Conceiving a child before marriage
Using in-vitro fertilization

Those who support firing the porn performer-would you support firing these teachers also if they taught in a public school?
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

There is no one "crying for her dismissal". She has already been dismissed. The only people crying are the ones who find themselves trying, in vain, to gloss over the fact that putting porn stars in the classroom is an inherently bad idea.


And her subsequent dismissal was equally legal, like it or not.


The disruption argument is totally valid. Minimizing the truth does not help anyone.


Straw man numbers 1, 2, and 3 right there. The issue has nothing to do with celebrities. We're talking about whether or not a former porn star should be allowed to teach a class of 12 year olds. Anything else is just a diversion and a direct avoidance of dealing with the situation as it is.


OR... you could say that the "omission" is proof positive that the teacher herself knows full well that a person with a porn past has no business teaching 12 year olds. If that wasn't the case, why not be upfront about it?

"Disruption" was the reason given.

And perhaps she just thought judgemental prudes would take issue with it.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

"Disruption" was the reason given.

And perhaps she just thought judgemental prudes would take issue with it.
So now anyone who objects to a porn star teaching a class of 12 year olds is a judgmental prude?

The more I hear from people like you the more I realize that rationality, common sense, and reason are becoming a thing of the past... in certain circles, that is.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

So in this school district there was an official morals clause that listed that no former porn stars can be teachers?

Obviously that's the case considering the ruling, more likely the source was the school board (the folks who pass on contracts). May not be word for word, probably more generic.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Obviously that's the case considering the ruling, more likely the source was the school board (the folks who pass on contracts). May not be word for word, probably more generic.

It doesn't have to be the case. The argument everyone here has used was that it was harming the impressionable young minds' education, which doesn't make any sense at all. Fact is they just didn't want her there and fired her.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

It doesn't have to be the case. The argument everyone here has used was that it was harming the impressionable young minds' education, which doesn't make any sense at all. Fact is they just didn't want her there and fired her.

Well it IS the case here. Here's a good primer on the subject that will let you in on the reality on the ground right now. And here's the bit about California:

CALIFORNIA: Permanent teachers may be dismissed for immoral or unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, incompetency, evident unfitness for service, a physical or mental condition unfitting for a teacher to instruct or associate with children, persistent violation of school laws or regulations, conviction of a FELONY or crime involving moral turpitude, or alcoholism or drug abuse rendering teacher unfit for service. Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended on the same grounds as those for dismissal or suspension.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

It doesn't have to be the case. The argument everyone here has used was that it was harming the impressionable young minds' education, which doesn't make any sense at all. Fact is they just didn't want her there and fired her.

Hey now, I pretty much admitted that. :)
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Well it IS the case here. Here's a good primer on the subject that will let you in on the reality on the ground right now. And here's the bit about California:

She wasn't dishonest about anything, so I don't know why you bolded that. I've seen the exact same type of catch-all regulations in the army. "Conduct non-becoming of an NCO", which basically means they can punish you for absolutely anything they feel like, even if it's not against regulations, just because they want to.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

She wasn't dishonest about anything, so I don't know why you bolded that. I've seen the exact same type of catch-all regulations in the army. "Conduct non-becoming of an NCO", which basically means they can punish you for absolutely anything they feel like, even if it's not against regulations, just because they want to.

Regardless of your take on them, morals clauses do exist and they are applied in this field (read the link). And yes, she was dishonest, that much has been reported and linked to.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Well it IS the case here. Here's a good primer on the subject that will let you in on the reality on the ground right now. And here's the bit about California:

Sorry, but that is supposed to be used if the teacher is CURRENTLY a porn storn, not for former things in her past. Tell me, if you found out an 80 year old teacher was a prostitute when she was 18 would you dismiss the teacher then? NO.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Bunch of prudes I swear.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Regardless of your take on them, morals clauses do exist and they are applied in this field (read the link). And yes, she was dishonest, that much has been reported and linked to.
Not listing it in her work experience isn't dishonest. I don't write that I mowed lawns one summer on my job resumee.

Here's a list from your link:

Immoral conduct or indecent behavior
INCOMPETENCY
Violations of ethical standards
Unprofessional conduct
Misrepresentation or FRAUD
Willful neglect of duty

None of which she did as a teacher, at all.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Not listing it in her work experience isn't dishonest. I don't write that I mowed lawns one summer on my job resumee.

Here's a list from your link:

Immoral conduct or indecent behavior
INCOMPETENCY
Violations of ethical standards
Unprofessional conduct
Misrepresentation or FRAUD
Willful neglect of duty

None of which she did as a teacher, at all.

You of course leave out dishonesty, and yes leaving out MATERIAL facts from your application or resume IS considered dishonesty. There are lies of commission and omission, they both qualify as dishonesty. It's a far stretch to presume she omitted the info because she forgot about it. She omitted the info because she knew it would disqualify her from the job. That's dishonesty.

Not to mention, as reported and linked, she was dishonest when asked about it.
 
Last edited:
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Sorry, but that is supposed to be used if the teacher is CURRENTLY a porn storn, not for former things in her past. Tell me, if you found out an 80 year old teacher was a prostitute when she was 18 would you dismiss the teacher then? NO.

I personally wouldn't, but then I'm not in a position to write, ratify or enforce those contracts. And there is no mention at all that this is solely based on current behavior.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

You of course leave out dishonesty, and yes leaving out MATERIAL facts from your application or resume IS considered dishonesty. There are lies of commission and omission, they both qualify as dishonesty. It's a far stretch to presume she omitted the info because she forgot about it. She omitted the info because she knew it would disqualify her from the job. That's dishonesty.

Not to mention, as reported and linked, she was dishonest when asked about it.
She wasn't asked about it until it came about, at which point she was going to be fired anyway.

It is not illegal, nor dishonest to not list a job on a resumee. Please, tell me why by not listing my summer of mowing lawns I am a dishonest piece of **** who should be fired.
 
Back
Top Bottom