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

MarineTpartier said:

I'm not trying to make a correlation between the act of viewing porn and performing in pornography. I totally realize they are different in that regard. The correlation I'm making is that our culture generally frowns upon ANYONE viewing, being in, etc porn even though the majority of the population views it. See what I'm saying? I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of someone saying a teacher should admit she was in porn initially or be fired for it later even though they view porn movies themselves.

Click to expand...

Porn, short of some very limited production companies, is an extremely sleazy and disgusting market and industry, regardless of your views on sex and sexuality. Also, the reason she should admit to it, and the likely reason she didn't, is it would obviously have an impact on her teaching ability. And not based on any issue of morality, but on the nature of the relationship between students and teachers.

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

Dr. Chuckles said:

Porn, short of some very limited production companies, is an extremely sleazy and disgusting market and industry, regardless of your views on sex and sexuality. Also, the reason she should admit to it, and the likely reason she didn't, is it would obviously have an impact on her teaching ability. And not based on any issue of morality, but on the nature of the relationship between students and teachers.

Click to expand...

COULD have an impact, not would.

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

What if...? said:

COULD have an impact, not would.

Click to expand...

I think in most all circumstances involving grades k-12 that such a discovery would have an impact. Though, of course, such could easily not occur, it still seems enough to warrant listing it on an application

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

Dragonfly said:

What kind of idiotic comment is that? Ignorance overfloweth.

Click to expand...

Hardly

Your Turn, Name A LGBT Stuff

All Perversions Are Represented Under The Democrat Tent

whoo hoo

You Love It, But Won't Fess Up
Because It's Who You Are

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

MarineTpartier said:

So if an employer asked you if you have viewed pornography, you would answer yes?

Click to expand...

Absolutely, both then and now. But then I've never gone for a position in the church.

Oh, just thought of one, for my first teaching job after graduation I did include in my resume the Life Studies model gig during college. If nude drawings of me started floating around I wanted to have that dragon slain going in.

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

clownboy said:

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.

Click to expand...

where is the link i still havent seen it, not saying its not true im saying i havent seen the link about "lies"

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Objective-J said:

where is the link i still havent seen it, not saying its not true im saying i havent seen the link about "lies"

Click to expand...

Post #229.

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

So Open Minded That Your Brain Didn't Skip The Sides Of Your Ear Canal As It Fell Out

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

What Business Does Anyone Have Viewing Pornography
On Company Time, With An Employer's Equipment ??
Grounds For Termination, On The Spot

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

clownboy said:

Post #229.

Click to expand...

thanks but i was hoping for more than a spokesperson saying she lied in conversation to faculty.

Now i admit that might matter to some people but not to me, one bit, its nobody business in conversation.

What I wanted is something in her contract that said full disclosure or something like that, word of mouth about ones legal, non-criminal past doesn't matter to me.

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Objective-J said:

thanks but i was hoping for more than a spokesperson saying she lied in conversation to faculty.

Now i admit that might matter to some people but not to me, one bit, its nobody business in conversation.

What I wanted is something in her contract that said full disclosure or something like that, word of mouth about ones legal, non-criminal past doesn't matter to me.

Click to expand...

Well, that's not what that says. She didn't lie in casual conversation as you imply, but on direct questioning from the district rep about the issue.

As for her contract, I showed you what one could be fired for under the morals clause in California teacher's contracts.

I get it, YOU wouldn't fire her. And if this hadn't become a news item they may not have either. But the fact is, she did something wrong by not disclosing a material fact on her application, and then later lied when asked about it. You know, it's always the coverup that sinks you.

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

clownboy said:

1.)Well, that's not what that says. She didn't lie in casual conversation as you imply, but on direct questioning from the district rep about the issue.

As for her contract, I showed you what one could be fired for under the morals clause in California teacher's contracts.

3.)I get it, YOU wouldn't fire her. And if this hadn't become a news item they may not have either.
4.) But the fact is, she did something wrong by not disclosing a material fact on her application, and then later lied when asked about it. You know, it's always the coverup that sinks you.

Click to expand...

1.) uhm whos post are you talking about, my EXACT statement above stands, please point out where i said causal conversation, dont try to paint my statement as anything its not lol

and the article says this:""She repeatedly and consciously had a pattern of lies and cover-ups when asked about it by her employers," DeLapp said. "She would say 'I didn’t do it' or would create other lies to try and minimize the damage."

2.) again who are you talking too? you didnt show me anything, if its in this thread id like to read it and like to know that was in HER contract

and to be clear im totally ok for firing her if there is a clear violation in her contract or she did lie in a place she legally/contractually shouldnt

thats what i want to know and what ive been asking


3.) no i wouldnt fire her IF she was a good teacher and this doesnt violate any agreements/contracts we had, hell if she was a good teacher I still might not fire her.

4.) no thats not a fact that she did something "wrong", its an opinion unless her contract or any agreements she had were violated.

Now its an opinion that might be enough to keep her fired but that doesnt make it a fact unless it fits the terms i outlined

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Objective-J said:

1.) uhm whos post are you talking about, my EXACT statement above stands, please point out where i said causal conversation, dont try to paint my statement as anything its not lol

Click to expand...

I quoted it for you, it's right there.

Originally Posted by Objective-J
thanks but i was hoping for more than a spokesperson saying she lied in conversation to faculty.

Now i admit that might matter to some people but not to me, one bit, its nobody business in conversation.

What I wanted is something in her contract that said full disclosure or something like that, word of mouth about ones legal, non-criminal past doesn't matter to me.

Click to expand...

Objective-J said:

and the article says this:""She repeatedly and consciously had a pattern of lies and cover-ups when asked about it by her employers," DeLapp said. "She would say 'I didn’t do it' or would create other lies to try and minimize the damage."

Click to expand...

And "faculty" are not her employers. That would be the district. She lied when asked about it by the district, repeatedly.

Objective-J said:

2.) again who are you talking too? you didnt show me anything, if its in this thread id like to read it and like to know that was in HER contract

Click to expand...

I showed you what is included in the morals clause for California teacher's contracts. You seem to conveniently lose your place in the thread and can't find links. Please don't play games.

Objective-J said:

and to be clear im totally ok for firing her if there is a clear violation in her contract or she did lie in a place she legally/contractually shouldnt

thats what i want to know and what ive been asking

Click to expand...

And again, for the umpteenth time, and as has been sourced - she is in violation of the morals clause. The panel found her guilty of just that.

Objective-J said:

3.) no i wouldnt fire her IF she was a good teacher and this doesnt violate any agreements/contracts we had, hell if she was a good teacher I still might not fire her.

Click to expand...

See above.

Objective-J said:

4.) no thats not a fact that she did something "wrong", its an opinion unless her contract or any agreements she had were violated.

Now its an opinion that might be enough to keep her fired but that doesnt make it a fact unless it fits the terms i outlined

Click to expand...

You keep asking the questions as if they haven't been answered. NOT my opinion alone. I've shown you what California teachers can be fired for under their morals clause. I've shown you where she was dishonest with her employers. You know from the OP that the same thing was found in this hearing. If that's not enough to break this resistence to the facts, meh, think what you want.

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Dr. Chuckles said:

on one of her videos she mentions being a teacher at the beginning, if I remember correctly

Click to expand...

Link or it didn't happen.

clownboy said:

Because that summer mowing lawns is in all liklihood not relevent, not material, to the job being sought. Now, if you left out your summer working as an intern for NAMBLA while applying for a job as school janitor, that would be a material omission that would qualify as intentional dishonesty.

And again you try to presume with a straight face that she just forgot about this part of her employment history and/or didn't think it was relevent (despite the clear indications that it was - like the contract, the employment application, the posted job specs which detail what you can be fired for should you get the job).

Click to expand...

NAMBLA is having sex with kids is, which could certainly be an issue if you're around kids all day. Working in porn is having sex with consenting adults, completely legally, and considering none of her students are adults, it really is completely irrelevant.

I never said she forgot, I said she's not required to list it, because she isn't.

What if...? said:

Does it even apply to behavior PRIOR to enlistment?

Click to expand...

Of course not, and that's my point. I would certainly have been disciplined severely if I were a porn star during my time as a soldier, but it would be absolutely irrelevant if I used to be one, just as in this case.

Dr. Chuckles said:

Porn, short of some very limited production companies, is an extremely sleazy and disgusting market and industry, regardless of your views on sex and sexuality. Also, the reason she should admit to it, and the likely reason she didn't, is it would obviously have an impact on her teaching ability. And not based on any issue of morality, but on the nature of the relationship between students and teachers.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely untrue. You're making an unsubstantiated claim that because she was in porn she would try to **** her students. That's probably why you brought up NAMBLA. Man, really reaching on that one, aren't you?

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

clownboy said:

1.)I quoted it for you, it's right there.





2.)And "faculty" are not her employers. That would be the district. She lied when asked about it by the district, repeatedly.



I showed you what is included in the morals clause for California teacher's contracts. You seem to conveniently lose your place in the thread and can't find links. Please don't play games.



And again, for the umpteenth time, and as has been sourced - she is in violation of the morals clause. The panel found her guilty of just that.



See above.



You keep asking the questions as if they haven't been answered. NOT my opinion alone. I've shown you what California teachers can be fired for under their morals clause. I've shown you where she was dishonest with her employers. You know from the OP that the same thing was found in this hearing. If that's not enough to break this resistence to the facts, meh, think what you want.

Click to expand...

1.) thanks for the quot and proving i never said casual conversation LMAO :shrug: like i said next time ask me instead of wrongly assuming, ANY talking IS conversation LOL
2.) faculty is her employer


fac·ul·ty
[fak-uh l-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural fac·ul·ties.
1.
an ability, natural or acquired, for a particular kind of action: a faculty for making friends easily.
2.
one of the powers of the mind, as memory, reason, or speech: Though very sick, he is in full possession of all his faculties.
3.
an inherent capability of the body: the faculties of sight and hearing.
4.
exceptional ability or aptitude: a president with a faculty for management.
5.
Education .
a.
the entire teaching and administrative force of a university, college, or school.
b.
one of the departments of learning, as theology, medicine, or law, in a university.
c.
the teaching body, sometimes with the students, in any of these departments.



3.)wrong again YOU did not show ME anything, maybe you posted it, i have not read this whole thread so if you did, post it again and it be nice to know if this was in HER contract, and i already said if anything is in her contract that supports her firing so do i LOL so yes i agree dont play games

4.) until i see I dont know that and IF she is then im fine with her firing, now post the link and proof this was her contract also.

5.) I agree see above, link and proof this effects her please

6.) again see above
dishonesty i dont care about unless its a contract/agreement violation

the OP NEVER mentions any contract/agreement violation so that is not true
Ill wait for the links and proof, you may be 100% right but your word/opinion is meaningless

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

RabidAlpaca said:

Link or it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

not sure what video it was, but I remember seeing it when she first got fired

RabidAlpaca said:

That's absolutely untrue. You're making an unsubstantiated claim that because she was in porn she would try to **** her students. That's probably why you brought up NAMBLA. Man, really reaching on that one, aren't you?

Click to expand...

what are you even talking about? 1) Where did I ever say she would screw her students? 2) where did I bring up NAMBLA?

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Dr. Chuckles said:

what are you even talking about? 1) Where did I ever say she would screw her students? 2) where did I bring up NAMBLA?

Click to expand...

2) sorry that was clownboy, got you confused
1) You said that her being a porn star in her past would effect her current ability to teach. The only logical conclusion I can draw from that is you're saying she'll either try to **** her students, or by being in porn it made her too stupid or incompetent.

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Just googled it: no cum dodging allowed 7. She even mentions that it represents a risk to her career

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

RabidAlpaca said:

The only logical conclusion I can draw from that is you're saying she'll either try to **** her students, or by being in porn it made her too stupid or incompetent.

Click to expand...

this thread is full of arguments outlining ways that relationship would be affected totally absent of sex

Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Dr. Chuckles said:

this thread is full of arguments outlining ways that relationship would be affected totally absent of sex

Click to expand...

Really? Because the arguments against it have been "The kids would be so overcome with giggling and harassing, that they would be completely unable to learn." I've yet to see how she has contributed to that, or how HER teaching ability has been effected.

Just admit it, they fired her to avoid parent confrontation, plain and simple. They did it out of fear for their own positions.

Rhake porn past, must not return to cla

RabidAlpaca said:

Really? Because the arguments against it have been "The kids would be so overcome with giggling and harassing, that they would be completely unable to learn." I've yet to see how she has contributed to that, or how HER teaching ability has been effected.

Just admit it, they fired her to avoid parent confrontation, plain and simple. They did it out of fear for their own positions.

Click to expand...

1) uhh, her students being able to see their teacher gang banged and covored in cum creates real issues with establishing respect and authority (which tends to be important in any class room)

2) can't do much if you want to ignore the obvious response of 14 year holds to something like this

Re: Rhake porn past, must not return to cla

Dr. Chuckles said:

1) uhh, her students being able to see their teacher gang banged and covored in cum creates real issues with establishing respect and authority (which tends to be important in any class room)

2) can't do much if you want to ignore the obvious response of 14 year holds to something like this

Click to expand...

I watched plenty of porn at that age, and I still managed to get a good education. I still respect women, and my life didn't crumble at the seams because I saw a pornstar.

In the classroom they're not allowed to watch porn, and if they disobey her, they will be sent to the principal's and disciplined. Simple as that. We had plenty of teachers we absolutely ****ing hated. Some so bad that we wished he would drive off a cliff. Nobody respected him. But you know what? He still managed to teach because that was his job.

Re: Rhake porn past, must not return to cla

RabidAlpaca said:

I watched plenty of porn at that age, and I still managed to get a good education. I still respect women, and my life didn't crumble at the seams because I saw a pornstar.

Click to expand...

I never made this argument. My argument concerned the disruption to class due to the scandalous nature of the thing and the propensity of 14 year old children to act up ...

RabidAlpaca said:

In the classroom they're not allowed to watch porn, and if they disobey her, they will be sent to the principal's and disciplined. Simple as that. We had plenty of teachers we absolutely ****ing hated. Some so bad that we wished he would drive off a cliff. Nobody respected him. But you know what? He still managed to teach because that was his job.

Click to expand...

sigh...

Re: Rhake porn past, must not return to cla

RabidAlpaca said:

I watched plenty of porn at that age, and I still managed to get a good education. I still respect women, and my life didn't crumble at the seams because I saw a pornstar.

Click to expand...

sorry, thought this was a response to a different post: Note I do not claim that viewing porn (what is with this need to try and keep casting my arguments as against porn?) will prevent you from getting an education, disrepect women, or cause your life to crumble. What I argued is that the ability to see their teacher, at some point, getting gang banged and cum bathed for money will make it impossible for her to establish authority and respect in the classroom.

Note, this has nothing to do with merely viewing porn, but concerns her direct activity in making commercial porn

RabidAlpaca said:

In the classroom they're not allowed to watch porn, and if they disobey her, they will be sent to the principal's and disciplined. Simple as that. We had plenty of teachers we absolutely ****ing hated. Some so bad that we wished he would drive off a cliff. Nobody respected him. But you know what? He still managed to teach because that was his job.

Click to expand...

1) why would they need to watch porn in school? 2) schools are controlled chaos. Thinking that you will be able to control the response to a teacher being a porn star, and that it would quickly subside goes against the entirety of my experience growing up 3) I imagine the level of harassment, horseplay, etc between a teacher that no one likes, and the "porn teacher" would be quite different in degree

Re: Rhake porn past, must not return to cla

Dr. Chuckles said:

sigh...

Click to expand...

Sigh? Thats it? That was the other main reason that people wanted her gone...including the judges. What he said is valid. Plenty of children have teachers that they don't respect. Yet those teachers still get the job done. How? If not having any respect from her students is enough to get this teacher fired then why is it that those other teachers don't get fired?