• 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

Jack Fabulous said:
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.
Click to expand...

Before she was dismissed there were parents crying for it. Don't pretend otherwise.

Jack Fabulous said:
And her subsequent dismissal was equally legal, like it or not.
Click to expand...

Personally I never said otherwise. But it is still a crappy thing to do.

Jack Fabulous said:
The disruption argument is totally valid. Minimizing the truth does not help anyone.
Click to expand...

No it is semi-valid. Don't over blow things into a "crisis"...we get enough of that from our politicians. The reason that it is only semi-valid is that the kids would get over it fairly quickly.

Jack Fabulous said:
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.
Click to expand...

An anology is not a strawman. Would there or would there not be distractions caused by a former athlete teaching? Say Michael Jordan? Or what about if Robert Pattenson decided to teach? Should they not be allowed to teach because of the distraction that they would cause?

Jack Fabulous said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes the teacher did know how it would be recieved. She said that when she said that she was afraid to mention it because of that. That is a valid excuse to not mention it. Hell it was perfectly acceptable to lie in the military with the DADT and before that gays never mentioned it to prospective employers for the same reason. And it is quite obvious that the teachers fears were valid since she was fired for being in a porn movie...not for the omission or the lie.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

hfd said:
Looking forward to somebody addressing this question.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure ****ing on camera, and having such videos easily accessible to her students, is really similar to what someone does behind closed doors.

that tattoo analogy still fits. Alsom, I fail to see how people are over looking how this will impact her in class performance, because kids, other professionals, and parents aren't going to likely respect someone they can watch do ATM for a few hundred bucks. Which is the liability I mentioned earlier.


And while the school can go through onerous means to deal with these issues, I'm not seeing the merit in doing so for someone who did porn. If there was some social value to what she was doing, like taking a political or humanistic position, then sure. But churning out crappy internet porn does nothing to raise to that level and the school has every right and need to maintain standards of reasonable morality
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

What if...? said:
I seriously doubt ANY of the adults crying for her dismissal have led perfectly "pure" lives.
Click to expand...

No one claimed they have, and no one has claimed she has no right to move beyond her past in the pron industry. What was asserted is that is her goal, she should likely choose another profession, because her past has reasonably undermined her ability to perform her job.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

What if...? said:
So its ok with you to.discriminate against people over legal activity.
Click to expand...

Yes, if someone was known as a white supremist (totally legal) and regularly went on the internet to talk about the evil niggers and kikes (totally legal), while still maintaining the proper attitudes towards his students, I am sure you would have no issue with the guy being fired . Because, despite his proper behavior in the CR, he would still undermine his ability to teach

Discrimination isn't a bad thing if it's based on reasonable metrics. In fact, I'm sure you do it all the time, just not based on completely arbitrary qualities like skin color and sexual orientation

What we do and how those acts affect other things can hardly be called arbritrary
 
Last edited:
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Hard Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

the judges seem to have concluded that she acted deceptively in trying to hide her past in porn. I haven't read the ruling, so cannot say what that was based on. But I have a feeling they were more familiar with the case than both of us
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Kal'Stang said:
Before she was dismissed there were parents crying for it. Don't pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...
And if my kid went to that school I would have been right there demanding her dismissal, too. Who's pretending?



Kal'Stang said:
Personally I never said otherwise. But it is still a crappy thing to do.
Click to expand...
Responsible thing to do. Not crappy.



Kal'Stang said:
No it is semi-valid. Don't over blow things into a "crisis"...we get enough of that from our politicians. The reason that it is only semi-valid is that the kids would get over it fairly quickly.
Click to expand...
What planet do you live on? This woman's past would hang over that school like a thick fog for as long as she taught there. No matter how many classes she taught, no matter how many years she spent teaching, once that cat got out of the bag she would forever be known as the porn star in room 105.




Kal'Stang said:
An anology is not a strawman. Would there or would there not be distractions caused by a former athlete teaching? Say Michael Jordan? Or what about if Robert Pattenson decided to teach? Should they not be allowed to teach because of the distraction that they would cause?
Click to expand...
It is in this case. We are talking about whether or not a porn star should be allowed to teach 12 year olds. Any reference other than to another porn star is a straw man.



Kal'Stang said:
Yes the teacher did know how it would be recieved. She said that when she said that she was afraid to mention it because of that. That is a valid excuse to not mention it. Hell it was perfectly acceptable to lie in the military with the DADT and before that gays never mentioned it to prospective employers for the same reason. And it is quite obvious that the teachers fears were valid since she was fired for being in a porn movie...not for the omission or the lie.
Click to expand...
Could you possibly understate that any more? Her screen name was Tiffany Six. Google her. All her students most certainly have by now...
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

if she was just a prostitute the issue would have never existed, and the nature of the incident and the fact that it is easily accessible over the internet was even stressed in the ruling. So the fact that her videos are easily found, watched, and distributed on the internet makes the time table irrelevent
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

on one of her videos she mentions being a teacher at the beginning, if I remember correctly
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

What planet do you live on? This woman's past would hang over that school like a thick fog for as long as she taught there. No matter how many classes she taught, no matter how many years she spent teaching, once that cat got out of the bag she would forever be known as the porn star in room 105
Click to expand...

Yeah, I totally fail to see the reasoning behind these claims, because not only would she need to deal with new students every year, it goes completely against what I saw in primary school.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

All this talk about disruption in the classroom, completeness of the job application and dishonesty are all smokescreens. The fact is that a lot of people dislike porn performers and consider their work immoral (even though they are happy to consume it) and that is enough for them to ruin their careers. A large portion of these same people would have done the same thing to an openly gay person twenty years ago for the same reasons and using the same excuses.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Jack Fabulous said:
And if my kid went to that school I would have been right there demanding her dismissal, too. Who's pretending?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that you would. I personally would not. If I did anything it would be to tell people like you to grow up.

Jack Fabulous said:
Responsible thing to do. Not crappy.
Click to expand...

Yes, crappy. And perpetuating bigotry is never responsible.

Jack Fabulous said:
What planet do you live on? This woman's past would hang over that school like a thick fog for as long as she taught there. No matter how many classes she taught, no matter how many years she spent teaching, once that cat got out of the bag she would forever be known as the porn star in room 105.
Click to expand...

Assuming that is true...and sorry but I can't tell the future..can you? Anyways...So what? The only ones that care are the ones that think porn is dirty/sinful/immoral/disgusting or whatever.

Jack Fabulous said:
It is in this case. We are talking about whether or not a porn star should be allowed to teach 12 year olds. Any reference other than to another porn star is a straw man.
Click to expand...

What about it is a strawman? The main excuse to fire her in this thread is that her past would be a distraction and as such would affect her ability to properly teach. Would none of those peoples pasts that I mentioned be a distraction?

Jack Fabulous said:
Could you possibly understate that any more? Her screen name was Tiffany Six. Google her. All her students most certainly have by now...
Click to expand...

Hey, if stating the full truth is an understatement then so be it. Sorry but I don't consider being in a porn movie to be such a big thing that a simple statement of the truth is to be considered an understatement.

BTW, if all of her students did google her then perhaps they need better parents? Crappy parenting is no excuse.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

I definitely think she should have been provided the option to teach at a lower level. Like 1st or 2nd grade. They wouldn't have had a clue about her past nor would they have access to a way of finding out. At least I hope to God they wouldn't. I'm sure the state could've worked something out for her instead of just firing her outright with no alternatives. But, that's their right to do so. I just think it's cold hearted to do so.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

MarineTpartier said:
I definitely think she should have been provided the option to teach at a lower level. Like 1st or 2nd grade. They wouldn't have had a clue about her past nor would they have access to a way of finding out. At least I hope to God they wouldn't. I'm sure the state could've worked something out for her instead of just firing her outright with no alternatives. But, that's their right to do so. I just think it's cold hearted to do so.
Click to expand...

There are way too many really good teachers who haven't lied and/or pole danced standing in line waiting for a position to mollycoddle one who got her position by lying.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:
There are way too many really good teachers who haven't lied and/or pole danced standing in line waiting for a position to mollycoddle one who got her position by lying.
Click to expand...
So if an employer asked you if you have viewed pornography, you would answer yes?
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Hard Truth said:
All this talk about disruption in the classroom, completeness of the job application and dishonesty are all smokescreens. The fact is that a lot of people dislike porn performers and consider their work immoral (even though they are happy to consume it) and that is enough for them to ruin their careers. A large portion of these same people would have done the same thing to an openly gay person twenty years ago for the same reasons and using the same excuses.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately character attacks against people making those arguments doesn't actually undermine the arguments themselves.

Also, as I said, I'm very pro-porn. I just recognize the obvious disruption such past activities would introduce into any school or classroom, and how that would make actually educating children more difficult
 
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...

I'm not sure you can compare private and public activities here
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Dragonfly said:
Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to classroom - Yahoo! News



Thoughts?

Would you fire her?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't fire her. I don't see how her porn career has anything to do with her teaching job. If people get bent out of shape over it, after going out of their way to find the material, then that's their problem. She didn't do anything illegal.

What a bunch of prudes. I'll bet the kids thought it was cool to have a porn star for a teacher. :cool:
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Dr. Chuckles said:
I'm not sure you can compare private and public activities here
Click to expand...
The point was that almost every American has viewed porn and I don't think they would admit to it if asked in an interview. That's just my opinion though.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

LowDown said:
What a bunch of prudes. I'll bet the kids thought it was cool to have a porn star for a teacher. :cool:
Click to expand...
I would have when I was a teenager.
 
Re: 't shake porn past, must not return to cla

RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

Does it even apply to behavior PRIOR to enlistment?
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

MarineTpartier said:
The point was that almost every American has viewed porn and I don't think they would admit to it if asked in an interview. That's just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

viewing porn is something that happens in the confines of most peoples home and is likely never intended to be broadcast publicly. She made pornographic films to be distributed to the public. Also, while no one usually requires every job listed on an application or resume, they do usually frown upon, and see deceptive, when people omit information with a direct impact on the position.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Dr. Chuckles said:
Yes, if someone was known as a white supremist (totally legal) and regularly went on the internet to talk about the evil niggers and kikes (totally legal), while still maintaining the proper attitudes towards his students, I am sure you would have no issue with the guy being fired . Because, despite his proper behavior in the CR, he would still undermine his ability to teach

Discrimination isn't a bad thing if it's based on reasonable metrics. In fact, I'm sure you do it all the time, just not based on completely arbitrary qualities like skin color and sexual orientation

What we do and how those acts affect other things can hardly be called arbritrary
Click to expand...

People.do all.sorts.of things i find lame to abhorrent.

If it stays out of the how a teacher teaches i have no problem.

As i said, middle school makes it semi valid. Elementary or college, even high school, shouldn't present a problem for the former or be insurmountable.for the latter.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Dr. Chuckles said:
viewing porn is something that happens in the confines of most peoples home and is likely never intended to be broadcast publicly. She made pornographic films to be distributed to the public. Also, while no one usually requires every job listed on an application or resume, they do usually frown upon, and see deceptive, when people omit information with a direct impact on the position.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

What if...? said:
If it stays out of the how a teacher teaches i have no problem.

As i said, middle school makes it semi valid. Elementary or college, even high school, shouldn't present a problem for the former or be insurmountable.for the latter.
Click to expand...

Yes, and my argument was, as you recognize, about how it would impact her ability to teach, not what I thought of her profession. I also agree in other settings it wouldn't be an issue, but think that might be limited to the collage level, given the mixture of grades and the pervasive nature of the internet in the modern age
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom