Lying under oath?
Promises made under duress (see: lack of consensuality in employment) are not binding.
I hope I’m not the only one who read that as “made under her dress”.
Unfortunately, that’s “duress” only in your personal, peculiar definition of the word, and not in any recognized legal sense. You may as well have noted that she had her fingers crossed when she lied, which is in fact a more widely-recognized method of immunizing oneself from the consequences of a lie.
Where the hell did you get that from what I said? I was specifically talking about alternative approaches to the situation, rather than firing her.
Geez, read the fucking words and comprehend them.
I do not think one should entirely base one’s morality on what is popular. And the notion that promises made under duress is an old one. The fact that you are unwilling to recognize the necessity of working for a living as a form of duress is duly noted.
Well I did not get that from your post. My apologies, if that is what you intended.
It’s not just me. Of the two of us, my definition of duress comports with society’s; yours does not.
No, you are right. I should have said “every single reason given in this thread relating to the underlying sexual behaviour”
Having said that though, the reason that people who get caught out breaking sexual taboos are so often ultimately sunk by the coverup is that they are in a position like that of cliched witches of old: if witches drowned they were innocent, if they didn’t drown they were burned at the stake as being witches.
If you are (correctly) suspected of breaking a sexual taboo, if you admit it you will be condemned by the self appointed taboo police and if you don’t you are liar who will be condemned by the official police. You are screwed, either way.
Says you, Pollyanna. I think a lot of unemployed and poor people see things differently. The only reason comfy middle class people don’t feel the duress is that they’ve made their peace with it.
Open a poll on this.
You are simplifying the concept by painting it as strictly Employer A vs Potential employee B. It’s more complicated.
It’s essentially Employer A, B, C, D…Z vs Potential Employee A where Employers A…Z have an unspoken agreement amongst themselves that a certain behavior is unacceptable in an employee. If the potential employee (who exhibited that behavior) wants to eat he has to lie in order to be hired; especially if the behavior is a past deed. Bosses can offer a job to someone, have them move cross-country and then capriciously say “oops, changed my mind, I don’t want you”. Employment is rarely a deal freely entered between equals. Hence the concept of duress.
So what I think you are saying is this. There are accepted social mores in this county. Just as there are in other countries and cultures. And if one chooses to violate or commit an act outside of those mores, and doesn’t want to live with the accepted or know consequences of that action, they are justifiably forced to lie. Is that your point?
I also feel that it was the culmination of things that was the issue, and I don’t think that we can or should try and parse them out. She was in porn. She was in pretty hard core porn. She was in pretty hard core porn while teaching. She was in pretty hard core porn while teaching in a conservative area. She was in pretty hard core porn while teaching in a conservative area and she lied about it. At some point, you due break the camel’s back.
I take choose to take hundreds of different actions each and every day. And I (we) constantly balance the risk/reward aspects of all of these actions. She used poor judgment in believing that the upside of performing in porn would outweigh the potential loss of her teaching job, or miscalculated that she could avoid the consequences. The old “it’s a free county” meme is true I suppose. You are free to do a lot of things. Doesn’t mean you don’t have to live with the consequences though.
In the real world I live in there are consequences for your actions.
The mores are wrong. Evil. Bigoted. Like mores in other cultures have been. Just try stoning a woman to death for having sex with a man not her husband, here in the US. We believe those mores are wrong, and have absolutely NO problem preventing such stonings from occurring. We feel all right about that! We’d be happy to stop it all over the world, because it’s WRONG and EVIL.
Now, wrap your head around this: some of us in US society believe it is JUST as wrong to treat sex workers badly for being sex workers as it is to treat ordinary women badly for having sex with persons not their husbands. Probably a little new for you, you’ll have to get used to it, but believe me, it’s wrong. You need to stop it, and stop accepting justifications for it.
Uh, no, it was the porn. It really was the porn. As has been pointed out, people in this thread have been coming up with all sorts of alternate justifications for the firing, but you’re not fooling us. It was the porn.
It the real world I live in, people who engage in bigoted behaviors and actions get judged, too. I suspect that my real world will eventually supplant your real world, and be a generally morally superior real world.
Thank you for putting it more clearly than I have.
Well, the consequences of the porn more than the porn itself. Which do not necessarily involve her being unable to control the students; the problem would be her inability to deal with the parents. The mothers would constantly be in high dudgeon about morality and setting examples for impressionable youth and stuff, so would the more whipped of the fathers, while the rest of the fathers would be constantly trying to hire or just hit on her. And, the principal and superintendent and the school board would constantly be having to deal with all of that.
The kids would mostly be cool about it, sure, and that would actually help educate them about life - but so what, she can’t do the job effectively once “out”, and that means she has to find a new profession. Sorry, she should have seen it coming before she let down the wall.
Maybe a college teaching career would be open to her. But I really think that she’s not employable by any K-12 district in the country, not even in the most liberal areas. I mean, I live in the Bay Area and I can’t imagine any school district around here hiring her.
She was fired before the lying. The case is supposed to be about whether it was legal to fire her, not whether she did something illegal after the firing while contesting it.
Morally, it’s not about the lie, though. People, despite crying out otherwise, tend to accept lying for self-preservation. If the lie was what was important, that’s what would have been reported. But it wasn’t. It was about the porn. Being in porn affects your societal value as a human being.
That’s the issue. If it were about controlling the classroom, then any demeaning job would be a problem. But no one would fire her for having been a telemarketer, for example–a professions despised much more than porn based on people’s willing participation in their services.
There’s just no reason to fire this woman unless you think that porn is wrong. So what if it comes up amongst the students? If it were some other job, you’d tell them to shut up, and fire any teacher who couldn’t control them. But since it’s porn, she apparently isn’t allowed to do that.
And I don’t support a state government making decisions about what is and is not wrong, except as proscribed by law. It’s the exact same reason I support public-sector unions: I don’t believe that the government has the right to tell people they can’t assemble. And I don’t think they have a right to tell someone that they can’t have a particular job that is otherwise legal.
I give them a few exceptions based on their need to hire competent workers, but that exception does not extend into areas I don’t even support private employers having the right to deal with, i.e., people’s personal lives. It’s only about their ability to do their jobs.
And, yes, if this woman couldn’t control her classroom, THAT’S a reason to fire her. Not because you assume she won’t be able to so you can punish her for being a porn actress. That’s what I object to, and I don’t care if you can do a bunch of legal mumble jumbo and get it court approved.
And what does what the others have to do to deal with the situation have to do with whether or not she can do her job? The superintendent may not be able to do their job, but, according to this logic, that would mean they should be fired.
I know schools are complete wusses when dealing with parents, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to support them doing so when the parents have no legal right to have her fired. She was fired by a choice of the staff who are working for the State government.
Not being a bigot is sometimes hard work. That doesn’t make me support your bigotry.
Well, if the teacher made a movie called Black Man Bang…
[sub]get it? Minority Report… huh…? huh…?[/sub]
The unfortunate element, for me, is that she reminds me of one my teachers in junior high.
Hubba hubba hubba!
And I’m 52 years old. Dang.