Honestly, Simplicio, regardless of what the transgression is, if you can no longer effectively do your job, you lose your job. I don’t have anything against porn, but lots of other people do, and kids are immature little bastards.
how do you think her effectiveness as a teacher would be when the kids are looking at pictures of her in a gang rape scene?
Justied and legal are not the same thing at all.
Did she debase herself? All I know is that she did porn. How did she debase herself?
Honestly, I doubt we have anywhere near enough data to produce a statistically accurate model of when-kids-see-their-teachers-fuckin’. My off the cuff guess would be that she’d find it a hell of a lot easier to get her male students to pay attention in class, however.
In class? Did she do gang rape scenes?
I agree with the reasoning for firing but I’m chuckling inside. Try mentally doing a “find and replace” function with “porn star” and “politician”. or “Gingrich”
In light of the OP’s apparent lack of interest in advancing a debate position, I would close the thread as improvidently opened,* without prejudice, pending the appearance of a proponent who is prepared to advocate for a position.
- After granting a writ of certiorari and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case. For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear-cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court. In this event the writ of certiorari is “dismissed as improvidently granted” (DIG) — saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case. (From Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia)
Perhaps it is justified, but I don’t see anything in the OP that seems to support that.
Middle School is how old? I do remember when I was 13/14 there were a couple of female teacher I would not have minded to see naked. These kids are actually going to be able to do so. It is nit conducive for the teaching environment at all,
I happen to know (OK - knew. I worked with her years ago) Rick’s wife and met him a few times. He’s one of the top education attorneys in the nation and through his wife has a close relationship to teacher unions. When I was in California, I believe he was the actual attorney of my union and any major legal trouble re: employment issues the union would refer you to him. I don’t know if it was an official referral to him as the union’s attorney or more of a “I happen to know the best attorney out there. You should call him.” Either way I’m sure the Union is doing their part to fight the firing.
As for the firing, she was under contract so the right-to-work aka right-to-fire laws do not come into play so it’s not obvious that the firing was justified. While her contract does not contain a morality clause, I had always heard there was a moral turpitude section of the Education Code that could come into play.
Other reasons you can be fired as a California teacher.
Not having a TB test every 4 years.
Joining the Communist Party.
Not saying the Pledge of Allegience (the religious freedom the students enjoy to not say the pledge is not allowed the teachers)
Only if this rule is consistently applied in GD.
It won’t be long before pretty much everyone will have naked pictures on the internet. Will everyone be disqualified from teaching?
I think her right to work and earn a living transcends the actions of some stupid kids. What if a bunch of kids refused to listen to a random teach for no good reason? Should she be fired?
If she could not teach kids without being disruptive since kids are assholes, they should transfer her to a job that she can do, like administration or whatever. Its the fault of the kids that she can’t work, not hers
The OP certainly does: the dishonesty shown by Ms. Halas after her second career came to light.
She did nothing illegal, nor anything that would be called immoral while she was teaching. They have proof that she would be incapable of doing her job, it is merely speculation. She should not have been fired based on some prediction of a future problem.
That said, it would take about 5 minutes for a problem to occur. Tough break for her. If I was in her class she’d have 100% of my attention.
Do a goggle image search for “Tiffany Six”. It’s not just naked pictures, it’s her…uh oral skills as well.
I have two independent grounds.
First, and most fatal, her dishonesty after the porn career became known. She denied she had done it, then she denied she had done it while employed as a teacher.
Secondly: I agree with the hearing official who concluded that her effectiveness as a teacher was compromised by the existence of the videos.
Yes, she debased herself. A porn star is an immoral objectification of a person and It’s now a matter of public record that kids can pull up on their phones. On top of that she has created a permanent and rather large distraction in class. I’m relatively confident you understand this.
No, she didn’t.