If only Clinton was aware of the crime of perjury at the time He could have spared us the details. Instead we got a blow-by-blow account of his drive-by shooting.
I’ll admit that I can’t be bothered to actually research this but did this question come up during the hiring phase or after she was hired?
I’ll certainly agree that she has no complaint if she lied during the hiring process but I don’t believe an employer has a right to honest answers to non work related questions unless there was a clause stating such in her contract.
Of course, I’m relying on common sense and not on any practical understanding of the law.
This reminds me of the old policy that the CIA would fire any employee who they found out was gay. And the reasoning was that gays were subject to being blackmailed because if foreign agents found out they were gay, they could threaten to expose them to the CIA.
The CIA apparently couldn’t figure out they could have closed this vulnerability by not having a policy of firing gays. Their anti-gay policy forced gays to hide and then they used the fact that gays were hiding to justify their anti-gay policy.
Did you ever watch Remember the Titans? Herman Boone (Denzel Washington) was hired as head coach of a football team with white players and many of the white players, white school staff, and other white people in town didn’t think he should have the job.
Did their lack of respect for Boone mean they would have been justified in firing him? Or was it right to take the stand that the town’s lack of respect for Boone wasn’t Boone’s fault? The story made the point that this lack of respect was the town’s problem and it was the town, not Boone, that needed to change.
Same issue arises with Stacie Halas. There’s no indication she’s a bad teacher. So is it right to fire her because she did something that other people found offensive? Maybe those other people need to learn to deal with things that offend them.
It would have been brave of the school to stand by the teacher.
Thus I am unsurprised that they did not.
I have no idea if she was under oath – but when I say “She doesn’t have the right,” I mean she’s not entitled to lie without consequence in that circumstance – that is, her employer is entitled to consider her lying and impose a negative consequence.
Are you sure she lied? Her lawyer seems to still be saying she was unemployed when she made the films.
Again, are you asking whether the firing would be (1) legally permissible or (2) managerially sound (or wise)?
An employer can fire an employee (absent the very rare contract that alters the at-will employment rule (the chief exception is collective bargaining agreements and tenured positions)) for any reason. For instance, they don’t like the employee’s new shoes. Now, this is a very stupid reason to fire someone (and expensive, considering that employers keep employees around precisely because they are earning the employer money, so there is the opportunity cost of creating the vacancy, the costs of conducting a job search, and the costs of ramping a new employee up to the dismissed employee’s speed). But, any court will allow an employer to do so (unless there was a contract that limited this ability, which, as noted, is pretty rare).
But the CIA didn’t exist in a vacuum – when being gay was cause for becoming a social pariah outside the agency, their policy made sense inside the agency.
Of course, Mr. Boone did not conceal his race when asked.
Why on earth should stupidity and immaturity be grounds to disqualify someone from teaching in middle school?
The Smoking Gun linked provided above includes her admission on one of the films – prior to being gangbanged, an interviewer asks her about her life. She explains that she’s a teacher.
Why are you in any position to tell the people of Oxnard what they should and should not be offended by? Do you pay taxes to the Oxnard school district? Do you live there? Have you ever visited there?
Seriously, I am genuinely curious, why should they give a sliver of a fig about what you think about their sensibilities? And why should we support your mission to throw your weight around the Oxnard School Board?
Not sure that really means anything. Plenty of people still refer to themselves as teachers, nurses, doctors, whatever even when going through stints of unemployment. Since it seems like it’d be an easy claim to check out, I tend to believe her lawyer over what someone said in a porn film interview (I’m 18!)
A victim? she’s not a victim. Not only did she do this voluntarily she said it was fun and exciting.
By the standards of most people her occupation was morally objectionable. That’s not particularly puritanical. Most people don’t fuck everything that moves for the public entertainment of others. That alone would get her fired. Lying about her previous employment would get her fired. Becoming a total distraction to the class makes her ineffectual as a teacher which would get her fired.
In light of the extremely short interval that has elpased from my first direct response to the OP and your snide comments, I would suggest that you refrain from further threadshitting* in this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
*(Yes. I realize that this was an attempt at humor.)
I would have used the word “irresponsible” in place of brave. I find it amazing that we’re even having the discussion and wonder what the conversation will be like 50 years from now.
I would hope by that time, the culture has sufficiently matured to the point where a sexual indiscretion, even a fairly big (indeed, professional) one, isn’t seen as that big a deal. Until then, I’m sure, we’ll probably see a lot of talented people seeing useful careers derailed or sidetracked because they once posted a nude pic of themselves somewhere.
I personally find it amazing (or more specifically, quaint) that you think porn is immoral.
I was operating under the impression that as a teacher she was under the blanket of the teachers union’s collective agreement and thus not subject to at will dismissal.
As to whether or I’m inquiring as to whether the firing was legal or merely good managerial practice, I suppose it is a little from column A and a little from column B. I certainly took from Bricker “justified!” that he was speaking of something more than merely legal.
My point is that we can’t just say “The community decided and that’s the end of the issue.”
When the community is offended by something an individual does, we have to look at the situation. Most times we’re going to agree with the community that what the individual did was wrong. But we can’t just automatically assume that. Sometimes it’s the community not the individual that’s wrong and it’s the community and not the individual that needs to change.
If you don’t accept that principle there’s no point in having a Bill of Rights.
She did not ‘fuck everything that moves’. That would include bestiality and kiddie porn. She did neither of those. I’m not even sure she went as far as lesbianism on film.
Then who is the victim? And if there isn’t one, why the spite towards someone who managed to stay afloat while unemployed doing something she enjoyed that doesn’t hurt anyone?