There was hearing testimony about student reaction, including some students who said they felt very uncomfortable and some students who responded with graffiti using the “Tiffany” name and a variety of lewd words and suggestions that appeared to derive from the acts depicted in the movies.
Or, in the alternative, they could have independently developed the idea of drinking jizz out of an ass by someone named Tiffany. It’s hard to know for sure.
He didn’t.
He missed the last two classes before Christmas. I went back to the UK for Christmas and when I got back to Sweden the story was in the papers. As far as I am aware he never taught again after the conference.
Well, they were going to get exposed to the idea sooner or later. Better to get it out of the way early, like chicken pox.
As a side note, I wonder if any of the kids will write (or had written) something lewd on Facebook or some other internet venue. Something that can get them fired years from now, that sort of thing.
I’m guessing if she had been simply fired for lying and was not also a porn actor, you wouldn’t have found the story interesting enough for a post. The angle that got your attention was that she was in porn. Sure, they can fire her for lying. Have at it. It probably happens every day somewhere in America. The question raised by your post is whether teachers have a right to also be in porn. With the explosion of amateur porn, there are probably 1000s of teachers in America having sex on video that can be found on the internet. I’m sorry, but I don’t see a need to purge them from out schools.
With as much deference as I am able to muster for the implicit idea that all sexual acts are morally neutral and of identical lewdness to writing words that describe sexual acts…in one video, according to the testimony at the hearing, Ms. Halas’ partners ejaculated in her rectum, she squeezed the ejaculate out of her anus into a shot glass, and drank the contents of the shot glass.
If she was fired for a body of work including that act, I cannot regard it as on par with kids writing something lewd on Facebook. So to the extent that your speculation seeks to draw some parallel between the two…I am not persuaded.
If the porn angle had not been present, I would not have imagined that anyone would object to firing a teacher for lying about secondary employment when questioned during a hearing.
Her lying certainly proves her unfitness for the job, in my view.
There may well be thousands of teachers who have film of themselves having sex. I agree that firing each and every one is not the right approach.
But – of those thousands, how many films include drinking cum out of a shot glass when the cum was only moments ago squeezed out of the performer’s own asshole? I’m guessing – not so many. But perhaps I am naive about porn practice – the last porno I saw was “Misty Beethoven.” Enlighten me.
I’m having a hard time finding this firing unjustified. It certainly would have distracted me if I found out one of my teachers was a porn star (notwithstanding the fact that they were all old and ugly).
NM
That’s what I admire about you, Bricker-your willingness to do the hours of research necessary to give in-depth accurate responses. 
Or as it’s know in my household, “date night.” .
My wife’s piano teacher in the 1960’s was a nice old lady who told the story of her young teaching career in some rural state back in the 1920’s.
In those days female teachers were expected to be virgins. Literally. Had to be unmarried.
Well, being young and athletic, she went sledding with friends one Saturday. They were canny enough to drive to a neighboring county, but were unlucky enough to have been spotted by someone who knew her.
The next Monday she was called into the principal’s office and was lambasted with: “Miss Partridge you were seen wearing knickers!” She was reprimanded and told never to repeat that “sin”.
I guess that attitude still holds.
While such a comprehensive understanding of fluid dynamics might prove useful in a college-level science course, I admit not seeing the relevance at the middle-school level.
I merely acknowledge a spectrum of the outrageable. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if some of the kids have posted things that can be later used against them by someone who cares more about what were doing years before than how good they are at what they’re doing now.
Heck, here I am posting under my real name. I may have already lost future opportunities from someone who will research my activity and finds my atheism and/or pro-choice views and/or pro-SSM views as abhorrent as, I dunno… a career in porn. Possibly you have put in the internet record something that will later stymie you as well, Rick.
From the report:
Really? That struck people as unlikely? Someone was trolling social media pages looking for young ladies and trying to sucker them into porn? That is viewed with suspicion?
As far as helping her with her financial dilemma, it’s simple cold reading. “Hey, young lady, I can help you with your financial difficulties.” “Wow, how did you know I was having financial difficulties?” “You’re a college-age girl. Seems reasonable.”
Regarding the lies about whether she was employed as a teacher or not, I think what we have here is a situation where she was working toward a goal of getting out of porn, but hadn’t quite got to the point of receiving a steady paycheck. So there may have been a period of overlap where she was nominally teaching but was earning money in the alternate career, but her intent was a clean break. Just didn’t quite end a cleanly as she would like to project.
To be fair, in the 20’s “wearing knickers” was slang for having sex with 3 guys at once.
One of the many reasons we mistakenly think that folks were more demure in the past, they didn’t have the equivalent of Urban Dictionary to guide us.
Sure it is. Who goes into MySpace anymore?
And thus I expect the outcome would be just the same–just as a non-overlapping ‘clean’ break and no lying wouldn’t have saved her here.
If a teacher’s sexual activities are widely known, mockable, and documented, she’s gone.
And being gay is still grounds for denial of a security clearancif you’re in the closet. Same deal for adulterous affairs, drug use, or any other skeletons in your closet.
And the lies about not knowing whether or not her videos were available on the Internet? Denying any knowledge that there were extant videos three days after sending desperate (and, FWIW, poorly composed) e-mails to the site owners pleading with them to remove the videos?
Frankly, the poor grammar exposed in those mails is nearly enough to make me want to see her fired, no matter her demonstrated expertise in DP.
Which makes perfect sense.
Of course, it was a raw deal for a gay CIA employee in 1965, because there was no reasonable way out; the adulterous spouse could come clean and either reconcile or divorce; the drug user could enter rehab – the gay employee did not have a practical choice of coming out.
But the rationale itself was solid: we don’t want an employee that can be blackmailed.
I know you’re being funny, but it was 2005 and 2006.