I don’t know why her lies matter - she was going to get fired for being a former porn actress anyway. If anything, her lies just let her stay employed as a teacher longer than she otherwise would have.
Besides, I thought what was supposedly going to permanently undermine her ability to teach was the kids focusing on her porn career, not her lying to her employers. It’s not like they were drawing graffiti about their teacher with her pants on fire, right?
This response suggests you believe there’s nothing inherently wrong with lying.
The hearing panel correctly knew otherwise.
It clearly does not.
When I was a kid everyone knew someone else who went to another school, and they had a teacher who was a Playboy Bunny, or had even been a centerfold model. I don’t know why the school I went to never had a teacher like that, except that they would have had to have been the centerfold in the September 1932 issue if they did it when they were young. Never the less, there was a plethora of nude models teaching school in my time, I doubt the occasional porn star would be a problem now. I can’t imagine where we’ll find teachers in the futures since every girl born after 1995 already has a topless picture circulating on the internet.
Heck, the time will come (arguably it already has) when a sufficiently determined student (i.e. one with too much free time) will be able to create a fairly good Photoshop image of any teacher he or she likes in a sexual situation.
I figure the remedy for that is not to try to find out if the photo is real or not, but to stop caring either way.
My mistake.
Can you clarify this statement, then?
Her lies matter because they were wrong in and of themselves and merited dismissal regardless of her movie career.
Of course that’s not true – and even if it were, we can draw a principled distinction between a topless photo and starring in “No Cum Dodging.”
I don’t understand this position. I can understand ‘Her students will see her porn movies. This ruins her ability to teach. So, the firing was justified.’
I genuinely cannot understand ‘She told a few lies. So, the firing was justified.’
She was willing to do something that she knew would jeopardize her career and lied about it to cover it up. Whether you disagree or agree with what she did is irrelevant. Her judgement and decision making is what is at issue.
Personally, I’m more interested in the judgement and decision making of the board that fired her. I believe that is also at issue.
No, I have no issue with their complaint about those issues, that’s why I didn’t bring them up. I just found the notion that a pretty young woman on social media getting solicited for porn is suspicious to be weird. Not that I’m a woman, or on social media.
There’s a far cry between a topless photo and videos of hardcore graphic sex acts. I am with you that our society is going to have to learn to deal with this, because the reality is already here and going to get more so. Right now employers can google potential employees and find all sorts of stuff that should be considered “private”, except social media have made “privacy” a concept that is falling apart in a lot of ways. Still, there is a huge gap between those two states. And further, there is a huge gap between someone with a verifiable picture that can be pulled up on cue and a rumor that there is someone at a different school who used to pose for naked pics, but you don’t ever get a name, much less a cite on the magazine spread.
I think the label “porn” is insufficient, because there is a scale of activity.
Self-pics sent to a friend/lover, accidentally leaked to the internet.
Said pics posted/sold by ex-friend/lover to “get even”.
Self-pics purposely sold/posted for money.
Posing for professional naked pics - tasteful, arty nudes.
Posing for professional naked pics - graphic, explicit.
Posing for professional sex pics/sex video - explicit but mainstream (plain sex).
Posing for professional sex pics/sex video - explicit and fetish (oral/anal, facial, rough, etc)
Posing for professional sex pics/sex video - extreme fetish (hard BDSM, gangbangs, etc)
The line for “debasing herself” is a subjective thing, of course, but there is a distince difference between mere naked pics or engaging in mutual sex acts, and engaging in sex acts that use dominance and humiliation. It seems that mainstream porn has become more slanted to incorporating dominance and humiliation as regular elements - facials, ATM, deepthroating, choking. To a large extent, this is the market responding to what sells. Nevertheless, there is an apparent dichotomy between the segment of the population that seeks out this porn, and the segment of the population that thinks the mere existence of it is disgusting or “immoral”. The ones controlling the decision at the school board level are catering to the second group, because they are the ones with more impact to their own situation.
Whatever the lady’s truthful own attitude at the time (doing it for the money vs enjoying the excitement) or her attitude now (it was something I am embarrassed by and regret vs it was great then but I’ve moved on), the fact is that her job is evaluated by the standards of her community - i.e. that second group above. The fact that the videos and pictures are still around and accessible means she has a harder time “living down” her past.
Now for an honest question related to the topic, what if instead of a hardcore porn star, she had been a stripper? She worked in a club. Not that there are pictures floating around or videos, merely some parent recognized her and ratted her out. Is her past relevant then? If she is no longer a stripper? If there was a brief overlap, but she no longer does it?
How about “She lied directly to us when we asked her point blank questions while trying to assess the truth of the rumors so we could adequately deal with them”? Does that context affect your perspective?
As long as all participants were consenting adults I don’t see the problem. I don’t think the consensual sex acts of adults should be judged along some kind of gradient of principle. Filmed or otherwise. These are my personal feelings on the matter, so saying 'we can drawing a principled distinction between the topless photo and starring in “No Cum Dodging” – does not include me and many others – if you are using we in a general sense, anyway. While yes, they are certainly different, one most notably pays a hell of a lot more than the other. Trying to moralize between the two reeks of slut shaming, IMO.
While I think Ms. Halas’ past employment should not be cause for terminating her current employment, but I can see that after it all coming out she should have been honest. Continually lying after being questioned specifically about it, is troublesome (though I understand why she would). As for lying in order to initially get hired, I would need to know the specific wording of her employment application and contract. I don’t think omitting her past porn employment on the application is lying unless she was specifically asked to divulge ALL past employment. Most employers just want to know your employment for the past couple years or tenure in the industry - not the summer job you once had working as a camp counselor or as an arcade manager in an amusement park.
All this “I don’t want my kids being taught by someone who once consented to a bukake film!” or whatever sounds pretty puritanical. The potential distraction of the students, most likely perpetuated by their parents and other teachers (who are responsible for controlling their own distractions) - is certainly an issue. If you can not help being so distracting by someone’s LEGAL past employment then the onus is on you. Kids have an excuse, adults do not. The behavior of the parents and other teachers in this story is what I find shameful. They are more responsible for distracting the students from learning than Ms. Halas. What if a school teacher suffers an unintended pregnancy and decides to have the baby out of wedlock? Should she be fired for being a poor role model? The students will be aware of the pregnancy and her marital status (or lack thereof), will this potential distraction warrant employment termination?
I hope a concerted effort was made to punish the vandal who etched profanity on Ms. Halas’ classroom window, rather than just excusing that type of bullying and disrespect by parading it as evidence of Ms. Halas’ porn past rendering her ineffective as a teacher. If anything it points to the ineffectiveness of the culprit’s parents and school administrators for not doing more to promote respect.
This is so unhelpful, so we should make sure that we socially reinforce which act is more “immoral”? People can use any distinction they want personally in their own life, but using those distinctions in employment decisions for a government job? NO, that is like the government sanctioning those kind of ridiculous “moral” judgments/distinctions.
It is fascinating that you find consent important in the first instance (and I agree, perpetrating forcible sexual activity should obviously scotch a candidate), but you seem ready blithely to remove the “consensual” aspect from the employment context. Doesn’t forcing an employer to continue the employment of someone they’ve lost confidence in also offend your values of autonomy?
“Losing confidence” because an employee lied when asked directly/specifically about a rumor that was causing a stir with students and parents? Justified. “Losing confidence” because an otherwise qualified employee with good evaluations, once worked in porn? Not justified. Though, I agree the potential sensationalism could prove an issue, however, if she became pregnant out of wedlock causing quite a stir amongst parents, students and busy body colleagues would terminating her employment be justified due to the distraction? Where do you draw the line?
Where a stir is caused, presumably. Upthread I named the three elements that, in conjunction, are certain to do so in the prevailing culture. An unwed pregnancy, in itself, no longer would be.
You agree that the essence of a consensual arrangement between two parties is their free, unforced, and voluntary agreement to enter into the arrangement. Why should it matter whether you or I think a party’s willingness (or unwillingness) to enter into a given consensual arrangement is justified?
Why don’t you just admit it: You think choice of sexual activities should be maximally free within the boundaries of consent. So a person is free to have sex with someone and free to refrain from having sex with someone and free to end a sexual relationship. All without solicit the input of uninvolved others.
But when it comes to hiring and firing activities, employers should be less free and should have to justify their decisions to third parties.
What’s your rationale for the differing treatment?
Whatever happened to soft lighting and vaseline-coated lenses to hide a performer’s real visage?
Philosophically, perhaps, but she was going to get fired regardless of whether she lied about it or not, and arguments about how she had lost effectiveness as a teacher are not about her lies.
Unlike the Clinton impeachment, in this case it turns out the sex acts are the basis, not just lying about them afterward. Hence in this circumstance, her lies don’t matter - she simply delayed the inevitable. I see no indication that she did so with the intent to continue damaging students by being a former porn actress in their proximity (such damage being of an ethereal nature, at best), so I’m not inclined to feel much concern.
Personally, I’m still inclined to ask why “us” thought it necessary to inquire. Was there some indication she was showing porn in class? Telling students about porn? Inviting students to participate in porn? It turns out if you actually do “think of the children!”, the children aren’t actually involved at all.
In any case, the school was on solid legal footing whether they fired her or not. I think it would have been brave of them to stand by the teacher, but I am not surprised they did not.