Fundamentally they are: the restrictions on behavior are geared to preventing the parent from talking to their offspring about uncomfortable subjects. The subjects change over time, but that outraged sense that teachers are confounding the parent’s indoctrination doesn’t.
In my family the people who claim that they are now perfectly fine with:
Divorce
Decriminalizing adultery
Interracial (and interfaith) marriage
Decriminalizing homosexuality
Legalizing abortion
Criminalizing marital/relationship rape
Gays in the military
Marriage equality
After opposing each of these tooth and nail over the last 50 years are in the forefront of anti-trans “activism” today.
And of course most of them have now flipped on abortion being legal as well. And are saying racist shit now that they have kept under wraps for 30 years.
Usually there is not any difference short of being bribed to resign in lieu of firing.
And I’m not buying what you’re selling this entire thread. Since we get to assume whatever about her, based on my experiences as a teacher, there was probably a deal cut where they paid off her contract immediately (as they would be required to do) if she left now. Why didn’t she stay and fight? She was told the district would non-renew her anyways so effectively leave now get paid now or get paid as usual and bye-bye at the end of the school year.
Bottom line is you don’t know her reality even though you present what you call an argument as if you did. And I notice you conveniently did not see this question I posted to you.
Care to answer?
I assume at some point in your life you chose to have an alcoholic drink in public. Your choice. How would you feel if your prohibitionist boss forced you to resign over it because you chose to violate his moral code?
Wait? Are you saying she was fired for showing students porn? OK I agree, teachers should not show kids porn.
And what if that teacher brought a gun into the classroom? Not only would they not be fired, it would be part of a district-proposed program.
That is about 100 times scarier to me than whether the teacher fucks on camera.
What scares me as a teacher is even if I don’t carry (and I wouldn’t in the classroom) I’m still a target for any jackhole shooter because they don’t know.
Sounds awesome … until one takes a moment to try to figure out what it actually means. At face value it appears to say that when a teacher is fired or otherwise disciplined for violating expected standards of behaviour, one must automatically side with the teacher and against the school administrators, or else be judged to have deficient moral character. The teachers’ union might think so, but to the rest of us – parents in particular – this is vapid moralistic pablum.
Look, I’m old enough to have experienced some major social transformations in my time. And while it would be disingenuous to claim that I wasn’t influenced by the social norms of the day, I can confidently say that I have never advocated for teachers being fired for being divorced, for being gay, or for any of the other straw man analogies being dredged up here. Maybe a hundred years ago I might have, but I don’t see how that matters; it was a different world then.
Today we’re enlightened enough not to pass arbitrary moral judgments, and generally limit ourselves to enforcing standards of behaviour on our children’s caregivers that include not willfully engaging in socially disreputable activities that they know would result in dismissal, and then trying to keep it secret. Even I – not a teacher and not involved with children – had a clause in my employment contract that prohibited engaging in any activities at any time – on the job or not – that could bring disrepute on my employer.
So let me offer an alternative bit of moral guidance: one shouldn’t be afraid to support a rationally justified position just because that position is coincidentally shared by ignorant troglodytes for stupid ideological or religious reasons.
Complete nonsense. It means that you should not automatically do anything, but that you should always examine the moral basis for your actions.
And a glance at history should tell you that “this makes a lot of pious parents horrified, won’t you do something for the sake of the children” is not a reliable guide to moral action.
Have you ever been in a teachers’ union? Worked with them? Because what you said is absolutely wrong. Our job is to ensure that admin and districts follow the contract and the law. We also act as advocates for students as we are working with them all day whereas admin and district personnel do not. Why would you have a problem with that?
This is what I’m talking about in this thread. “I am not a teacher but I am an expert in what goes on in the classroom and schools.”
What gives YOU the right to demand under duress of firing that teachers need to live their private life according to parents’ arbitrary moral code or not? And I’ll ask you the same question that Beck apparently refuses to address: if your student saw their teacher in an OF video, how does that affect their education.
Of note: according to Beck in this thread we can presume other peoples motivation without knowing them so I presume she refuses to answer because she can’t. Similar to her presuming the teacher’s motivation.
We can certainly assume that Beck is hiding her true identity on the Board because she knows in her heart she is wrong.
That’s not remotely what it means at face value–what a ridiculous bit of nonsense!
This thread really is becoming an anthology of transparently stupid arguments to justify slut-shaming.
Great point! I’d not heard it expressed that way before.
With due respect, these are not straw man analogies. Being divorced is actually a pretty good analogy: a perfectly legal behaviour deemed to be too immoral for one in the teaching profession, with its higher moral standards and lower pay.
I’m glad you, personally, are better than that. Moral panics are found wherever people have children, and what I don’t want is people making staffing decisions based on morality at all. Ethics, sure. Unethical behaviour is a great reason for dismissing a teacher. Even if there were a professional code of conduct that stated “no production of pornography” that she had signed onto before becoming a teacher, or “no second jobs,” that’s fine with me.
Imagine if she made a little extra money by investing in fossil fuels or tobacco companies. In my opinion, that’s a morally bankrupt way to earn money. It’s also really common and perfectly legal. I think you, and most other people, would find an argument that teachers should not do this ridiculous, even though I genuinely do believe this is immoral behaviour.
I’m not trying to be silly, just imagining where the lines are. Talking about the wonders of tobacco to schoolkids is right out, of course, but what about smoking where children can see the teacher? That’s pretty common, and I think children are FAR more likely to become smokers than sex workers.
I just don’t think an educator needs to be a guardian of morality, especially given how well that worked out for Victorian women. Just be professional at work: that’s enough.
I should preface my answer by mentioning that you earlier rejected the idea that K-12 teachers are role models, which in itself is a problematic position, and I showed you our local school board policy statement explicitly stating that the board regards it as a key part of their job.
That’s an important part of why this activity is harmful – by which I mean not just the gratuitous pornographic sex, but the decision to willfully and covertly violate known ethical standards. What does that teach the kids, and what does that do to the teacher’s effectiveness as a role model?
In the context in which you made that statement, it’s pretty clear that it means that the teacher(s) in question are perfectly fit to be caregivers and role models to our children, and anyone who feels that their dismissal was justified is an ignorant troglodyte on the wrong side of history.
It’s just spiffy keen that you want to paraphrase me. When you get it right, I’ll bother with a more complete response.
In that case I have to wonder why you brought that bit of moralistic philosophizing into this thread, a thread about teachers being fired for posting homemade porn in which you’ve expended great effort to defend them.
I suppose you will. I don’t think that an effort to explain the matter further to you would prove a productive use of my time.
Even if that version were what LHoD had said, that is an examination of the situation on its merits, it does not remotely correspond to your first version of what you claimed he said:
So which misrepresentation are you going with?