Then why are politicians not held to the same standard? Everything you are arguing about schools and teachers also applies to them.
No one is asking for special protections. All we are saying is that teachers should not be held to different standards in their private (off-hours) life than any other professional, especially based on someone’s arbitrary moral code.
That’s the point. Is the Walmart warehouse manager going to be fired for doing OF porn? More like if she were, everyone would be up in arms for Walmart daring to regulate what she does in her private life.
But it does not impair their ability. I don’t think any teacher (those that actually have experience with students in school) in this thread agrees that it will, so that should tell you something.
You could argue that a high school teacher caught doing videos might run into some issues in the classroom, but a kindergarten teacher? Hardly. It’s the parents who’ll have a problem and/or judge based on the moonlighting work. The kids have no idea.
Putting the moral weight on the “community” rather than on the individual is both unreasonable and one of the bases for fascist ideology. The community doesn’t have a moral standard: moral standards adhere to human beings, not to granfalloons. Let’s try to let people use their own moral standard as long as they’re not hurting anyone else, and that’ll be a lot less disturbing.
I admit not having thought extensively about it - but you haven’t convinced me I’m wrong yet. A competition must be held and implies a measurable outcome. In this case, the competition is held by the school board itself, among its members, and the results are measured by its votes.
There are just so many people who innocuous existence is deemed “immoral,” or has been historically. Jews in pre-Holocaust Europe, for example, or Roma (stereotyped as being inherently dishonest / prone to lies and theft). The community’s morality has so many examples of being more to protect the in-group than based on anything actually resembling moral principles.
I’ve no particular interest in convincing you of anything.
I do want to fully understand your rationale.
So the initial question remains: why is avoiding any disruption of whatever “moral standard” wins the competition by whatever measure, as measured by the choice a board makes in response to the voices heard, a default position over other other potential goods and possible other moral imperatives?
To me doing the right thing, if I was confident of what that right thing is, is the default position. An individual community’s standards can be very far off from that, and historically often have been.
Because that’s how democracy works. There’s an election, the one who gets the most votes is elected, the person who is elected gets to implement his or her policies. If elected officials don’t represent, in some way, the overall view of the community, that means there’s a problem in the electoral process.
Democracy does not mean that a majority gets to do, let alone is justified in doing, whatever it likes.
No is “democracy” the end all of moral and ethical rectitude.
As “default” the avoidance of disruption of what the majority feels is their moral standard would justify many horrific policies through history and in the world today.
I think lasting lack of respect is plausible and forseeable is not directly due to the student knowing the teacher did porn. It’s because of parents who actively set the student against his or her teacher.
You’re looking for anecdotal evidence. This was a real-life incident cited earlier, though note the teacher was not allowed back in the classroom (obviously) after the rumors were confirmed. And a big part of why she was fired was for being dishonest. Nevertheless, it is probably the closest you will ever get to evidence either for and against the proposition that the teacher’s past in porn negatively affects students’ educations, starting at paragraph 96(h):
I think the strongest evidence for my point of view is from paragraph 96(i)(1) on p. 32,
Ms. Raskin, Ms. Amendola and Ms. Martinez recalled disruption in
their classrooms for the remainder of the 2011/2012 school year following the confirmed
rumors and subsequent media involvement. Ms. Raskin recalled several students making
comments and asking questions about Respondent, and also recalled instructing students to
avoid speaking with the media. Ms. Amendola recalled having difficulty keeping students
focused on the curriculum because they kept asking questions about Respondent and
laughing and referring to her as “Tiffany.” Ms. Amendola testified that the video made
Respondent look “inappropriate” and “like a bad person” to her. According to Ms. Martinez,
the topic of Respondent’s pornography and her alias, “Tiffany,” was brought up in all of her
classes. She recalled a student asking why Respondent would “allow those guys to do that,”
and several students asking if Ms. Martinez had ever made such videos and if pornography
was “okay to do.” The teachers did their best to redirect the students’ attention to the
curriculum. As the year progressed, the students did begin to settle down.
Yes, as the year progressed the students settled down. Things would have been more disruptive, in my opinion, if the circumstances had been different. Such as if Ms. Halas had returned to the classroom, and continued teaching incoming classes the next school year. Or if a state law prohibited teachers from discussing sexual orientation.
What exactly do you have in mind? There is a legal fiction that a politician, in official capacity, represents his or her constituency’s interests, including moral interests. For a politician to act in official capacity contrary to the moral interests of his or her constituents is, therefore, a contradiction. Or at least it is presumed to be a contradiction, for the sake of practicality.
If you grant my premises for the sake of argument, you would see that this is not itself counter to my position. Think about why politicians are prohibited from insider trading, or in most cases, from holding state and local offices simultaneously. I advocate the same standard, based on the premise (which you dispute) that a teacher’s history in porn can forseeably disrupt students’ educations. Take away that premise and of course, my argument fails.
Admittedly. That’s why I agree that non-discrimination statutes override any consideration for community moral standards. Nationality, race, color, sex, and religion are protected by law, community morals be damned. However, posting homemade porn (or acting in professional porn) is not specially protected.
Indeed. I’m definitely not saying the community is always right. Far from it. What I am saying is that the wishes of the community should be respected, whether right or wrong. The only alternative is autocracy.
Excluded middle much? One alternative is a system in which in general the community standards make the rules, while having specific uber-rules that protect the rights of the individual from the masses. Y’know, like the system we (mostly) all live in.
As near as I can tell, you’re saying Ruby Bridges was wrong and should never have been allowed in that building. Am I misunderstanding your principle?
Quite deliberately your misunderstanding knows no bounds.
You are comparing the civil rights of a young Black child to the desires of a school teacher who wants to pick up a moonlighting gig producing explicit sexual content for sale to the public. It’s not private, it’s on the internet.
How far are you willing to go to protect his /her right to create pornography while an employee of your school district? Advertising on their vehicle, soliciting other teachers for content, reaching out to parents inviting them to join his/her spicy online life? Maybe sex positivity will be introduced as curriculum and OF the conduit.