A teacher comes to the school administration and tells them she is having issues with an abusive ex. He gets put in jail, but they move ahead to fire her because he will be getting out shortly, and in the past had already come onto school grounds once looking for her.
Justifiable move by the school or not? On the surface it seems outrageous, but if I was the parent of one of those kids in that school I might feel differently.
I think the school should lose whatever accreditation it has for sending out a formal termination letter with such horrible grammar.
Also think they made a bad call in firing the teacher. As noted in the linked article, this is the sort of thing that makes it difficult for victims of domestic violence to come forward. The teacher has broken no laws, and should not lose her job because of the criminal actions of a third party.
It appears to be a private school, so I suspect they can fire her for any old reason they want. When I worked at a Catholic school for a few years, they fired a male teacher for posting a picture of himself on his private Facebook without a shirt on. In swim trunks. I mean, I guess props for being fair (because obviously, a woman would be fired for a topless picture, too), but beyond ridiculous.
This is why all of my teacher friends got credentials and went through the public school system (well, that and the pay and benefits are usually much better). Say what you will about the teacher unions, but this would have never happened in the public arena.
On a human level, I think it is absolutely wrong to fire her in this situation. Frankly, it’s pretty damned unchristian to turn your back on someone so clearly in need. That said, it may be hypocritical, but the school is likely well within their rights to terminate her for any reason they want.
While I appreciate the chilling influence on victims of domestic violence, it’s hard to justify putting children in danger to uphold lofty principles. Let’s also ask ourselves if the parents of the students will continue sending their kids when they know a teacher’s ex caused a school lockdown. They don’t know if or when this fool is going to show up again and hurt someone.
It’s sort of like Typhoid Mary. It’s not necessarily her fault that people around her are at risk, but we can’t be letting her work in the kitchen anymore.
This isn’t narrow-minded parents unwilling to expose their children to some upsetting idea or challenge to their moral formation – this is parents unwilling to expose their children to the threat of physical violence. And not a theoretical threat, either: the guy already showed up at the school and caused enough of a panic that the school went into lockdown.
Yes, it’s unfortunate in the extreme that she loses her job through no fault of her own. But, as Cheesesteak points out, Typhoid Mary loses her job as a cook through no fault of her own, either.
California is an “at-will employment” state, so they can legally fire her for just about any reason (with a few exceptions).
Which doesn’t make it OK.
This statement:
is the epitome of “blaming the victim.” They’re saying “it’s your fault the school is in danger.”
If the women had an incurable, untreatable mental illness that rendered her prone to random fits of murderous violence, then yes, it would be like Typhoid Mary. “Sorry, you’re mentally ill and we can’t have you endangering the kids.”
But it’s not like that. The party most directly responsible for the hazard is not her, it’s her loser ex-husband.
This is understood. The point though (for the parents) is if the harassed employee and her ex are going to potentially come as a package wherever she works where do they draw the line? Just because it’s not her fault does not mean there is not a credible threat to having her around.
How about somewhere between her and her ex? Her ex is not an transmissible, incurable disease.
As a society, maybe we could make a little more effort to support victims of domestic violence. Maybe this catholic school could exhibit some of that famous christian charity and help her deal with this by continuing to employ her, maybe even offer some legal assistance to help sort out how to best keep her ex at bay (e.g help with filing/enforcing a restraining order, documenting/eyewitnessing incidents, etc.).
You’re reading in something that isn’t there. The school has no control over the ex, but it can remove his motivation for coming to the school. I find it hard to believe they couldn’t have moved her to another school, though.
It totally sucks for her, but the school’s primary concern is for the safety of its students.
If he’s dangerous enough to get a school locked down, she needs to move and change her name anyway. You could argue that making her find a new job is in the interests of her OWN health and safety.
I wonder if there might not be more to the story than we have seen.
That having been said, why can’t the school take out a restraining order against the ex? He came to the school once before to cause trouble. If he shows up again, call the cops - I bet they would be eager to bust the bozo again.
The party directly responsible for Mary’s troubles was a bacteria. It isn’t about assigning responsibility for the problem, it’s about protecting the people around her. It is not her fault, but she is the epicenter of the problem, and it is going to follow her around for the forseeable future.
Do you have a concrete suggestion for a way to keep her in the school, but actually prevent the ex from coming on the premises, or just platitudes? The restraining order she already had didn’t work. Waiting until he comes on premises then having him arrested doesn’t stop the disruption to the school. How about explosive charges in his carotid arteries, primed to go off if he comes within 1000 ft of the school, like they did to Snake Plissken?
I guess “WWJD” isn’t a common phrase at that school. What a great way to teach kids(and their parents) what Christians should do when possible adversity rears its head.
Right, because disruptions of any kind to the school are an absolute, sacrosanct no-no, even if it means having to fire a single mother from her only job, even though she didn’t do anything wrong.
Just like laws against murder and rape, a restraining order doesn’t directly prevent anything from happening; it just provides penalties after the fact. If it’s not disincentive enough to prevent the first trespass, then after he’s spent 6-12 months in jail maybe it’ll be enough of a disincentive to prevent a second trespass.