Recently I read about a high school principle somewhere in the Maryland-Virginia area caught trying to solicit sex with an undercover cop acting as a prostitute. After a thorough investigation, the school system’s superintendant fired him.
This episode sparked some debate within the community. Some say the man’s personal life is just that. Others believe that a principle–especially one who is central to the school’s high-visibility “Character Counts” program–must be held to a higher standard and that allowing him to remain as principal would send a bad message to the kids.
I agree with the latter position. What’s your take?
If his employer had as part of their policies and procedures (as virtually every employer I’ve ever worked for has) a statement of character which includes something to the effect that a conviction on morals charges would result in firing, then whether it’s right or wrong is moot. He agreed to it by continuing to work there.
I dunno. I am sure if this was my son’s principal I’d be real cranky about it. But objectively, I can’t help thinking if it’s on his own time, it’s his business. I mean, there are probably all sorts of people in positions of authority who kids look up to, who in their off hours do things that would raise eyebrows. So this guy wanted to pay someone to suck him off? Big whoop.
The real question for me maybe isn’t morality but judgment. I think if you’re in a position of authority, you ought to be a little careful about doing things that could attract negative public notice, or could earn you an arrest. I mean, do whatever depraved thing you want, but don’t be doing it in a way that the kids at school (and their parents) might eventually hear about it. Such as soliciting for sex on the street. To me, this becomes an issue of “How dumb is this guy?” instead of “How depraved is his moral character?”
Oh, and of course, if the depraved things involved kids, I’d feel completely differently.
I totally agree with the firing. It’s a question of character. I don’t particularly agree with the “whatever you do on your own time” mindset when it comes to those in a position of authority, leadership, or role model. These positions are all about character, which is not a temporary thing; it’s not something you turn on and off while coming and going from your job.
If this story is true, then good riddance to this idiot.
Cranky, would you therefore redirect the high-visibility “Character Counts” school campaign and rename it the “Judgment Counts” initiative? Or perhaps the “Get a Hotel Room” campaign? Perhaps tell the kids that
prostitution is okay among the school leadership just as long as the proper venue is chosen? That the real focus should be one of clever public relations rather than one of good character?
Are you setting higher standards for the kids than the faculty? Or are the kids given the green light to pimp, prostitute and procure as they wish. Is the faculty free to solicit prostitutes (or work as same) as long as no one is caught? BTW, what place does “morality” have in school?
You say “big whoop” to the principal’s actions, yet later talk of “depraved things.” Do you mean that depraved things are okay–just don’t let the kids see you doing them? Shouldn’t your campaign thus be called: “Don’t Let Anyone Catch You”?
Unless the principal’s job duties and responsibilities include “maintaining an upright role model” and/or chastity, I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s this sort of judgemental thinking that gave us the Monica Lewinsky stupidity in the first place.
Surely, if the principal broke his employment agreement he should be fired and his character might reasonably be questioned for any such breach.
As a practical matter he will likely have undermined his support from certain reactionary segments of the community regardless of the clauses of his contract, a circumstance which may make it most constructive to resign.
But in either case the shame is on the community for vainly trying to perpetuate an absurd prohibition. Was this man a good principal? Don’t most of us offer our services for a fee? Is sexuality really so offensive to us?
As Jocelyn Elders discovered, yes it is. Pathetic.
There’s a double question here. The first question is “Do you care if the principal did something illegal?”, and the second is “Do you care if the principal solicited a prostitute?”
The first answer, for me, is “yes”. Influencing the kiddies and all that. The second question, for me, is only “yes” in the instance of the first question. (If prostitution is illegal, than I care if a principal was caught soliciting one.) If prostitution was legal, then I don’t care if a principal goes to one (provided that the pros wasn’t a student or teacher, then you get ethical problems).
And phartizan, I don’t believe that giving blowjobs for free is illegal in DC.
All employees with my school district have a morals clause in their contracts, so therefore I agree with the firing. The man is supposed to be a role model. Plus, he compromised his authority. No kid would take discipline from him seriously ever again.
I’m all for doing whatever you want on yor own time, I just make sure it’s legal so I don’t lose my job.
Bill Clinton satiated his libedo with a consenting adult – I don’t see the problem there. Unlike the guy who’s currently in the White House, trying to supress past DUI convictions, being AWOL from military duty, and unduly evicting homeowners from their properties so he could build a baseball stadium…
No - I don’t think the principal should have been fired - but then I don’t even think prostitution should be illegal. But I guess thats an issue for another forum…
Outta here.
I’m NOT basing this on any huge acceptance of existing laws. Our stance on issues from casual marijuana use to blowjobs is distinctly schizophrenic–and I’m not doin’ so well myself.
But pragmatically speaking, he’s gonna be the last appeal for kids tossed outta school, off teams and outta scholarships for keggers, buying cigs underage and assorted hormonal hijinks.
And it says something–not flattering–that I expect something higher and pragmatically harder on the local level than I do the national.
Gives me pause to think it all over again.
Then again, maybe accountability, repuation–and possibly redemption–aren’t that cut and dried.