SO, if this is the case, anyone out there with a vindictive boy/girlfriend could end your career over a lapse in judgement & allowing them to video or photograph you having sex. Anyone else think its odd that this is exactly how Kardashian became famous?
Worse things have been said about Van Halen's music, but few as accurate-
I'm reminded of being in jump school in the early 80's. One black-hat was on about how the most common thing for new grads to do was to get tattoos commemorating the occasion. He told us that such identifying marks could potentially disqualify us from future opportunities both inside the military and in other government agencies and how we all needed to be sure of where we intended to go before making that decision to ink ourselves.
The point is that this is an age old debate. One group is adamant that behavior has consequences while the other argues that it shouldn't. I come down on the behavior does have consequences side. You make your choices and you deal with the fallout. Sometime those are life long repercussions other times it's over in five minutes. If you totally screw the pooch and some avenues are henceforth permanently sealed off to you, so be it. That 's called life.
An aside to StaggerLee's story. Not too long ago, DoD decided visible tattoos were henceforth not allowed on service personnel. I recall, when that happened, AoM had a thread where one fellow was bemoaning the fact that his tattoos had just cost him an upcoming enlistment in the USAF.
Well, no. She was not simply photographed by an ex on his cell phone while smokin' the ol meat cigar. She was a full-on, paid, professional porno star. Big difference there.
From the article...
Her attorney says .. "She obviously is not a sophisticated woman. She is a very good, hardworking, dedicated teacher."
Not the most complimentary statement her attorney could have made. I wonder if his heart was really in it as he argued her case. One also gets the impression that her attorney thinks Teachers are just one step above being a hooker.
Also, don't know who all saw the articles/news last week on the Colorado teacher?
She was constantly putting stupid crap up on twitter. Talking about having drugs in her car while kids were busted, pictures of her mostly naked, pictures of her smoking dope, talking about the "jailbait" boys in her class hitting on her, and so on.
That is one I would join everyone in defending the firing of.
Agreed. Not sure I understand your distinction between posting stupid crap on Twitter and getting paid to have your T&A posted all over Google? Why should one be fired and the other not?
I read an article about the porn star case. Apparently in a pre-bang interview on one of her movies, she said she was a teacher, knew it was risky, and expected she could get fired for this. Difficult to find sympathy for intentional stupidity.
Another vaguely-related case -- three-time olympic athlete, spokes-broad for Nike and Disney, and successful realtor moonlighting as a call-girl ...
Not as problematic as a moonlighting teacher. My guess is her Disney promo days are done, though. At least she takes responsibility, which I can respect ...
“I take full responsibility for my mistakes. I’m not the victim and I’m not going that route,” Favor Hamilton said. “I’m owning up to what I did. I would not blame anybody except myself.”
Shields, stuff like lists & chronologies are basic facts of history, granted. But how do you quantify interpretation of texts, whether in history or English? Isn't that a matter of opinion? Aren't there debates on almost all major political actions?
Mr. Biden to the contrary notwithstanding, FDR did not get on TV to tell America about the stock market crash of 1929. It is a fact that America was not watching television; & it is a fact that FDR was not president until 1933. The man who says otherwise is either lying or is too stupid to know he does not know whereof he speaks. How about this though, did FDR help end the Depression or did he create it? What do you teach kids? How do you judge what they learn?
So also in English: Isn't it a matter of opinion whether Hemingway was a great writer or a self-important prick, whether his books are great or not, as with all others? If you learn what a metaphor is, then you can recognize one, maybe even use one. You can test that. But it's worthless. How do you teach or learn or judge whether a metaphor is useful or not in some book they teach in English?
At the same time, it is a matter of opinion, not fact, whether chronologies & lists are important, & how important grammar is, spelling, &c.--Really, you need to judge these things; there's no scientific way to do it. Whether you're good at your job, unless your job is a craft or a science, is a matter of opinion. & history & English, arguably the most important things in school, are not sciences or crafts.
The only emotionally based argument you are offering is whether Hemingway was great or a prick. That is an emotional argument that has nothing to do with interpreting his writing, nor what should be taught and accepted as having sufficiently learned at a specific grade level.
That is the same argument I have for a teacher and their previous actions. If they no longer do them, they only did them before they taught, and they no longer openly endorse them, it is only a matter of an emotional based opinion for firing them and not an opinion based on interpretations of actual teaching skills and results.
The teacher above in my colorado example did such actions while currently teaching and openly endorsed them. This is not a matter of simple emotion.
10 years from now, I am being looked at in joining the C-suite for a major company. I have streamlined everything I have touched bringing in profit for everyone involved. I am a leader based on my actions at the work place. It comes to light that I voted for Obama in 2008, and the rest of the C-suite and the board is convinced that Obama is the worst thing that ever happened to America. I am not only denied the promotion, but I am let go. It is the same thing. Sure, you have the right to do it, but you are doing so based on emotion rather than what exactly was being offered. It makes you an emotionally crippled retard that would hurt your own bottom line based on something that really doesn't quantifiably matter.
I don't think you understand what opinion means. The people who are outraged at that professor have opinions about who teaches, not only what is taught; you assign to them emotions & are blind to the opinions which are associated with them. I suppose that's what that 'just the facts, ma'am' attitude does to cripple thinking.
Whether FDR was great is also a matter of opinion, not just whether Hemingway was. So with everyone else; it makes no difference to a scientist whether whoever did science was great--if you remove all the proper names from theories you have removed nothing scientific; names & opinions & emotions are the substance of everything that is not a science. If that does not teach you that the who matters as much as the what, nothing will.
Now, as for your example, businesses are concerned with making money, to my understanding. Schools are not. It makes sense to hire a moral monster to make money, if you have reasons to think he can make you money; it wouldn't in school. In business, your reputation for business matters; you may not at all matter otherwise. In school, your business acumen does not matter; what matters is whether children can see in you what they're supposed to end up as when they grow up--teachers are an education, it is not merely something they do, like a job.
A) Just like with the scientist, where it doesn't matter if they are great, with FDR or Hemingway, just study what they did.
B) I think you hit my biggest point. I want the schools run more like a business. I would rather have a former Black Panther who once, long ago, preached death to whitey(or whatever stupidity goes on with them) teaching Physics if they are far and away superior in teaching and motivation than the "morally" upstanding person who is only lackluster and can't inspire yet had the perfect past. An emotional argument to disclaim what is otherwise a competent component of any team is incompetent management. I want results, not feelings. I want a school focused on the actual education, and let me focus on the morals and values of my own child.
Scrutinizing role models (like teachers) is "focus[ing] on the morals and values of my own child." It is naive to expect your kid to be influenced by you alone. I'm not leaving my kid with a porn star all day for a year.
Not all past "imperfections" are dealbreakers. Some are ... no matter how clever she is at teaching physics. Find somebody who's effective and a trustworthy role-model, or I'll find another school.
Once again, emotion is clouding your judgement of what I am even saying.
A) The teacher is not with your child all day for a year. At most, the teacher is with your child for an hour, 5 days a week, roughly 36 weeks a year. If during that time, it can be proven that the teacher is not doing their job and using that limited time for anythign else, then your argument holds water. Until then, your emotions are distorting actual facts.
B) The fact that not all past imperfections are deal breakers makes it then an emotional criteria. It is also an emotional critiria that for YOU individually that you would rather have a better role model in general life than a better, more effective, "clever" teacher. That is fine for you as an individual, but my argument is that it should be left to you as an individual. That the district should weigh everything out before making such an emotional decision for everyone else.