NationStates Jolt Archive

School in dilemma over teacher's prostitution work

The Teachers' Council may be asked to decide whether any action should be taken against an Auckland primary school teacher moonlighting as a prostitute.
The new teacher, a mother in her 30s with two children, has been working as a prostitute to supplement her income.
The newspaper, which did not name the teacher or her school, said a parent told the teacher's principal, who was balancing a possible negative reaction from parents with the woman's right to work in a job which has been legal in New Zealand since 2003.
It has been referred to the school's board of trustees, which will meet in committee to debate whether to ignore the issue, discipline the teacher or ask the Teachers' Council to decide.
The woman reportedly told the principal that her action in her own time was not his concern, and that it was not affecting her ability as a teacher.
Teachers' Council director Peter Lind said the most important factor was whether the teacher's second job was affecting her teaching duties, "and there would have to be actual evidence".
Employment lawyer John Hannan, who knew of the case, said a school could possibly take action even if it didn't have a policy either preventing teachers taking secondary jobs or ensuring they first seek approval from their board.
"It's a case of whether the outside employment is regarded as incompatible with the role of a teacher in terms of role-modelling and in terms of any policies that the board of trustees might have in place."
Another employment lawyer, Patrick Walsh, said the council could intervene if the school deemed the teacher's second job was "conduct that brings discredit to the profession".
Prostitutes Collective national co-ordinator Catherine Healy said there were several teachers who had second jobs as prostitutes.
Frances Nelson, the president of the New Zealand Education Institute, the union for 97 percent of primary school teachers, could not be contacted.
Two years ago, an Auckland policewoman was disciplined after it was discovered she had an extra job as a sex-worker.
Police bosses said they would not have approved the job because it was seen as inappropriate and incompatible with policing. The woman kept her police job following an investigation.
http://www.3news.co.nz/National/Story/tabid/423/articleID/72448/cat/41/Default.aspx

What do you lot think?
I'm sorta sitting on the fence here. I can see the whole,'what you do outside work hours is your own business' pov, but teaching is a vocation not just a job. You're pretty much a teacher 24/7, at least in the public's eyes.
My mum's a primary school teacher, and been teaching at the same school now for 26 years. If I go out shopping with her, the chances of several people (and not just parents) stopping to say hello to her, or kids running up to her is, well, 100%. She's in the public eye every time she goes out - and under public scrutiny. It's unfair, sure, but that is something a person wishing to become a teacher has to be aware of, and accept (which is part of the reason I don't wish to be one!).
And by inference, her being in the public eye means her school is too. Again, it's unfair but a simple fact of a teacher's life.
So all this warbling means is that I can well understand if the school decides this is inappropriate. Hopefully, though they'll see sense and let her teach til the end of the school year (which in NZ is just before Xmas) and give her a damn good reference to help her into another teaching job elsewhere.

First off, I think this should be taken as an incentive to pay teachers better.

I agree with you that teaching is among the professions that is more than just a job, but - as you said - a vocation. It's one of the reasons I'm going to become a teacher soon.

On a more humorous note, she should be transferred to high-school level and head sex-ed.

Well they needn't fire her at the moment. From what it says only the school administrators know about it, so she has kept her anonymity. They should just give her an ultimatum, either she quits slobberin knob or she quits teaching.

Which parent tried to buy her services?

I think that she should be fired she is a teacher and has two kids!

I dunno. I don't really approve of such a combination of jobs, and yes, she'll be in the public eye, but at the same time... I think it's her right to pursue both occupations, if that's what she wants, whether I think it's a good idea or not.

http://www.3news.co.nz/National/Story/tabid/423/articleID/72448/cat/41/Default.aspx

What do you lot think?
I'm sorta sitting on the fence here. I can see the whole,'what you do outside work hours is your own business' pov, but teaching is a vocation not just a job. You're pretty much a teacher 24/7, at least in the public's eyes.
My mum's a primary school teacher, and been teaching at the same school now for 26 years. If I go out shopping with her, the chances of several people (and not just parents) stopping to say hello to her, or kids running up to her is, well, 100%. She's in the public eye every time she goes out - and under public scrutiny. It's unfair, sure, but that is something a person wishing to become a teacher has to be aware of, and accept (which is part of the reason I don't wish to be one!).
And by inference, her being in the public eye means her school is too. Again, it's unfair but a simple fact of a teacher's life.
So all this warbling means is that I can well understand if the school decides this is inappropriate. Hopefully, though they'll see sense and let her teach til the end of the school year (which in NZ is just before Xmas) and give her a damn good reference to help her into another teaching job elsewhere.

For the most part I am an "outside of work is none of works business" sort of person. but in the cases of teachers as well as other educators you have the idea that not only do they provide information but they in many ways provide an example and moral guide to youngsters. As such I think they are bound to provide a good example

As for your point on pay I agree it saddens me that possibly the money was so bad that she was forced along this path

Well they needn't fire her at the moment. From what it says only the school administrators know about it, so she has kept her anonymity. They should just give her an ultimatum, either she quits slobberin knob or she quits teaching.

She wasn't even selling to the student body either.

:D

Shameful.

I think it is emblematic of the misplaced values of our society that a prostitute has to supplement her income by engaging in the dirty practice of teaching.

What is the difference between a female or male teacher having sex with strangers in a nightclub for free and her getting paid to do it? Would you advocate a teacher being fired or censured for her or his behaviour for being overly promiscuous?

What if they were having an affair? A recovering alcoholic? A smoker?

Teachers, like everyone else, are people too. True, they have a vocation, but until we are going to censure the myriad other inappropriate behaviours that teachers exhibit, we should not censure this teacher for supplementing an income ridiculously disproportionate to the job she actually does. Prostitution is a legal activity in NZ and therefore the teacher is not breaking any laws. She may be setting a bad example, but so are the multitude of other teachers with bad habits.

I'm glad this was brought up actually. I've been talking about community standards in regards to lawyers and teachers both as examples of self-regulating professions. I'd definitely say that the requirements for 'good character' are more onerous when it comes to educators. I could have, for example, lost my teaching license had someone discovered my sexual proclivities...whereas it wouldn't really be deemed relevant as a lawyer.

Is it valid though? Does prostitution...or your particular sexual tastes...assuming consenting adults...really impact your ability to perform as a teacher? I have never felt that it does, or that it should be taken into account. The ability of the community to impose their particular morals on educators is somewhat disturbing. It honestly varies community to community. If you are living in a very religious, conservative town, your ethical code has to reflect that.

I'm a good teacher, and I love it. Eventually I want to go back to it...but I know that in doing so, I have to keep certain aspects of my life very private. I didn't used to have a big problem with that, and perhaps it won't be all that difficult...but I certainly don't agree with it.

I think that she should be fired she is a teacher and has two kids!

I'm sorry, I don't see the link between those facts. I'm not sure what your causal relationship is. She's a teacher with kids, and thus should be fired? Or teachers with two kids who also prostitute themselves should be fired? Why?

Doesn't make a difference, people should back the hell off.

I'm a good teacher, and I love it. Eventually I want to go back to it...but I know that in doing so, I have to keep certain aspects of my life very private. I didn't used to have a big problem with that, and perhaps it won't be all that difficult...but I certainly don't agree with it.

It's something I'm just really starting to deal with now as a new teacher, and it's hard. I'm not the most controversial person by any means, but I do feel that there are some parts of my life I have to keep private even from my colleagues--I don't think I could ever talk to them about my relationship if I had a girlfriend the way they talk about their husbands. Of course, that's my choice--no one is forcing me to censor myself. But as a new teacher I can be fired at any time, for any reason or no reason, and I really want to work. :/

You need to watch your ass until you get your permanent certification.

It's better working in a large urban centre than in the country.

But yes, certain things, you need to be discreet about.

I'm glad this was brought up actually. I've been talking about community standards in regards to lawyers and teachers both as examples of self-regulating professions. I'd definitely say that the requirements for 'good character' are more onerous when it comes to educators. I could have, for example, lost my teaching license had someone discovered my sexual proclivities...whereas it wouldn't really be deemed relevant as a lawyer.

Is it valid though? Does prostitution...or your particular sexual tastes...assuming consenting adults...really impact your ability to perform as a teacher? I have never felt that it does, or that it should be taken into account. The ability of the community to impose their particular morals on educators is somewhat disturbing. It honestly varies community to community. If you are living in a very religious, conservative town, your ethical code has to reflect that.

I'm a good teacher, and I love it. Eventually I want to go back to it...but I know that in doing so, I have to keep certain aspects of my life very private. I didn't used to have a big problem with that, and perhaps it won't be all that difficult...but I certainly don't agree with it.
I would agree as a whole ... maybe my post should have been focused twordes social mores possible

It is a complicated subject but for example in a society where prostitution was both legal and regulated I would say the teacher partaking in it would and should be significantly less of an issue

But with the teacher ... in the society she is in and in the place where she is at with it not being legal I think she should have made other choices.

This is a tough argument for me with my view that prostitution itself should be legal and not particularly frowned upon and her current agreement to act as a guide for her younger students int eh society she is currently in

Key fact for me: "the woman's right to work in a job which has been legal in New Zealand since 2003."

If prostitution was illegal in New Zealand, I think a reasonable (if perhaps overly stuffy and moralistic) case could be made that a teacher shouldn't engage in such activity.

Completely legal sex-work on the other hand, I don't think should matter.

(Note: I don't think sex-work should be illegal, but I can see some argument being made about role models and community standards if the community bans that behavior. In the absence of that, people are just being prudes.)

I would agree as a whole ... maybe my post should have been focused twordes social mores possible

It is a complicated subject but for example in a society where prostitution was both legal and regulated I would say the teacher partaking in it would and should be significantly less of an issue

But with the teacher ... in the society she is in and in the place where she is at with it not being legal I think she should have made other choices.

This is a tough argument for me with my view that prostitution itself should be legal and not particularly frowned upon and her current agreement to act as a guide for her younger students int eh society she is currently in

Did you use your psychic abilities to steal my thoughts again?

:p

Did you use your psychic abilities to steal my thoughts again?

:p
no drunken psychic abilities :)

Nice to see that I both made sense and am in agreement with you :)

There's very little information on why she's doing this, the assumption is that she needs the extra pay, which means losing her job would be the worst possible outcome.

I'm reading a, possibly poor in terms of written, but interesting nonetheless, book about a person in Australia who similarly supplemented teaching with prostitution on the side. Slowly the teaching became less and the prostitution became more.

The interesting aspect is the justification she used, the liberation she felt from the start, which was, in her own words, a delicate Chinese vase held together by suspending belief. She held the belief that the men were grateful to her, that she was performing a good service, she felt she was in control.

She wasn't.

It's not a 'prostitution is bad' book, it's quite matter-of-fact and I haven't read the conclusion yet, I'm a good 100 pages off.

I have strong issues with prostitution, I don't think it's ever a positive choice, I'd like to see far less of it but the demand is simply too high. Where it's been legalised, both legal and illegal prostitution has risen, it's not the simple answer we'd like it to be.

And how did the school find out? Prehaps we should be scoulding the person who told the children.

I assume some parent had sex with her and passed the infomation on. I doubt she was in the middle of the main street with a sign saying "X pounds pef fuck"

We haven't used Pounds in New Zealand since July 1967, thank you very much.

Anyways, my view of the matter is that teachers have a certain moral obligation on top of their legal obligations. At my old school, we had a teacher sacked for moonlighting as a stripper; there have been principals in New Zealand who have been fired for viewing ordinary pornography. Therefore, the school was correct in its decision.

Also, I don't think it is an issue of the teacher being paid too little; IIRC, a primary school teacher in New Zealand earns about NZ$45,000 per year, and that is enough to maintain a decent livestyle, even in Auckland. She probably just wanted the money because she wanted more.

While she did not act illegally, she did act unethically.

A similar example (though, admittedly, not perfect):

The state of Massachusets has no law preventing a sexual relationship between teacher and student providing both are of legal age. This means that any teacher can sleep with an 18+ student. The teacher may not be fired, but may be "encouraged" to leave.

There was a teacher in one school who had such a relationship, and left shortly after due to the breach of ethics.


Now, this example is different because it directly impacts students, rather than this, which only does so incidentally. However, the basic concept is the same. Ethics are subjective, yes. However, one must consider how it will impact their professional life.

As mentioned before, teachers tend to be in the public eye at all times. A student may see you on the corner, or, heaven forfend, might actually try to pay for your services. A student's parent may do so. Hell, an administrator or coworker might. Is that something that a teacher should introduce to their classroom?

I lean towards no. Pretty sharply.

I'm not entirely sure if actions should be taken against her, aside from a slap on the wrist, however.

The point of the matter is that, yes, teachers are in the public eye. We are expected to behave in a way that promotes us as role models for the students we teach. In many ways, we're held to the same standards as police and politicians, and for much the same reason, because those who wield the power of authority in society have got to conform to the stated (not actual) social moors of said society.

She may not have broke the law, but she did go beyond the ethical boundaries of her profession. As my wife is currently finding out the hard way, a teacher's time is not bound by the school clock and there's never really a time when we're off it.

What is the difference between a female or male teacher having sex with strangers in a nightclub for free and her getting paid to do it? Would you advocate a teacher being fired or censured for her or his behaviour for being overly promiscuous?

What if they were having an affair? A recovering alcoholic? A smoker?
Many schools (according to my Mum, whose been a teacher nearly 40 years now and been regional head of the teacher's union) would in fact seek to dismiss* someone who was acting inappropriately, like shagging their way through the local singles nightclub or drinking heavily outside work hours.
Unfortunately for teachers, they are seen as examples of their school. And parents can - and do - vote with their feet about where to send their precious mites to based on how they perceive that schools teachers. The school board will take that into consideration.


*actually not dismiss, cause it's almost impossible to do so, more just 'encourage' them to move on. Which is a separate problem in itself.


Teacher pay in NZ is pretty good nowadays (though not as good as Oz) but starting pay is still lowish. She's most prob a single mum (report doesn't actually say). Lots of assumptions here but here goes for my two scenarios:
1. Single mum, 2 kids to support, new to teaching, lots of student debt + old debt from years of piss-poor jobs (why else would you decide to become a teacher in your 30's? ;)).
2. Newly divorced mum, 2 kids to support, new to teaching, lots of newly acquired debt from divorce AND a student debt.
Not that it matters why she's doing it but I'm bored and trying out my SuperSpecialSherlockSluthingSkills. yeah, I know they suck.



The vid-link says it was a parent who dobbed her in. Hmmm....wonder how he (or was it SHE :tongue:) found out? ;)

I agree with German Nightmare on his point that teachers should be paid more, it is one of the most important jobs in the country and they get paid less then the jobs there teaching students to go into.

If this teachers needs the money to make ends meet then I have no problem, aslong as she does not encourage it onto students.

Teachers get paid more in Australia (where I live) but it's still not enough compared to the importance of there position and depending on the school, the conditions they have to work in like in High Schools is terrible.

Like being a policemen, you can do your job the best you can but in the end you get no thanks for any of it.

I'm kinda divided on this issue.

On one hand, the morality BIOS in me screams "wrong", on the other, I'm not sure it's all that bad. At least, professional prostitution is more honest than the more invisible kind. And it's good for teachers to be closer to their students - not in that way, of course - but it may be actually a good example. We should get prostitution out of the closet and stop the discrimination.

I'm kinda divided on this issue.

On one hand, the morality BIOS in me screams "wrong", on the other, I'm not sure it's all that bad. At least, professional prostitution is more honest than the more invisible kind. And it's good for teachers to be closer to their students - not in that way, of course - but it may be actually a good example. We should get prostitution out of the closet and stop the discrimination.
I've never tried fitting a prostitute in a closet. Do they charge extra for that?

The point of the matter is that, yes, teachers are in the public eye.
That doesn't make you public property. I don't see how you can claim that it does, because that's ultimately implied by saying that she can't use her body for whatever she wants to. She didn't hurt anyone, and it really isn't the business of anyone in her daytime job. Even her position as a role model need not be compromised: even if we were to accept the negative connotations associated with prostitution, her students could happily go through their academic careers never knowing what she does on a Saturday night.

Let me ask you, did you think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for the Lewinsky thing (not the lying, but the act itself)?

Like being a policemen, you can do your job the best you can but in the end you get no thanks for any of it.
If you're doing a job because you expect to get thanks, you're on the wrong track. The last thing anyone should do with their life is make compromises so that it looks good in the eyes of others.

Let me ask you, did you think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for the Lewinsky thing (not the lying, but the act itself)?
you're equating teachers with politicians? What next, comparing them to used car salesmen?
Have you no shame?;)

You're missing the point of the effect this might have on the parents opinions of that school. Some parents, rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly imo), will think the worse for this teacher (and the school) and remove their children. Schools get funding - and teacher allocation - based on role size. For all we know, this school might be just 1 or 2 students above a threshold. 3 leave and they would have to lose a teacher in the coming school year. And not just lose a teacher, but also lose extra money for positions of responsibility and extra funding for extra-curricular activities.
So a teacher's actions outside school can have a direct consequence on their school, and their students.


Using your case, it's not that they shd be kicked out of office for personal affairs, but the effect their affair wd have on the voters opinions of their party which is important. Enough voters put off by his sexual dalliances might be enough to give the opposition the majority in the next election. In which case, the affair in itself isn't the issue but the effect it has on the Party and public opinion thereupon.


Which is why teachers (and politicians) do need to think how their out-of-work hours behaviour might affect their public position.

I've never tried fitting a prostitute in a closet.
Try a water one.

you're equating teachers with politicians? What next, comparing them to used car salesmen?
Have you no shame?;)
To be fair, it wasn't me who came up with the comparison, it's straight from the post I quoted.

You're missing the point of the effect this might have on the parents opinions of that school. Some parents, rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly imo), will think the worse for this teacher (and the school) and remove their children.
And the same could be true for any other business. Customers may stay away if they know the check-out chick also happens to be a prostitute. So would it be okay to fire her because of that?

We can make arguments for and against the freedom of employers to hire and fire people based on things like these which obviously have no effect on their effectiveness in the work they're actually being paid for, but if we were to do that, we should stop talking in this "Think of the children!" and approach it as we would any other line of work.

And the same could be true for any other business. Customers may stay away if they know the check-out chick also happens to be a prostitute. So would it be okay to fire her because of that?
Pure capitalism says that it's OK to fire her because you're in a bad mood today.

I understand the position the school is in, really, but can't we, as a society, move past such prudish ideas such as the belief that sex is something that needs to be secreted away, that people who dare to enjoy it without a preacher giving his permission are doing something shameful, and that people who are open about sex can't be good role models?

The idea that there's something in anyway unethical or immoral about consensual sex is a big part of of the outdated worldview that causes so much of what is wrong with the world.

Shameful.

I think it is emblematic of the misplaced values of our society that a prostitute has to supplement her income by engaging in the dirty practice of teaching.

...I actually agree.

prostitution is an excellent way of teaching the fundimentals of capitolism by example
(although rape might more closely resemble its current makiavellian practice)

Prostitution is an excellent way of teaching the fundamentals of capitalism by example

This is a great quote, is it yours? Not that it matters, I've also edited your sentence out of habit, apologies.

I see it as a shade of gray... Prostitution, as the article says, IS legal in New Zealand... So she didn't break any laws. However, one of my B.A.'s is in secondary education and it's important for teachers not to do "questionable" stuff in the public eye. Believe it or not, kids DO pick up on what their teachers do and it will effect the learning environment. What sort of kid is going to take a teacher who also works as a prostitute seriously? If kids in New Zealand are anything like kids in America, they'd all be more focused on her secondary job rather than her teaching.

Moreover, what if she teaches 18 year olds and one of her students (as perverted as it is) pays her and sleeps with her? That could create a really big problem, especially if the student brags about it to his peers.

Overall, I think she should be forced to quit the prostitution job and then transfered to a new school. Regardless of weather or not she quits, she'll still be seen as a sexual tool rather than a teacher by her students and maybe her collegues.

I think , personaly that this is sick.. she has a right however to have what ever job she wants. How ever!!! she need to understand that if the kids find out that mrs HobKnob is a hoing herself out, this will effect them. How can this women be a role model for these kids and do this?? Reading writing math, and horing 101.???? she needs to be told, to quit one job or the other. if she wont, fire her. as a parent i wouldnt want some one doing this teaching my child.

I see it as a shade of gray... Prostitution, as the article says, IS legal in New Zealand... So she didn't break any laws. However, one of my B.A.'s is in secondary education and it's important for teachers not to do "questionable" stuff in the public eye. Believe it or not, kids DO pick up on what their teachers do and it will effect the learning environment. What sort of kid is going to take a teacher who also works as a prostitute seriously? If kids in New Zealand are anything like kids in America, they'd all be more focused on her secondary job rather than her teaching.

Moreover, what if she teaches 18 year olds and one of her students (as perverted as it is) pays her and sleeps with her? That could create a really big problem, especially if the student brags about it to his peers.

Overall, I think she should be forced to quit the prostitution job and then transfered to a new school. Regardless of weather or not she quits, she'll still be seen as a sexual tool rather than a teacher by her students and maybe her collegues.

Not quite sure about that one. Substitue 'sexual worker' with 'gay' or 30 years ago 'black', kids will be kids, and teachers will be teased, but one of my best teachers was a gay man, and yes after the questions, the abuse and the teasing, he just got right down to it and taught us.

Not quite sure about that one. Substitue 'sexual worker' with 'gay' or 30 years ago 'black', kids will be kids, and teachers will be teased, but one of my best teachers was a gay man, and yes after the questions, the abuse and the teasing, he just got right down to it and taught us.

Yes, but I'm also sure your homosexual teacher didn't have to worry about being treated like a sexual object.

It IS legal, however, and seeing as the teacher did not break any laws... I don't know... We'll see what New Zealand says.

Yes, but I'm also sure your homosexual teacher didn't have to worry about being treated like a sexual object.

It IS legal, however, and seeing as the teacher did not break any laws... I don't know... We'll see what New Zealand says.

Well agian I don't know about that he was a resonable looking bloke, and if growing into an adult has taught me anything, it is that all of us get treated as sexual objects.

The point being though, he went through some rough stuff, and it didn't make him a bad teacher. I of course don't know the temprement of the teacher involved in this case, but shit if she wants to hold down two jobs, I'm fairly sure she has weighed up the pros and cons, and yet she still went ahead with her choice.

I don't think seems the type to crumble do you?

That doesn't make you public property.
Actually, it does. My wages are paid by the public, the public is entrusting me with their children, society is entrusting me with its future... that does seem to give them a claim to my actions in terms of expected behavior for teachers. As I've stated before, schools mirror the society that they are in (Not the other way around) which means that we reflect the ideas and values of the society we're in and that society DOES have a claim to how we teach, what we teach, and who teaches.

I don't see how you can claim that it does, because that's ultimately implied by saying that she can't use her body for whatever she wants to. She didn't hurt anyone, and it really isn't the business of anyone in her daytime job. Even her position as a role model need not be compromised: even if we were to accept the negative connotations associated with prostitution, her students could happily go through their academic careers never knowing what she does on a Saturday night.
She WAS found out though, that be the problem. I could abuse puppies in my spare time, but that wouldn't make it a good thing for I as a teacher to do under the guise of what my students don't know won't hurt them. Teachers are indeed under more public scrutiny than, say, the burger flipper at McDonald's and it is something that teachers need to be aware of, whether they like it or not.

Let me ask you, did you think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for the Lewinsky thing (not the lying, but the act itself)?
No, but on the other hand, I cannot just blow off (heh) what he did because as president he IS held to a higher standard. I'm not saying that the teacher should be removed, but stating that her time is her own just doesn't wash.

If they want to control my whole damn life they're going to have to start paying me a lot better.

It is a completely legal job, which does not interfere with her occupation as long as she refuses to serve kiddies (illegal anyway). Preferably stay away from their close relatives as well to prevent comments like "you are failing my kid because his uncle always demands blowjobs, didn't you !".

People that have a problem with the job should perhaps do what they send their kids to school for: grow up.

i guess she needed some mo money

If the teacher doesn't introduce her job as a prostitute into the classroom, I fail to see how this is any issue at all.

If the teacher doesn't introduce her job as a prostitute into the classroom, I fail to see how this is any issue at all.
Oh but she did. She was caught at it after all and if you think that half the school doesn't know who she is now you've must have forgotten your own school days.

I may have gone to a different school than you. I don't remember any of my teachers being outed for anything. There were rumors that one was a lesbian but it was never confirmed and most kids didn't give a shit.

So far the teacher remains anonymous and it is possible the parent who brought it to the schools attention didn't tell their kid.

Besides, having some idiot go complain to the school about a legal activity that the teacher is performing, isn't the same as "the teacher introducing her job as a prostitute into the classroom".

The real harm being done here is by those who are demonizing prostitutes.

No she shouldn't. For one thing, if it's okay for her to be a prostitute in general then why would it be bad for her to do so and be a teacher, it's not wrong...

If they do fire her, she'll have no choice to become full-time in her "other" job which would just be an irony.
It says a lot of about her current pay as a teacher.

I may have gone to a different school than you. I don't remember any of my teachers being outed for anything. There were rumors that one was a lesbian but it was never confirmed and most kids didn't give a shit.
Perhaps no one did anything then. As a teacher, I can say that rumors fly through a school like there is no tomorrow.

So far the teacher remains anonymous and it is possible the parent who brought it to the schools attention didn't tell their kid.
Yeah, right. I'm willing to bet that most of the school knows who it is.

Besides, having some idiot go complain to the school about a legal activity that the teacher is performing, isn't the same as "the teacher introducing her job as a prostitute into the classroom".
If you found out that one of your teachers was moonlighting as a prostitute, how would you have reacted? Honestly now? How many jokes would you have made? How many rude comments?

It comes back to the question of why prostitution is perceived as immoral or shameful in the first place. Teaching and Prostitution are two perfectly legal occupations in New Zealand and the argument that one profession makes one respectable and therefore unsuitable for employment in another is weak and falls on prejudices and plain old bigotry.
There is no professional conflict of interest (eg. between a regulator and the regulated) unless one tries to bring up "role model" which goes back to what exactly makes a prostitute an unsuitable role model.

Meh, whatever she decides to do outside of school is her business, and her business only.

Now, if she offered a free night of service to the highest scoring students in her class, that would certainly encourage them to study and then some.

:D

Now, if she offered a free night of service to the highest scoring students in her class, that would certainly encourage them to study and then some.

:D

What if the highest scoring student in the class was the same sex as her though?

What if the highest scoring student in the class was the same sex as her though?

Depends on if the student is interested or not.

:D

Meh, whatever she decides to do outside of school is her business, and her business only.

Is it though? What if she ran a meth lab? What if she was a serial rapist? What if she was plotting to assassinate Obama? What if she were a paedophile?

The idea of "what she does on her own time isn't important to her job as a teacher" is obviously untrue, there are certain people we don't want teaching, influencing, and interacting with, children.

What behavior you find acceptable and unacceptable are, of course, your preferences, but don't pretend that you would have had the same response if, instead of being a prostitute, she were a child rapist.

Which is not to say they're in any way comparable, but once you admit that SOME THINGS that she does outside of school really IS the school's business, then it's just a matter of subjective preference at that point.

Is it though? What if she ran a meth lab? What if she was a serial rapist? What if she was plotting to assassinate Obama? What if she were a paedophile?

The idea of "what she does on her own time isn't important to her job as a teacher" is obviously untrue, there are certain people we don't want teaching, influencing, and interacting with, children.

What behavior you find acceptable and unacceptable are, of course, your preferences, but don't pretend that you would have had the same response if, instead of being a prostitute, she were a child rapist.

Which is not to say they're in any way comparable, but once you admit that SOME THINGS that she does outside of school really IS the school's business, then it's just a matter of subjective preference at that point.

Most of those things you've listed are illegal activities, and should be handled by the police department and justice system. She should face the consequences of her actions as such. The only role the school should play is firing her.

I'm not saying that she shouldn't be fire, and I'm not saying she shouldn't face the consequences of her actions. However, what I am saying is that professional life and private life should be kept separate.

What if I'm a teacher, and everyday to unwind, I like to meet up at a bar with my friends and have a few drinks? Should I not drink because I'm supposedly a "role model" and should hold myself to a higher standard?

Please...I'm human. The sooner we realize that teachers, and others like teachers are human, and can't be put on too high of a pedestal, the better off we'll be.

As long as what she does in the classroom is not affected by her private life, I don't see a problem. Now if she starts providing her "services" to her students, then yea, that's a problem.

Most of those things you've listed are illegal activities, and should be handled by the police department and justice system. She should face the consequences of her actions as such. The only role the school should play is firing her.

So then this:

Meh, whatever she decides to do outside of school is her business, and her business only.

is untrue. As you said previously, it's "her business", but now you've mad illegality a test.

So her business is not just "her business only" when it's illegal.

So you've already retracted the statement you made not 10 minutes previous. So you've already admitted when it's illegal it might be worth impacting her job. Well, ok, that's your subjective limitation, others place it elsewhere. Rather than stating things that you yourself don't even believe, why don't you try actually trying to demonstrate while your placement is the superior one?

I'm not saying that she shouldn't be fire, and I'm not saying she shouldn't face the consequences of her actions. However, what I am saying is that professional life and private life should be kept separate.

If she gets fired, or faces adverse employment action, as a result of decisions made in her personal life, guess what, that's not very fucking separate. Which is it, is it ok for a teacher to undergo adverse employment action as a result of decisions she makes in her private life, outside the classroom, or is it not?

And if it is, in direct opposition to your previous statement, where do you place that line?

@ Neo Art, that sounds like a straw man argument and you are deviating away from the issues raised in the OP, which is whether two legal occupations are professionally exclusive on the grounds of morality.

@ Neo Art, that sounds like a straw man argument and you are deviating away from the issues raised in the OP, which is whether two legal occupations are professionally exclusive on the grounds of morality.

when someone speaks in absolutes, ANY example is, by definition, a valid discussion. When you make an absolute statement, any reduction in that argument, no matter how absurd, is valid, because you opened the door by speaking in absolutes and not taking the care to properly refine your position.

@ NeoArt
Both fall under professional life, not private as both are occupations. You are bringing up the issue of whether an employer has the right to fire an employee who becomes convicted under the legal system which is perfectly normal. Wilgrove was pointing out the very simple fact that any illegal activity by a person is the sole concern of the legal system. The employer or nature of the persons occupation cannot influence the conviction. The employer can only deal with the employees conviction, which is not his/her private life. The employer therefore never actually deals with the employees private life and would be wrong if they did so (eg. if the employee is fired on the mere accusation of a crime without being convicted).
Blasting someone on absolutes is sophistry. You understand the point he's trying to get across and his fumble on words shouldn't detract from it.

@ NeoArt
Both fall under professional life, not private as both are occupations. You are bringing up the issue of whether an employer has the right to fire an employee who becomes convicted under the legal system which is perfectly normal. Wilgrove was pointing out the very simple fact that any illegal activity by a person is the sole concern of the legal system. The employer or nature of the persons occupation cannot influence the conviction. The employer can only deal with the employees conviction, which is not his/her private life. The employer therefore never actually deals with the employees private life and would be wrong if they did so (eg. if the employee is fired on the mere accusation of a crime without being convicted).

I never said anything about convicted. I simply asked what if the teacher was? What if the principal knew for a fact that the teacher was a rapist, but couldn't prove it to meet the standard of law, would that be sufficient to fire the teacher?

You assume an argument I didn't make. I didn't say anything about a teacher being convicted of a crime.

Blasting someone on absolutes is sophistry. You understand the point he's trying to get across and his fumble on words shouldn't detract from it.

Someone's inability to accurately express his thoughts is not my problem. I make no assumptions as to ones positions, especially one who self professes as a "libertarian".

I never said anything about convicted. I simply asked what if the teacher was? What if the principal knew for a fact that the teacher was a rapist, but couldn't prove it to meet the standard of law, would that be sufficient to fire the teacher?

You assume an argument I didn't make. I didn't say anything about a teacher being convicted of a crime.



Someone's inability to accurately express his thoughts is not my problem. I make no assumptions as to ones positions, especially one who self professes as a "libertarian".

You are making an argument based on the imperfections of the legal system. No one would be wrong on acting on something they knew for sure, but in a legal perspective, to fire someone without proof on the grounds of a crime is tantamount to slander.
the argument about an employee being convicted of crime is my own argument to illustrate how the system prevents employers from directly interfering with an employees private activities.
If an employer were to take action against an employee about crimes which only he/she is privy to, he/she essentially acts as judge, jury and executioner without giving the "accused" a chance to defend him/herself, thus running against the common notion of justice. The case where guilt is certain but cannot be proved is where the justice system fails but its best to save that for another thread.

That's...um...that's nothing like slander in the slightest. The rest of your post sorta misses the point, and I don't feel like it explaining it again

I may have gone to a different school than you. I don't remember any of my teachers being outed for anything. There were rumors that one was a lesbian but it was never confirmed and most kids didn't give a shit.

So far the teacher remains anonymous and it is possible the parent who brought it to the schools attention didn't tell their kid.
well, then you went to a very different school to the one I did. If any student saw a teacher out at the weekend, by Monday morning the class would know, Monday afternoon the year level would know, Tuesday everyone would know and by Wednesday the story would have evolved into 'seeing them out on the town' to 'seeing drunk as fuck in the town'.

My bro's a teacher (yeah I know, I come from a family of teachers so it's prob my destiny. sigh) and he told me of a time he was passing by a bar when he met a mate who was coming out. A student saw him stop to chat. Within 3 days the story had evolved into my bro being kicked out of the bar for being drunk and abusive during a school day. The principal eventually heard the story and summoned my brother in to politely request he keep his social life more quiet and better hidden. He had to ring the bar to convince the principal what a load of tosh the story was.
Thing is, the kids weren't doing this to be nasty or were out to get my brother. It was just a case of Chinese whispers and bored teenagers with a perchant for embellishment and overactive imaginations.

Now you imagine yourself a parent and hearing from several students that story (a teacher thrown out of a bar pissed and angry during a school day). Wouldn't you think twice about keeping your kid in that school?
Now think of this case, and children's natural inclinations to make shit up. You don't think they're going to be making all sorts of shit up about their prostitute teacher?
Sure, it's not right. But it happens. So a teacher has to aware that whatever they do outside of school hours can -and prob will - affect their performance and the public's perception of them.

@ NeoArt, I probably wanted to imagine you had something else to say other than pointing out a trivial matter of absolutes. I agree slander might be the wrong word, as it implies deceit by the accuser. Someone please teach me a word for "accuse without lying but has no hard evidence"
btw: how many kiwis here?

What if I'm a teacher, and everyday to unwind, I like to meet up at a bar with my friends and have a few drinks? Should I not drink because I'm supposedly a "role model" and should hold myself to a higher standard?
Frankly, yes. Again using my brother (he'll thank for this I know) he's stopped drinking for that exact reason. He teaches in a very poor, low socio-economic, high unemployment, high single parent-families area which comes with all the usual shitty problems these combinations bring. It's not helped by the fact it's a prime dope-growing area (and now meth lab center).
He said one class of his he amazed his colleagues with because 7 out of the 25 students had BOTH parents at home - and for 5 of them, they were their biological parents! They were amazed because no other class had such a high ratio.
As a result of this, many of his students have grown up without seeing one male relative sober, drug-free, prison-free and/or responsible. He's taken it on himself to show them men can live without drugs or alcohol and be responsible fathers. He felt it hypocritical to tell them not to drink when he was doing it himself. Some students will not believe him when he tells them he doesn't drink. And that little thing does make a difference to some of them. It makes them aware that what they see at home doesn't have to be their fate.

That's the difference between viewing teaching as a job and as a vocation.

As long as what she does in the classroom is not affected by her private life, I don't see a problem. Now if she starts providing her "services" to her students, then yea, that's a problem.
what if she starts providing them to their parents, or their elder (=legal age) siblings? Would that not be a problem?

@ NeoArt, I probably wanted to imagine you had something else to say other than pointing out a trivial matter of absolutes. I agree slander might be the wrong word, as it implies deceit by the accuser. Someone please teach me a word for "accuse without lying but has no hard evidence"
btw: how many kiwis here?

My point was that we all realize and accept that people should be fired from a teaching position for certain activities conducted in his/her own personal life.

Most of us would probably have no problem firing a teacher if we KNEW he was a rapist, if we KNEW she was a murderer. To simply say "what he does outside of work is his own business" is a position none of us actually adhere to. We all place the line where we find personal conduct sufficient grounds for termination. The point thus that I was trying to make is that it's disingenuous to pretend that such a line doesn't exist, and more valuable to discuss where that line is.

We wouldn't have problems firing someone we knew to be a murderer, or a rapist, or a thief, or a drug dealer, why is it unacceptable to fire someone we know to be a prostitute? Where is the line that separates one group of concepts with another? Is it pure illegality of the act? If that's the case, would it be OK to fire someone you knew to be a prostitute, if it was illegal, but not if it was legal?

What about litterers? Speeders? Jaywalkers? Those are all crimes too. My point is, don't say "it's her business what she does outside of the classroom!" nobody actually adheres to that. Better to explain where you place your line, and why that line is the better one.

He felt it hypocritical to tell them not to drink when he was doing it himself.

So why did he not tell them to drink responsibly ? Did he consider the kids unable to understand the subtleness of real life ?

Did he consider the kids unable to understand the subtleness of real life ?

Probably. I mean, isn't that sort of the definition of "childish"? Isn't the inability to understand the subtleties of life one of the defining characteristics of being a child?

So why did he not tell them to drink responsibly ? Did he consider the kids unable to understand the subtleness of real life ?
have you ever tried to explain subtle concepts to a teenager?

One thing teenagers are extremely good at is pointing out real (and aparent) hypocrisies. The old, 'do as I say, not as I do' scenario. So a teacher who goes out for drink telling them they shouldn't is going to have a lot less respect than one telling them he used to but doesn't anymore as it all it does it waste money and life.

Also, you missed the point: these kids are growing up in situations where responsibility in anything was a completely foreign word, especially towards drugs and alcohol and especially from the male adults in their lives. To see an adult drink is to expect to see them drink themselves into incoherrence (or very likely violence), all the while telling everyone around he can handle his drink. So why should they take the word of yet another man telling them he can handle his drink?
My brother feels that he needs to be completely opposite to what they experience outside of school so they can see there is another way. Later on, once they've matured they can find out that having a drink now and then is fine. But to a 13 yr old, it needs to be black or white.

This says a lot about her moral fiber.

Very few people would be willing to whore themselves out so that they could afford taking a teaching job. :p

not only do they provide information but they in many ways provide an example and moral guide to youngsters. As such I think they are bound to provide a good example
And what exactly is wrong with taking on a second job to support your children?

She must be very tired.

On a more humorous note, she should be transferred to high-school level and head sex-ed.
*Purile thoughts* :p

have you ever tried to explain subtle concepts to a teenager?

Like the ones they learn in literature, history, and maths classes?

Probably. I mean, isn't that sort of the definition of "childish"? Isn't the inability to understand the subtleties of life one of the defining characteristics of being a child?

Yes, but these are teenagers. They are supposed to not behave like 8 year olds.

Then again, how many adults understand such subtleties ?

Is it though? What if she ran a meth lab? What if she was a serial rapist? What if she was plotting to assassinate Obama? What if she were a paedophile?

The idea of "what she does on her own time isn't important to her job as a teacher" is obviously untrue, there are certain people we don't want teaching, influencing, and interacting with, children.

What behavior you find acceptable and unacceptable are, of course, your preferences, but don't pretend that you would have had the same response if, instead of being a prostitute, she were a child rapist.

Which is not to say they're in any way comparable, but once you admit that SOME THINGS that she does outside of school really IS the school's business, then it's just a matter of subjective preference at that point.
NONE of those things you cite are the SCHOOL's business. She would, of course, be incapable of continuing her job from prison, but it would be the police and the courts who were in charge of determining whether she should go to prison.

NONE of those things you cite are the SCHOOL's business. She would, of course, be incapable of continuing her job from prison, but it would be the police and the courts who were in charge of determining whether she should go to prison.

I suggest you read ahead, where I note that I never said anything about being arrested. Is it the school's business that a teacher is a serial murderer, with or without being arrested? Is it proper for a school superintendent to fire someone he knows to be a rapist, with or without a criminal conviction?

I already addressed that particular argument.

I suggest you read ahead, where I note that I never said anything about being arrested. Is it the school's business that a teacher is a serial murderer, with or without being arrested? Is it proper for a school superintendent to fire someone he knows to be a rapist, with or without a criminal conviction?

I already addressed that particular argument.
It is ABSOLUTELY NOT the business of a school superintendant to pretend that he "knows" a crime has been committed. That should be referred to the proper authorities.

Is it though? What if she ran a meth lab? What if she was a serial rapist? What if she was plotting to assassinate Obama? What if she were a paedophile?

The idea of "what she does on her own time isn't important to her job as a teacher" is obviously untrue, there are certain people we don't want teaching, influencing, and interacting with, children.

What behavior you find acceptable and unacceptable are, of course, your preferences, but don't pretend that you would have had the same response if, instead of being a prostitute, she were a child rapist.

Which is not to say they're in any way comparable, but once you admit that SOME THINGS that she does outside of school really IS the school's business, then it's just a matter of subjective preference at that point.

It isn't entirely subjective to say that criminal activities, activities that directly harm children, and activities that cause physical harm to other people without their consent are inappropriate for teachers, but that legal and harmless activities aren't the school's business.

Your hyberbole serves to make a point, but it is a rather niggling one.

It isn't entirely subjective to say that criminal activities, activities that directly harm children, and activities that cause physical harm to other people without their consent are inappropriate for teachers, but that legal and harmless activities aren't the school's business.

Ahh, but herein we see the problem. Define "harmless". Some people have strong moral objections to prostitution, they see such activities as morally corrupting. To those people, having their children taught by someone they see as immoral and a corrupting influence is certainly harmful to them.

I'm not saying they're right, I'm merely saying that vague concepts such as "harm" are rather subjective.

That is the job of the law. If the school bureaucrats want complete control of my life, they will have to pay me far more.

It is ABSOLUTELY NOT the business of a school superintendant to pretend that he "knows" a crime has been committed.

I didn't say anything about pretend. Address the argument I made, not the one you want to pretend I made.

That should be referred to the proper authorities.

I'm sure it should, but you didn't answer my question. Suppose the superintendent KNOWS that the teacher is a murderer, he saw him do it. Is it your position that the superintendent should report the teacher, then allow him to keep teaching while the police investigate?

Really, is that your honest position?

That is the job of the law. If the school bureaucrats want complete control of my life, they will have to pay me far more.

I think it's very much the job of the managers of a place of employment to determine who is, and is not suitable to remain employed.

I didn't say anything about pretend.
If you believe that school superintendants have psychic powers, omniscience, and infallibility, you are way past "pretend".
Suppose the superintendent KNOWS that the teacher is a murderer, he saw him do it.
Then he should go to the police.
Is it your position that the superintendent should report the teacher, then allow him to keep teaching while the police investigate?
Is it your assumption that the police are going to leave this person out on the street? If the police do not believe the testimony of this witness, perhaps this witness is not such an infallible person as seems to be the other part of your hypothesis.
I think it's very much the job of the managers of a place of employment to determine who is, and is not suitable to remain employed.
You think that employers are entitled to control the private off-job lives of all their employees? Is that everyone who has to work for a living, or is it only teachers?

I noticed you dodged my question. Try answering it next time.

Ahh, but herein we see the problem. Define "harmless". Some people have strong moral objections to prostitution, they see such activities as morally corrupting. To those people, having their children taught by someone they see as immoral and a corrupting influence is certainly harmful to them.

I'm not saying they're right, I'm merely saying that vague concepts such as "harm" are rather subjective.

Harm to children isn't that subjective. Two adults having consensual sexual relations that are legal and conducted outside the presence of any children can not fairly be called directly harmful to children.

You are rather begging the question of how a woman's legal occupation and activities that don't involve children effect her ability to teach children without harming them.

But saying "everything is subjective" leaves the door open to the argument that having a person of color, a jew, a homosexual, or any other "immoral and corrupting influence" teach children is harmful to those children.

I noticed you dodged my question. Try answering it next time.

I did not. You are framing an absurd hypothetical, in which the school bureaucrats supposedly have an infallible knowledge, and yet the law, whose JOB it is to deal with such cases, will do nothing, and the school bureaucrats are our only hope. In this hypothetical, it does not really matter whether that particular teacher works or not, since the society has already disintegrated into an anarchy.

I did not. You are framing an absurd hypothetical, in which the school bureaucrats supposedly have an infallible knowledge, and yet the law, whose JOB it is to deal with such cases, will do nothing.

No, I said it wasn't relevant what the law does. Again, try to read it.

No, I said it wasn't relevant what the law does.
If the law does not think this person should be arrested, it is then the vigilante's job? If that is not what you are claiming, then what is it?

Harm to children isn't that subjective. Two adults having consensual sexual relations that are legal and conducted outside the presence of any children can not fairly be called directly harmful to children.

You are rather begging the question of how a woman's legal occupation and activities that don't involve children effect her ability to teach children without harming them.

Well I'm not begging the question, I'm flat out ASKING the question. Does it? Can it?

But saying "everything is subjective" leaves the door open to the argument that having a person of color, a jew, a homosexual, or any other "immoral and corrupting influence" teach children is harmful to those children.

well it does open the door to the argument, yes, but then again, this is a debate forum, if someone wishes to use that argument, the onus is on them to demonstrate why that is the case, just as someone who wishes to claim that she's a prostitute causes harm should demonstrate why that's the case.

But to simply dismiss it under the argument of "it's her business what she does outside of the classroom" is false and, frankly, absurd. We all can think of activities one can engage in outside of the classroom that would make her an unfit teacher, the question is, where's that line.

You place it at "unconsensual harm", and I think that's a good point (what about the drug dealer though? he sells to people who consent?) but now we're left with defining the idea of "harm". Is "corrupting influence" a bad place to be? What about an evangelical who insists on using class time to preach, do you consider that an improper influence on the child? Abstracting from the unconstitutionality of that, if it were legal, would you support it as ok?

We all can think of activities one can engage in outside of the classroom that would make her an unfit teacher, the question is, where's that line.
We can all agree that there are activities that would make it improper for her to be on the outside, doing any job at all-- but the law has already decided here that this is not such a case.
What about an evangelical who insists on using class time to preach
Do you fail to see the distinction between that and an evangelical teacher who preaches on her own time?

Well I'm not begging the question, I'm flat out ASKING the question. Does it? Can it?

No. It doesn't. It can't (in the absence of other facts).

But you seem to be doing more than just asking the question, you would seem to be ridiculing those whose answer is negative.

well it does open the door to the argument, yes, but then again, this is a debate forum, if someone wishes to use that argument, the onus is on them to demonstrate why that is the case, just as someone who wishes to claim that she's a prostitute causes harm should demonstrate why that's the case.

But to simply dismiss it under the argument of "it's her business what she does outside of the classroom" is false and, frankly, absurd. We all can think of activities one can engage in outside of the classroom that would make her an unfit teacher, the question is, where's that line.

You place it at "unconsensual harm", and I think that's a good point (what about the drug dealer though? he sells to people who consent?) but now we're left with defining the idea of "harm". Is "corrupting influence" a bad place to be? What about an evangelical who insists on using class time to preach, do you consider that an improper influence on the child? Abstracting from the unconstitutionality of that, if it were legal, would you support it as ok?

Um. Did you note the part about being legal and not causing unconsensual harm?

And how a teacher uses class time is obviously relevant to whether that person should be teaching.

So far your attempts at hypothetical analogies have failed.

Again, if your only point is that the absolute of "what a teacher does outside class is irrelevant" then you have a valid point. But, as I said, it is a rather niggling point.

If the law does not think this person should be arrested, it is then the vigilante's job? If that is not what you are claiming, then what is it?

I am claiming, quite simply, that conduct outside your job can demonstrate that you are unfit for your job. It is, I think, a myth that proports that you are separate entirely and completely from your job, and what you do on your own time should have totally no bearing on your professional advancement.

Maybe I'm biased, I belong to a profession that has strict ethical guidelines on behavior, and I can, and will, get fired and lose my license to practice if I engage in unethical behavior, even if that behavior was totally on my own time and not in any way connected with the practice of law.

And I'm OK with that, by and large. That's because I recognize that certain professions sustain themselves only on the integrity of the practitioners. While we all hear bad lawyer jokes, the legal profession is built on the premise that a lawyer is, at his core, an honest, trustworthy, and ethical person, and to be a good lawyer, I must be honest, trustworthy, and ethical. Likewise if I do something that calls into question my honesty, trustworthiness and ethical nature, it calls into question whether or not I can be a good lawyer.

And, I think, it is true too for teachers of children. If one wishes to be a teacher, one should be required to have some degree of honesty, trustworthiness, and good moral character, and if said teacher does something to call into question her honesty, trustworthiness, and good moral character, she likewise calls into question her fitness of being a good teacher.

And when how good you are at your job is called into question, some adverse employment action is to be expected.

The question then is twofold. 1) is honesty, trustworthiness, and good moral character something we should expect in teachers, to the point of making them not teachers anymore, when their honesty, trutworthiness and good ethical character is shown lacking, and, if so; 2) does being a prostitute do that?

But it's totally nonsensical to say that a profession, so built on those requirements, should not be adversely impacted when those requirements are found lacking

Um. Did you note the part about being legal and not causing unconsensual harm?

Fair enough, as I said, I'm trying to draw out where the line is for individual people.

Again, if your only point is that the absolute of "what a teacher does outside class is irrelevant" then you have a valid point. But, as I said, it is a rather niggling point.

That was my first point, yes. And while it may be niggling, it's important to dispense with it as a nonsensical proposition before delving into the actual point of the argument. If we have established that "what a teacher does outside class is irrelevant" as untrue, the next question is, when is it relevant?

You place the line at "it must be legal and not cause harm". Fine, alright, that's a good a line as any, but my next point, as we were discussing, is what constitutes "harm". Does "immoral and corrupting influence" count as harm? If not, why not? If so, what constitutes immoral and corrupting?

I think it's very much the job of the managers of a place of employment to determine who is, and is not suitable to remain employed.

To a degree. Most countries however have laws that state the employer must have a valid reason to fire someone - and "she has a completely legal sidejob that does not relate to her work" might not be accepted.

Of course, firing someone for having a conflict of interest between the jobs would be. An accountmanager who is also in the board of directors of a competing firm ? That would stick.

To a degree. Most countries however have laws that state the employer must have a valid reason to fire someone - and "she has a completely legal sidejob that does not relate to her work" might not be accepted.

but what if that profession requires one to demonstrate good ethical character, and the manager believes (along with a good portion of society) that this side job speaks to her character?

For the most part I am an "outside of work is none of works business" sort of person. but in the cases of teachers as well as other educators you have the idea that not only do they provide information but they in many ways provide an example and moral guide to youngsters. As such I think they are bound to provide a good example.

How has she failed to do so?

While she did not act illegally, she did act unethically.

How so? Please back statement with proof.

I see it as a shade of gray... Prostitution, as the article says, IS legal in New Zealand... So she didn't break any laws. However, one of my B.A.'s is in secondary education and it's important for teachers not to do "questionable" stuff in the public eye.

Good thing there's nothing questionable about what she's doing then, isn't it?

Good thing there's nothing questionable about what she's doing then, isn't it?

I think the very fact that this thread exists is demonstrative of just the opposite.

I am claiming, quite simply, that conduct outside your job can demonstrate that you are unfit for your job.
Nothing that you have said goes in any way to demonstrate such a claim.
It is, I think, a myth that proports that you are separate entirely and completely from your job, and what you do on your own time should have totally no bearing on your professional advancement.
I could not disagree with you more strongly. Employees are slaves, is what I hear you saying.
Maybe I'm biased, I belong to a profession that has strict ethical guidelines on behavior, and I can, and will, get fired and lose my license to practice if I engage in unethical behavior, even if that behavior was totally on my own time and not in any way connected with the practice of law.
I am biased also, of course, belonging to a profession where there is always the threat of losing my job for private behavior having nothing to do with the practice of teaching.
And I'm OK with that, by and large.
Like I said, pay me like lawyers get paid and maybe I would take a different view.

Employees are slaves, is what I hear you saying.

Then I reiterate my claim that you're not quite sure how to read.

Like I said, pay me like lawyers get paid and maybe I would take a different view.

So these intrusions into your personal life which you so vehemently abhor are acceptable if the job pays you more?

Funny that, what was that "slave" comment you were saying?

Is it though? What if she ran a meth lab? What if she was a serial rapist? What if she was plotting to assassinate Obama? What if she were a paedophile?

What do these strawmen have to do with her perfectly legal second job?

What do these strawmen have to do with her perfectly legal second job?

Why don't you read the thread, before asking me to repeat myself again?

hmmm... hard to decide. While I'm of the opinon of what goes on outside of work shouldn't reflect on their work ethics...

How does being a Prostitute affect a teacher job performance?

Well... let's see.

When a teacher has to report to a student's parents about their son/daughter. how seriously would those parents take the teacher if they knew he/she sells sex, one or both parents are his/her frequent customer?

How much respect would a teacher get from her students if they (students) knew that their Parent/sibling/etc was banging him/her?

How much support and respect would other faculty members have for him/her if they knew they could pay for a night of sex with him/her.

Would you trust your child to spend the night with that teacher on an overnight school function?

He/She may be the best math/science/history/etc teacher, but if the students cannot learn because they are distracted by the knowledge of his/her other activities, then that "extra curricular" activity will affect his/her ability to teach.

Should he/she be fired for being a prostitute? no. but if his/her class results go down over time, then removal due to poor results would be the case.

Then I reiterate my claim that you're not quite sure how to read.
Actually, you hadn't made such a claim yet. But do you advocate extending the status of lawyers, who are "officers of the court" and held to special standards because of the majesty and power of the law etc. etc., to every employee of every kind, or do you just want to pick on me?
So these intrusions into your personal life which you so vehemently abhor are acceptable if the job pays you more?
Funny that, what was that "slave" comment you were saying?
I was being facetious, should have used some kind of smiley I guess. But it rankles me that society will not even pay me enough to make a living, and expects to control the entirety of my life as well.

have you ever tried to explain subtle concepts to a teenager?

One thing teenagers are extremely good at is pointing out real (and aparent) hypocrisies. The old, 'do as I say, not as I do' scenario. So a teacher who goes out for drink telling them they shouldn't is going to have a lot less respect than one telling them he used to but doesn't anymore as it all it does it waste money and life.

Are the kids in question 21 or older? Is the teacher? If the answer to the first is no and the answer to the second is yes then the argument you're making makes no sense. He can, without a shred of hypocrisy tell them that they should not go out drinking because they are not of legal age to do so while it is acceptable for him to do so because he is of legal age to do so.

Ahh, but herein we see the problem. Define "harmless". Some people have strong moral objections to prostitution, they see such activities as morally corrupting. To those people, having their children taught by someone they see as immoral and a corrupting influence is certainly harmful to them.

Some people have strong moral objections to my religion and consider it a corrupting influence. Do you have a point/

I was being facetious, should have used some kind of smiley I guess. But it rankles me that society will not even pay me enough to make a living, and expects to control the entirety of my life as well.

I'll meet you half way on that. Teachers are woefully underpaid. I do believe that the job of a teacher is one that comes with certain responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is maintaining a clean ethically clean private life. When you're in one of those professions that requires a certain demonstration of personal integrity, honesty, and ethics, some intrusion into your private life is part of that job.

However it is something that should be compensated for, I'll grant you that.

But do you advocate extending the status of lawyers, who are "officers of the court" and held to special standards because of the majesty and power of the law etc. etc., to every employee of every kind, or do you just want to pick on me?

Every? No. I can think of...three professions that I hold that standard to. You and I just happen to occupy two of them. The third is that of doctors.

All three, above and beyond other professions, require you to place your own interests below that of the interests of your students/clients/patients. Those types of jobs require that sacrifice, and it requires a certain type of character to be willing to make that sacrifice. And when your character is called into question, it calls into question your willingness to make the sacrifices necessary to adequately do your job. And that means that yes, your personal life will be scrutinized at a level higher than that of other people in other professions.

It so happens that over all, lawyers and doctors get compensated fairly well for that sacrifice, and teachers are not. And that's wrong. They should be.

Some people have strong moral objections to my religion and consider it a corrupting influence. Do you have a point/

yes, I do. I'm not sure it isn't above your head though.

but what if that profession requires one to demonstrate good ethical character, and the manager believes (along with a good portion of society) that this side job speaks to her character?

So, are you actually stating that in a job (such as teaching) an employer should be able to fire someone for such a subjective reason as "lacking good moral character"?

What if the reason the employer feels their employee lacks "good moral character" is that the employee is of the "wrong" religion?

Fair enough, as I said, I'm trying to draw out where the line is for individual people.

That was my first point, yes. And while it may be niggling, it's important to dispense with it as a nonsensical proposition before delving into the actual point of the argument. If we have established that "what a teacher does outside class is irrelevant" as untrue, the next question is, when is it relevant?

You place the line at "it must be legal and not cause harm". Fine, alright, that's a good a line as any, but my next point, as we were discussing, is what constitutes "harm". Does "immoral and corrupting influence" count as harm? If not, why not? If so, what constitutes immoral and corrupting?

Yes, instead of accepting a perfectly reasonable and common sense approach to harm, we could wax philosophical about what is "harm"?

We could ask does immoral and corrupting influence count as harm. Of course, we would first have to define immoral, corrupting, and influence.

While we are at it, we might as well engage in further Socratic dialogue about what is a teacher, a student, a child, a job, civil service, etc.

No, thanks. I'll stick with her legal job that doesn't involve children and doesn't cause any harm doesn't affect her ability to be a teacher.

So, are you actually stating that in a job (such as teaching) an employer should be able to fire someone for such a subjective reason as "lacking good moral character"?

I think some jobs carry with them certain standards that others do not, yes.

What if the reason the employer feels their employee lacks "good moral character" is that the employee is of the "wrong" religion?
well they'd have to substantiate that through an understanding of moral and ethical norms of the society.

What is moral and ethical is often rather subjective, after all.

No, thanks. I'll stick with her legal job that doesn't involve children and doesn't cause any harm doesn't affect her ability to be a teacher.

Sure, if you wish to define it that way, that's your own personal choice. Of course, others can define it differently.

So, are you actually stating that in a job (such as teaching) an employer should be able to fire someone for such a subjective reason as "lacking good moral character"?

What if the reason the employer feels their employee lacks "good moral character" is that the employee is of the "wrong" religion?

I think some jobs carry with them certain standards that others do not, yes.


well they'd have to substantiate that through an understanding of moral and ethical norms of the society.

What is moral and ethical is often rather subjective, after all.

So you claim that being allowed to teach should be contingent on being of what your boss considers to be the "right" religion?

Someone please teach me a word for "accuse without lying but has no hard evidence"

How about, "defame" ? defamation

How about... accuse.

you can accuse someone of anything without any evidence.

So, are you actually stating that in a job (such as teaching) an employer should be able to fire someone for such a subjective reason as "lacking good moral character"?

What if the reason the employer feels their employee lacks "good moral character" is that the employee is of the "wrong" religion?

That's why you have safeguards, determined by a democratic society, to stop employers from firing people for certain reasons.

I do believe that the job of a teacher is one that comes with certain responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is maintaining a clean ethically clean private life.

My responsibility as a teacher is to pound some algebra and calculus into their heads. Leave teaching them to be "clean ethically clean" to the goddamned churches. That's my viewpoint, anyhow.
That's why you have safeguards, determined by a democratic society, to stop employers from firing people for certain reasons.Some states do, most don't.

She'd be the perfect person to run any Sex Ed classes as she knows what she's talking about!

but what if that profession requires one to demonstrate good ethical character, and the manager believes (along with a good portion of society) that this side job speaks to her character?

Then it is a pity that the law disagrees. It is somewhat like people being black, Jewish, left handed or whatever was once a reason to consider people unfit for certain jobs - once the laws state such discrimination is wrong you will need to find other reasons.

Then it is a pity that the law disagrees. It is somewhat like people being black, Jewish, left handed or whatever was once a reason to consider people unfit for certain jobs - once the laws state such discrimination is wrong you will need to find other reasons.

absolutely, the law is superior to self regulating professional associations.

Are there some laws that protect prostitutes I'm unaware of?

@Circassian Beauties: thx for the english lesson

@NeoArt
Would you mind telling us on your views on prostitution and extramarital sex and how those things affect ones integrity, ethics etc compared to, for example a cashier? It might help explain your position on this matter. Maybe a mention about your career?
It seems that most people here are split on how big they make their list of unethical behaviours and how many personal vices to include. Anything to do with sex or sexuality and morals is a recipe for controversy.
And yes, depending on where you are. If you're a NZlander like some people here, prostitution is a legal occupation, subject to various regulations like any other occupation.

If her work as a prostitute starts to affect her teaching then firing her would seem more reasonable. You know, needing to take a lot of time off for STI checks, having a lot of late nights. Things like that.

absolutely, the law is superior to self regulating professional associations.

Are there some laws that protect prostitutes I'm unaware of?

Prostitution is a perfectly legal occupation in New Zealand, where this case is taking place.

My responsibility as a teacher is to pound some algebra and calculus into their heads.....

"Okay children you have three regular Johns, two of them visit you once a week and the other twice a week. If they pay $100 a time, and your pimp takes 75% of your earnings how many weeks does it take you to save up enough money to pay your rent"

Prostitution is a perfectly legal occupation in New Zealand, where this case is taking place.

that's nice, but that's not what I asked.

"Okay children you have three regular Johns, two of them visit you once a week and the other twice a week. If they pay $100 a time, and your pimp takes 75% of your earnings how many weeks does it take you to save up enough money to pay your rent"

How much is my rent?

How much is my rent?

Why don't you know?

Why don't you know?

I've been too busy sucking cock to ask my landlord.

I've been too busy sucking cock to ask my landlord.

See, and this is why prostitutes shouldn't be teaching, cos the kids are giving answers like this to algebra questions.

Some states do, most don't.

Well the US are a rather silly bunch then.

Well the US are a rather silly bunch then.

In other news, water is wet :tongue:

If her work as a prostitute starts to affect her teaching then firing her would seem more reasonable. You know, needing to take a lot of time off for STI checks, having a lot of late nights. Things like that.

Oh come on. Now you are just making stupid assumptions based on stereotypes. Did you even think before hitting post? Why would something as infrequent as STI checks (which btw everyone who gets laid should be getting) be different from all the other routines we must go through? And late nights? They work far less than a night shift for far more and even then usually only on weekends. In fact, why would prostitution as a part time job even remotely affect a teachers performance any more than parenting? And I don't see many people complaining about those single-parent teachers who are being stretched to the limit.

Are there some laws that protect prostitutes I'm unaware of?

Unknown - I do not know the laws of NZ by heart.
One however assumes that:

if there are rules against discrimination,
and if the school is not allowed to fire someone for the sole reason they have a sidejob as a e.g. baker, butcher or candlestick maker which does not interfere with their schoolwork

the same is true for all legal occupations. This would include prostitution. It may in fact be even "truer" for prostitution precisely because some parts of society do not yet fully accept the courts position that it is a normal job. And what better place to plant the seed of acceptance for scorned population groups than a school ?

Of course - if the school is fully entitled to fire someone because they make bread for money there is no issue. Except that the schoolmanagement is silly.

Alma, NeoArt is taking for granted the "fire at will" in the United States, where any reason, regardless of how arbitrary, is sufficient to fire someone, unless a law specifically says otherwise. THis is very different from how most other countries do things.

Doesn't make a difference, people should back the hell off.
Agreed.

It is her body and she has the right to do as she pleases with it. The teaching job actually belongs to the school so they have the right to retain or terminate her as they will. The question comes though, what is the economic outlook in New Zealand that one cannot get by so badly? Would I want to invest in NZ after hearing such a story?

Actually I might......

It is her body and she has the right to do as she pleases with it. The teaching job actually belongs to the school so they have the right to retain or terminate her as they will. The question comes though, what is the economic outlook in New Zealand that one cannot get by so badly? Would I want to invest in NZ after hearing such a story?

Actually I might......

Things were supposed to be improving from our current slump (costs are bloody atrocious) but it seems that the US and their little economic adventure will nullify any recent gains.
So we are still in a slump.

I agree with the person who said that teachers should get payed better; if her income would be higher, she wouldn't need to prostitute herself in the first place (I don't think any woman really choses that job for fun). Other than that, I don't think what any teacher does outside their job is really that important (apart from things illegal) as long as they stay proffessionals and remain teachers when in front of the classroom; ergo, this woman's fine as long as she doesn't teach while wearing bright red lipstick and a mini-skirt.

I agree with the person who said that teachers should get payed better; if her income would be higher, she wouldn't need to prostitute herself in the first place (I don't think any woman really choses that job for fun).

How many people choose any job for fun? When I was stationed near Frankfurt, Germany I met a few girls in the clubs who were working their way through college as prostitutes. They weren't exactly poor or desperate, it just paid better than working in retail or fast food and they liked it better.

In fact, I was briefly in the same platoon as a guy who married a prostitute from Frankfurt, who continued to work after they were married. I say briefly because the Army forced them to move back to the states as they really didn't approve of her career choice.