Porteur said...
I think it is interesting, but my view is that unless she has a criminal conviction for a crime that would affect her ability to work with children then it is very unfair. That was in her past, should she be penalised for the rest of her life?

Paul said...
The interesting point for me is how the modern work place has taken over from religion as the arbiter and controller of daily moral life. Our family lives, weekly timetable, health and wellbeing as well as now our morals are the subject of an ever widening spread by our employers. Does society encourage the employer to fill the role of the Church/religion, when the schools cease to have a bearing?

In this case, whether or not you side with the view that what this teacher had done was reprehensible, irrelevant or commendable: surely employment contracts (being individually tailored) are not the correct mechanism to regulate or deregulate behaviour which should be the subject of consistent standards or lack thereof.

Karl Burns said...
This is an interesting case.

The news articles are not factually correct in that she has been suspended on full pay whilst the matter is investigated & a decision made.

A case like this turns on the facts and an objective assessment as to whether “disrepute” has occurred. Of course, in a case like this an absolute assessment is not necessarily possible as there is a degree of subjectivity involved. The most important thing is that due process is followed & someone sensible is given the task of making the call as to whether she should go or not.

Anywhere where the terms Teacher, Kids, Nudity & Sex are in close proximity there will rightly be a great deal of sensitivity. The worldwide clampdown on paedophilia may have heightened the need for those in fiduciary roles, like doctors, teachers & police officers to be squeaky clean.

Here in Melbourne, there have been a number of high profile cases of sexual abuse in schools in recent years. I can see that parents may well be offended when confronted by naked pictures of their kids’ teachers.

Bottom line is that clauses in employment contracts around disrepute make sense. The key is to have a calm objective assessment as to whether someone should lose their job and potentially be forced out of their profession as a consequence of their actions.

Maree said...
If the individual in question signed a contract that contained a "morals clause" and then went ahead and undertook the bahaviour in question then it is a no brainer.

If she was unclear as to the meaning of the morals clause then good judgement might have cautioned her to clarify the meaning of said clause with the relevant authority before she undertook what might be considered by those who wrote the contract to be questionable behaviour.

Some writers have referred to her posing nude and detailing her sex life as potentially "not affecting her performance". What in fact was her "performance"? In the absence of a document setting out what her performance should be it is difficult to know -however I suspect it would detail more than just teaching reading, writing and arithmetic...

In the current case, no matter what else, her actions may be considered high risk. Whether or not they paid off is a matter for conjecture given that she will probably earn more money and attention from a possible new career as a model or on the talk show circuit than she would as a teacher. And at the risk of being cynical that may be what she wanted all along!

Paul said...
There has been quite a lot of coverage of this story in the national press. The pictures I have seen are tasteful. Interestingly the responses from the parents at the primary school have been supportive. The teacher is considered to be a star performer and she is popular with both students and parents. There will be pressure on the school to back down (I think they are currently only in the suspension phase) and to allow the teacher to take up her employment again.

I think there is a place for clauses in contracts about bringing the organisation into disrepute and the levels of this are likely to be different dependant on the organisation involved. But we must also allow people to live their lives in, as far as possible, the way they want to. This teacher has broken no laws.

The argument about ‘little Johnny’s brother sniggering’ is a difficult one. This may happen if the teacher had a disability or was openly homosexual or even exceptionally beautiful or vice versa. A teacher may also choose a particular lifestyle or have political or social persuasions not considered the norm (I am not clear who sets these norms).

Surely people should be able to have lives outside the workplace. If those lives do impact on the ability of him or her to carry out their job then there is an issue that needs to be raised and addressed. But I believe the default position should be a libertarian one if we are to ensure our workforces are diverse and our communities remain colourful and vibrant.

ADELMANIA said...
It is hard to create standards for judgment: both good and bad. From the beginning of time parents have struggled with how to give sons and daughters the compass to make good choices. Society thrives or fails on the merits of judgment: “paging the boys from Lord of the Flies.”
With that said, the response to judgments both good and bad should align with a code of conduct. When one takes a job there is a reasonable understanding of what one’s conduct should be. Codes of conduct starts where common sense ends and from that point expectations are managed. A teacher who poses nude has the reasonable expectation to believe that either he or she are not abiding by a school’s code of conduct. It is therefore rational to expect that this teacher would be dismissed.
Shared values are tough to agree upon and as no one truly shares the same judgment or ethics. Its up to human resource departments to make sure that the teams they have assembled are on and remain on the same page. COMMUNICATE! In America we like to throw around the statement “WE THE PEOPLE” which references the founding document that assures our individual liberties to make “good” choices and judgments without reprisals….it’s a great idea at first glance but “WE THE PEOPLE” for better or worse doesn’t guarantee that everyone uses sound judgments or make good choices…just ask Michael Corleone at the end of every Godfather movie.

J.J. said...
I think it depends entirely on the morality of the district or jurisdiction of the "offense". Despite the color photos, this is ultimately a grey area.

Without too much inflaming the debate of how much an educator is supposed to shape their pupils' morals, educators also have a responsiblity to be mentors and in most cases role models for their students. It is part of their job description to develop youngsters' views of society as much as it is to teach them.

On a technical level though, when posing nude and talking publicly about sex is something that their society doesn't condone, doing so tarnishes her reputation and the district's and certainly is grounds for violation of contract.

Perhaps this is just a wake-up call to districts that they need to pay their teachers enough so they don't have to take up a Hustler curriculum!

Andrew Metcalfe said...
I think this sort of thing really needs to be handled case by case. If her job was being affected then all well and good, if her job was not affected and no-one realised then what is the problem? I am guessing here it was affecting her performance.

The last time I came into work virtually naked the staff handbook got a hasty revision and some advice was quickly given to me. I think that was common sense in action. My performance wasn't impaired but others apparently were distressed. Next time I will leave the high heels at home!!

Clare said...
And would 'disreputable' have the same meaning if the teacher in question was male?

I believe it would be a hard task for an HR director to keep personal judgement to one side in this situation.

"360° Feedback For Managers - A Practical Guide": Get Your Free Copy Here