Should a former porn star be fired from her teaching job. Languish decides.

[Valmy]

Was that wrong? Should I have not done that?

[Ideologue]

I watched a documentary recently about former porn stars. (After Porn). There were a couple of them quite upset that no matter what they do, their past always haunts them and they can't get past it.

It's easy to sit here and say that the school should keep her because she's reformed, and that is certainly my view.

Oh Jesus fucking Christ.

[Grey Fox]

I watched a documentary recently about former porn stars. (After Porn). There were a couple of them quite upset that no matter what they do, their past always haunts them and they can't get past it.

It's easy to sit here and say that the school should keep her because she's reformed, and that is certainly my view.

Oh Jesus fucking Christ.

JOSEPHUS!

[Ideologue]

Well the school is relying on a "good character" clause in her contract to terminate her.  Certainly her current attitude towards porn is more important than her actions a decade ago.  As a parent I'd be much MORE upset about a teacher who goes "pornography is awesome!  You should totally try and get into the business", than one who had made some movies in the early oughts but now talks about the failings of porn.

Umm, there's surely middle ground between denouncing porn and extolling the virtues of porn. I don't think she should be saying anything about porn to students.

Yeah, while I'm sure there are many other issues that deserve discussion, it seems like the major downside to doing porn, after you're out, is all the people who are committed to making damned well and sure there will be a downside to doing porn.

[Josephus]

I watched a documentary recently about former porn stars. (After Porn). There were a couple of them quite upset that no matter what they do, their past always haunts them and they can't get past it.

It's easy to sit here and say that the school should keep her because she's reformed, and that is certainly my view.

Oh Jesus fucking Christ.

[Josephus]

So, em, I've heard all her movies are on the streaming site AEBN

[Grey Fox]

She wasn't a drug dealer or a for hire assassin. She is not reformed, she never needed it.

[Malthus]

A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.

Not a very good analogy.

And the teacher is in violation of her morals clause *right now.*

But that's not what you said the argument was. If I recall, it was "Rather that, now that she has been outed, it will impact her performance."

However, assuming you are now advancing an alternative argument, I disagree with it.   

I don't agree that 'having once done porn' is likely to be a violation of her morals clause, for two reasons.

The first, that such clauses tend to be drafted to be prospective, not retrospective - as in "you can't do anything that would put your character in doubt, *after* signing this contract', rather than 'you hereby agree we can fire you if we find you have done anything *before* signing this contract that puts your character in doubt". They *can* be drafted to be retrospective, depending on state laws, but it is more unusual. 

For example, in the entertainment industry: http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/keep-your-pants-on-the-morals-clause-in-performer-contracts

Note that only the third example is "retrospective" (and, interestingly enough, deals specifically with having performed in porn!).

The second, that even assuming such a clause is drafted so as to be retrospective, doing porn, assuming it is legal porn, doesn't put your character in doubt under a broadly-worded morals clause, any more than using porn does. If using porn puts one's character in doubt, then a goodly percentage of the teaching staff would be vulnerable to being fired after a search of their Internet histories.     

Of course it is only possible to do a complete analysis with the actual language of the clause in question. I very much doubt it is a narrowly-worded clause that specifically states that having done porn is verboten, as in the article:

There are two even more expansive ways to approach morals clauses.  One is to expand the clause by identifying particular infringements – I'm just going to lift this language from Drew's post, since it so nicely illustrates the concept:


"Artist shall never (a) provide services in an 'adult-themed' film or video program or perform onscreen services for any film or video program that is pornographic, involves nudity or graphic violence or contains material derogatory of any race, nationality, ethnic identity, gender or sexual orientation; (b) perform in any sexually explicit plays, musicals or stage shows (including strip tease acts); or (c) pose as a model for any pornographic or sexually suggestive publication; furthermore, Artist represents and warrants that Artist has never participated or been a part of any activity that would fall within the scope of (a), (b) or (c)."

That's nice and clear: you get involved in any "adult entertainment" activities, and you're out – and we're not going to debate whether such activities constitute a "scandal" or are "shocking".

This is the sort of language the school board would need, not to have a legal fight on its hands: clearly retrospective and clearly identifies having done porn as prohibited, with the employee "representing and warranting" they have never done porn. My guess is that it is unlikely they have it. 

[grumbler]

A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.

Not a very good analogy.

And the teacher is in violation of her morals clause *right now.*

Which morals clause is that?  I don't think you are reading it correctly, but go ahead and link me up. 

I mean, you wouldn't pull something like this out of your ass, would you?

[grumbler]

Meow!

What? He knows it. There are croutons less square than me. So if he knows that this should get somebody fired who am I to argue?

He is saying that he has read her contract, and that the moral clause in it forbids her from being a teacher for more than 14 years if she has ever appeared without clothing as an actress in a movie.

That's the standard clause, so his contention is certainly tenable.

[Josephus]

She wasn't a drug dealer or a for hire assassin. She is not reformed, she never needed it.

she was a porn star...I stand by my usage of the word.

[CountDeMoney]

I dunno...it may have been a long time ago, and completely unrelated to her ability to teach...but it compromises her ability to be an authority figure in the classroom. 

[11B4V]

I dunno...it may have been a long time ago, and completely unrelated to her ability to teach...but it compromises her ability to be an authority figure in the classroom.

Stop. 

[grumbler]

She wasn't a drug dealer or a for hire assassin. She is not reformed, she never needed it.

she was a porn star...I stand by my usage of the word.

That's okay.  There are a lot of people who think that one needs to be "reformed" if one has ever been involved with anything that involved sex.  I don't think it is  hangup from which reform is possible.

[Ed Anger]

Sure, why not.