Is the School Justified in Firing a Teacher Posing for an Adult Website - Research Paper Example

Legal issue: Is the school justified in firing a teacher posing for an adult website? A high school teacher argues on being fired from the school for posing in an adult website that her act of posing in the adult website was her personal business and the school had no reason to fire her. The school argued on different grounds as a justification for firing the teacher, one of which was that a teacher should conform to public, moral and ethical standards. As concluded from the facts of the case and after a thorough perusal of the laws applicable in this case there are various grounds and legal provisions on which the teacher is liable to be sacked by the school. 1. Arguments in support of firing the teacher (Pros): There are numerous grounds on which the aforesaid high school teacher is liable to be punished and they are stated as follows: I. The act of posing for an adult website is an immoral act by itself and should not have been committed by the teacher. II. Any teacher is a role model for his students and as such the high school teachers’ act of posing in an adult website gives a bad effect on the ideology of the students. Thus, the teacher should be penalized to prevent further damage on the students’ ideology. III. As a teacher of a school she should have conformed to some public, moral, business, and ethical standards as her actions affect her students and indirectly a larger community, which she did not, making her eligible to be dismissed. IV. Before getting hired by the school, the teacher signed an agreement which read, “I agree to promote this schools mission of training good and law-abiding citizens who will make this society a better place to live.” The act of posing for the adult website creates a bad impact on the students. It can happen that the students start posing for adult websites following the teacher. The teacher violates her contractual obligation “of training good and law-abiding citizens who will make this society a better place to live” (Contract clause) and therefore she should be fired. V. It can be presumed that the teacher has caused harm to the students by posing for an adult website once students have come to know about it and this makes the teacher liable to “be sued personally for causing student injury” and she may “also lose her job” (Kaplan and Owings 252). VI. The high school teacher was also negligent in doing her duty towards preventing harm to the students. She never thought for an instant that when her act of posing for an adult website is disclosed she may cause a bad impact on the ideology of the students and indirectly the future of the students. Moreover, “neglect of duty and negligence” is a ground for dismissal of a teacher in 26 states of US (Neal 86). 2. Legal provisions in support of firing the high school teacher (Pros): There are numerous legal grounds which entail the dismissal of the high school teacher in this case, which includes dismissal of the teacher for immorality, causing harm, violation of contract, injury to the students and negligence. The burden of proof is on the school for proving through evidence that the teacher actions fulfill one of the aforesaid categories, making the teacher liable to be dismissed. The statutes of many states of US allow the dismissal of a teacher for immorality or unprofessional conduct. Immorality or unprofessional conduct authorize firing of teachers for behavior and choice of lifestyle the community or school board holds wrong or unfitting for teachers (Imber and Geel 193). In the instant case, the act of posing for an adult website is an immoral act and the teacher is liable for immorality. As stated by Essex in his book that immorality “is often cited as grounds for dismissal” (197). Immorality is a conduct that offends the ethics of a particular community that makes the teachers unfit to teach. The courts tend to view unprofessional acts of immorality as those actions that have an adverse impact on the teacher’s fitness to teach. In Morrison v. State Board of Education, the Supreme Court identified a number of factors which determined whether the teacher is rendered unfit to teach. Among them were the chances of the conduct of a teacher to adversely affect students and fellow teachers (Essex 197-198). In the instant case there is no dispute that the action of the teacher had chances to adversely affect the students, and the teachers, and this makes the teacher liable to be dismissed for the immoral act. A case similar to the case in hand would be Weissbaum v. Hannon, 439 F. Supp. 873 (1977), where “a Chicago high school biology teacher was terminated for his involvement in the publication of an obscene magazine entitled ‘Sasha’s World.’” (Mullins 110). In addition of becoming a part owner for this magazine publication, he also appeared in a nude photograph with a woman in that magazine. The court held in this case that the Court had constitutional permissibility to enquire into the integrity, and character of Mr. Weissbaum as a teacher, and that he should be dismissed for his immoral conduct (Mullins 110-111). The only difference between the cited case and the instant case is that in the cited case, the obscene material was published in a magazine, whereas in the instant case the material was published in a website, which does not deteriorate the merits of the case against the teacher, rather enhances it due to the fact a website can be accessed by a larger population in comparison to a magazine. The court summarized in Tomerlin v. Dade County School Board, 318 So.2d 159 (1975) about the role of a teacher and the right and duty of the Board in demanding a high moral standard. The court stated that a school teacher was in a position of great trust as the people are entrusting the custody of their children in the hands of the teacher and people expect that the teacher is going to educate and prepare their children for their future adult lives. This required the teacher to be of good moral character in order to fulfill this trust (Mullins 110). After a thorough analysis of the aforesaid arguments, case references and the general law of the nation, it is evident that there are various grounds for which the teacher should be dismissed from the service, so that the future of the students, whom she was teaching, may be protected. Works Cited Kaplan, Leslie S, and William A. Owings. American Education: Building a Common Foundation. Belmont: Cengage, 2010. Print. Neal, Richard G. Escape to Learning:An Educator’s Answer to the Public School Crisis. Indiana: Author House, 2005. Print. Imber, Michael and Tyll Van Geel. A Teacher Guide to Education Law. New York: Routledge, 2010. Print. Essex, Nathan L. the 200 Most Frequently asked Legal Questions for Educators. America: Corwin, 2009. Print. Mullins, Lawrence G. Dismissal of Teachers for Out-Of-School Sexual Immorality Not Involving Students: Limitations and Guidelines regarding the Privacy Rights of Teachers. Diss. Ohio State University, 1995. Print. Read More