Why shouldn't he be allowed to return?He was told that he wasn't going to be able to teach, so he did something else to pay his bills. Loftis had no idea the school board would change its mind. Maybe he made more money making porn than he would have doing something else. As he and the article said, it's not illegal and he was told that he wouldn't be teaching anymore, so why not do it?
Fair enough, he was told he wouldn't be teaching anymore....in that school district. What he did in his time off was his business, but wouldn't it have made more sense for him to pursue a job in teaching elsewhere? To me, this was a rogue school district making an absurd decision based on an irrelevant past. The Board of Education realized the injustice of his termination, and essentially, forced the Dade School District to take him back.
The point I'm trying to make is this. Loftis was pursuing this heavily, both through the ACLU and the Florida Board of Education. His argument, a valid one, was that what he did was in the past, and had no bearing on his current position. So why choose to go back to pornography, the life he "left behind", especially when he was trying to get his job back? Why possibly jeopardize the appeal by doing the thing he was fired for in the first place?
I have no moral issue with what he did, and he had the right to earn a living. It makes sense to go back to what you know and are comfortable with as well. What doesn't make sense is, while trying to get his job back, doing the very thing that got him fired, just or not. It's not his morality I'm questioning, it's his judgment.
As for him returning to porn and being rehired, this is a simple one to me: the guy had to make money somehow. He was fired from one job, so he went and got another job. This doesn't sound like a very complicated situation to me. If you got fired from your job and were told that there was no way you were getting back into that field, would you get a job in a different industry?
I see your point. But let's look at this from another angle.
I'm a psychologist, a job that requires me to put no pressure on my knees, feet, or back. But while I was in graduate school, I worked as a waiter. It was quick cash, and I was good at it. But one of the most common issues I saw crop up, and it happened alot, was co-workers in the food serving industry becoming addicted to painkillers as a result of the work. I even saw some go to rehab as a result.
Even though it's not, let's say it was me for a minute. Say I got hooked while waitering on legal painkillers, taking them as prescribed. But I couldn't work without them, realized it was a problem, and went to rehab to get off them. I'm my own boss, but let's pretend I'm not. The mental health industry is a zero-tolerance one, and let's say I work for the state as a therapist, rather then myself. My employer finds out about my past addiction problems, worries it will compromise my ability to do my job, and unjustly fires me. I go through the process of appeal, but....
Would it make sense for me to go back to waitering, which caused me problems in the first place? It wasn't the job, per se, but it was the effects of the job that cost me my job. Even though its easy money, why even risk jeopardizing being in the field I love by going back to the thing that started the cycle, just or not, in the first place? That's where I struggle to wrap my head around Loftis' decision to go back to porn.
The morality clause makes sense. Teachers are meant to be role models for their students and need to live up to standards set up by the school so that the students' families will feel comfortable sending their children to that school.
My problem with the morality clause is this: Where do you draw the line between what's moral, and what's not? In the case of the Miami Dade school district, their clause makes no sense whatsoever. Why? Because of the incredibly vague nature of it. Let's look at it again.
"Teachers are expected to conduct themselves both in their employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system."
What does this mean, exactly? It doesn't lay out specifics of what conduct is forbidden, it just makes a simple statement about "reflecting credit" upon themselves, and the school. So what exactly qualifies as things that don't "reflect credit?" Is it having a couple drinks, or is it getting sloppy drunk? Is it sleeping with another teacher, or sleeping with a married teacher? This "morality clause" comes across to me as entirely disingenuous, as if it's set up to say "gotcha" to a teacher based on an attempt to legislate disjointed morality.
As an employer myself, I have a simple morality clause. No drugs, no alcohol. Does that mean my employers can't drink alcohol at all? No. It means that while they're on my time, they can't have alcohol in their system. This discourages them from getting sloppy drunk the night before, as there could be alcohol still in their system the next day. They signed forms agreeing to this policy, and to random testing. But the only time I'd test them is if I saw erratic behavior, and in three years, other then initial screenings, I've yet to conduct a test. To me, that's a fair and balanced policy.
However, he was on probation and had been told to NOT return to the porn industry. The man even stated that he had "left it in the past". How do we know that he was being honest in this statement, given his recent actions?
Actually, he had been fired, and was appealing his firing. Noone told him not to return to the porn industry, it was simply the reason he was fired. However, I agree regarding the honesty of his statements. If the industry was something he truly had left behind, why did he head right back there upon being fired? Still, it was on his own time. I think his decision to return to porn, needing the money or not, was incredibly stupid considering he was appealing his firing for his past in that very field. It's dumb at best and arrogant at worst to return to porn when you have no idea if the Board of Education is going to side with you, especially since the porn industry was his present while he was in the process of appeals.
Loftis should not be hired as a teacher again. He agreed to not return to the porn industry, but as we see in the article he did in fact go back.
No he didn't. He was simply appealing the decision to fire him based on the fact that he was out of the porn industry during the time he was teaching. And upon being re-hired, he left the industry again. The school, the Board of Education, and those who are soveireign over his licensure have no grounds to prevent him from teaching again.
I'm certain that there will be parents or guardians who would feel uncomfortable with someone involved on multiple occassions with adult films to teach their children.
I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Technically, during his past and now his current time as a teacher, he wasn't and isn't involved in the pornography industry. Any uproar from parents is unfounded and incredibly biased based on outdated morality which demands a man not be able to teach based on his past, during which he did nothing illegal. If it isn't integrated into his curriculum, and he's an effective teacher, how does him having done porn in the past affect his ability to effectively teach children?
How is any school going to be able to trust him to not go back again if he already did it when he had agreed to leave it in the past?
Except he never agreed to leave it in the past. It's simply something he returned to after losing his job.
Loftis even said "it's in the past". It obviously isn't if he returned. I say he should not be re-hired as a teacher due to trust issues. Don't say you have left something in the past if you plan on doing it again, that's dishonest, and we need more honest trustworthy teachers these days.
I don't see the trust issues. I see a man being incredibly stupid in his decision making when he was trying to get his job back. Even though he did nothing illegal, what he did was the exact same thing that got him fired. Still, he violated no trust, because he made no promises. Further, since he was no longer employed by the school district, any promises he made couldn't be held against him, because he was no longer an employee. The statement he made about it "being in the past" was made after he was rehired. It was in the very recent past, but what he said was the truth.
