Sunday, September 02, 2012

I Don't Think A Teacher Should Be Fired For This

Some people claim that speech or action outside the workplace can impact the workplace, and if that happens, the employee (in this case a teacher) can be fired for that outside speech or action.  I worry that giving a heckler's veto over someone's employment is a very bad standard to set:
A high school girls basketball coach in suburban Chicago has been placed on administrative leave after writing a self-published book that includes graphic sexual content and an acknowledgement from the author that he has a "weakness for cleavage."

Bryan Craig, who is also a counselor at Rich Central High School, resigned Friday as the varsity coach. The district's superintendent, Donna Simpson Leak, said Craig has been placed on leave pending a district review.

In the forward to the book, titled "It's Her Fault," Craig says his intention is to give women a guide to gaining the "upper hand in a relationship" because he is tired of hearing them complain. The book contains graphic details on his observations of the female anatomy, including what he describes as physical differences between ethnicities that lead him to conclude that "Latin women have more children."
It's clear that his cad-like beliefs never intruded into his work, as no one apparently as much as knew about them until the book was published.  So now people know about them.  He's an ineffective teacher?  He's a potential rapist?  He's just a yucky person?  What's the standard for firing him, having unpopular beliefs?

I can see the slippery slope coming--what if he's a (gasp!) racist?!  Well, if you listen to the Democrats, all Republicans and anyone who opposes the president is a racist, so that's too much.  Fire a racist when they commit an act, not for what they think.

And this guy?  He's not what I'd consider the most stand-up kind of guy, but firing him is ridiculous.

(Hey, this is my 8000th post!!!)


Happy Elf Mom (Christine) said...

I can see both sides of this issue, really, and can see this standard easily applied to just about any one for just about any thing.

But I look on it on this wise, that's how it is for the rest of us in the big bad world. We can be fired at any time for any and no reason at all. People who want to keep their jobs should use this newfangled thing-o called a "pseudonym."

PS Congrats on that 8000th post, Darren!! :)

Darren said...

Because of the political nature of government jobs, and since there's no profit/loss that a hiring/firing manager has to suffer when replacing a govt employee, the "this is how it is in the real world" standard doesn't apply so smoothly.

He did nothing on the job, leave him alone.

Anonymous said...

Congrats on the 8000th post.

The guy is a GIRLS basketball coach. How many parents are keeping their daughter off the team because of him?

Isn't there some sort of morals clause in his employment contract?

Darren said...

Obviously his beliefs never intruded onto the court.

I don't see how having beliefs can violate a morals clause, which should have to do with behavior. And publishing a book isn't immoral.

Anonymous said...

Does his outside activities affect his work?

If yes, than the employer has a say.

If no, then it's completely irrelevant to what he does, and his employer should NOT be involved.

Gratssss on your 8000th post. (I stretched out the grats to 8 letters in honor of 8k.)

Anonymous said...

The guy is a GIRLS basketball coach. How many parents are keeping their daughter off the team because of him?

How many teenage basketball players have significant cleavage?  He's getting his jollies at his after-hours job, not at the school.

Darren said...

You're reading into the story, inventing facts to justify your anger. There's no evidence that he's "getting his jollies" while coaching basketball, and no evidence that he's done anything inappropriate, ever, with girls. Unless and until that evidence surfaces, I can't see that he's done anything wrong.

Anonymous said...

You're reading too much into my comment.  Appreciating beauty is the opposite of a crime.  But even if people were accusing him of enjoying the aesthetics at work (whoa, enjoying work!), he's not getting his particular weakness catered to by the allegedly vulnerable population.