Conference back40::soapbox

    
    	So, how about that school teacher who has been revealed as a porn
    	actor/producer/whatever?
    
    	Is this a bad thing, or is his non-school time for him to use as
    	he so desires?
    

    i dunno, does he teach drama?

    
    	
    
    	Leave the man alone. Unless he/she is doing something against the
    law then I don't see the problem. What someone does on their own time
    is their business, so long as it doesn't get carried over into work
    time.
    
    

>    	Leave the man alone. Unless he/she is doing something against the
>    law then I don't see the problem. What someone does on their own time
>    is their business, so long as it doesn't get carried over into work
>    time.


The problem comes about when the facts surrounding ones questionably
proper activities become public. If this hadn't come to light in the
way that it did, it might as well have come to light when a student
had seen one of the guy's flicks and exposed (ooh, err) him. [Let's
face it, it wouldn't be the first time a HS kid got his hands on a
porn flick.]

If he isn't dismissed now, he'll either have to resign soon or be dismissed
for other means later (like inability to maintain order in his classes
when the student body gets around to making a big deal out of it.)

It's unclear to me why people who have had a lifetime of experience
in getting to know the way the world works, fail to understand some of the
simpler lessons, such as, if you want to maintain respect for yourself,
you need to conduct your life in a manner which fails to leave room for
any disrespect being earned. Also known as, "You made your bed, now you'll
need to lie/sleep in it."

    
    
    	Jack,
    
    	This man has done something that some consider offensive, others
    have no problem with it. Unless he does something illegal, no one has
    any right to say/do anything to him regarding his job! If problems
    arise down the road and he resigns/is fired for whatever reason, so be
    it. AS LONG as said reason is consistent with the policies of the
    school and the law.
    
    	You cannot legally punish someone for having a questionable
    personal life.
    
    	jim

    .4
    
    |It's unclear to me why people who have had a lifetime of experience
    |in getting to know the way the world works, fail to understand
    |some of the simpler lessons...
    
    it's more exciting for a seedy type to "get over" on people
    people by leading a "double life". 

>    	This man has done something that some consider offensive, others
>    have no problem with it. Unless he does something illegal, no one has
>    any right to say/do anything to him regarding his job! If problems
>    arise down the road and he resigns/is fired for whatever reason, so be
>    it. AS LONG as said reason is consistent with the policies of the
>    school and the law.

I don't necessarily have a problem with what he did, either, Jim. But the
fact remains that a very large segment of our society has a very big problem
with it. That's no secret. If he had half a brain in his head, he must have
realized that a long time ago. I don't necessarily "condone" that he be
dismissed for what he did, but the fact remains that his life is going to
be made miserable for him as a result of this exposition, by folks who,
while not necessarily having legal recourse to do so, will certainly
have the "will of society" at their back. Recent observations in this society
lead me to believe I know what the outcome will be, as well - he will
either literally or figuratively be "ridden out of town on a rail", as it
were.

>    	You cannot legally punish someone for having a questionable
>    personal life.

While he cannot be so "legally" punished (as in, charged, tried, convicted
and sentenced), he most certainly can and will be practically punished
in terms of society wreaking havoc on his life and livelihood. Bet on it.

Again, I don't think that's necessarily right, but it will happen, and he
had it within his own power to prevent it, and should have known better,
but chose his course anyway. So be it.

    It is also against the law to rent a porn flick to a minor. You go to
    jail for aid-ing to the deliquency(sp) of a minor. A HS student is
    considered a minor in many areas of the legal arena.
    
    There are women who are porn stars and have children. They do not take
    these children away. So long as the man is NOT acting in an
    unprofessional manor who cares. 

    I think I missed something here. Could some one provide me with some
    back round here? 

High School teacher (in MA, I think?) was recognized in a porn flick. 
It seems as though he's either starred in or directed/produced over 
100 of them in the past 20 years.

    go round back and maybe we will.

	They should not do anything to the teacher. Like it has been stated,
unless he broke the law, there is no need for anyone to do anything. 

	Jack, when you stated that he might not be able to control his class
once it err... gets out, it may happen, but it may not. But we should wait and
see, before we react. (which is what I think you said as well)


Glen

    This teacher did a very, very bad thing!

    
    	He did a very, very bad thing 100+ times.
    

Then, on the other hand, perhaps he did it very well!

    Is some one gonna tell give me a name????

    long dong silver.

     How about Frank? Would you like that one?

    
    	Didn't your parents do that when you were born?
    
    	[Yes, I'm borrowing hilarious lines from comedies.]
    

What the hell difference does it wake what his name is, Ray?????

    or make!

    
    	Maybe Ray/Frank has some 8mm stuff he'd like transferred to video?
    

    Awwwww come on now...I just want to know if he knows Tracy Lords or
    even Ginger Lynn.

    who are they?

Why, Tracy Lords was in the television production of Stephen King's
"The Tommyknockers", Oph.

    
    	If you don't know who Traci Lords is, you've been in a cave for
    	a number of years.  Or maybe you just don't like looking at naked
    	women.
    
    	She was the tramp in "Cry Baby", for 1.  She was a porn star for
    	a number of years before that.
    

    Was she in China Beach?

    
    	Is that a movie or a TV show?
    
    	And are you thinking of Dana Delany?
    

    you know, i'm gonna go out on a limb here..
    if the accusations are true about this guy, he should 
    lose his teaching job.
    
    

    
    	It's not like he's using his students in the movies, you know.
    
    	McDonald's isn't exactly "Nutrition Central" in the food ind-
    	ustry, so should a teacher who works there at night be forced
    	to quit because [s]he is setting a bad health example?
    

    it's called propriety.  if he wants to be a porn star,
    fine.  but he should not be a teacher.

    He could be a porn teacher I suppose.

    Mr. Holiday's Magic Opus

    >it's called propriety.  if he wants to be a porn star,
    >fine.  but he should not be a teacher.
    
     Who are you to decide what legal extra-curricular activities he should
    be allowed to engage in? What if he decided he wanted to be a
    homosexual in his off hours? What if he wanted to be a tobacco
    lobbyist? Or a politician?
    
     If what he's doing is legal, then to fire him for something like that
    is begging for a big lawsuit. And he should prevail.

    All I want is a name...

    propriety - 1. the quality of being proper; appropriateness.
                2. conformity to prevailing customs and usages.
    
    he is not suitable to teach.  and dare i say that if a woman
    had done this while retaining a teaching position, there would
    be no question as to whether she would be fired.  maybe a 
    question as to whether or not she'd be run out of town, but
    absolutely no question to the teaching job - she would lose
    it.  as she should.
               

  .36  he was, reportedly, a great teacher until last friday.

    |he was, reportedly, a great teacher until last friday.
    
    then sadder still.  he made a ridiculously poor choice 
    in his moonlighting career. 

    Could we wait for the court to convict him?  Must we really do it here?

    re: .39
    
    What crime is he charged with?
    
    Bob

    >he is not suitable to teach.  
    
     How remarkably and unexpectedly moralistic of you. Must be a new
    addition to the ranks of the RR. :-)
    
     So you conveniently ignored my questions. On what basis do you believe
    that you can terminate him given that he was engaging in lawful
    activities after hours? Do you believe that practising homosexuals
    should be terminated under similar "propriety" based strictures?

    
    |Could we wait for the court to convict
    |him?
    
    oh, knock it off, will ya?  i'm expressing my opinion.
    if you don't like it then lump it.

    >oh, knock it off, will ya?  i'm expressing my opinion.
    >if you don't like it then lump it.
    
    So am I.

  .42  you said it, babycakes.

    
    	He won't be "charged" with anything, I'm sure.  He'll be asked
    	to resign for "conflict if interest" reasons and he'll probably
    	refuse.  And they'll take him to court and he'll win.  And he'll
    	probably quit anyways and live partially off the counter-suit.
    

	Massachusetts law permits firing a teacher for "conduct unbecoming
	a teacher."

	The question is whether acting in porno flicks when not at work
	is "conduct unbecoming a teacher."

    
    	If he was doing this stuff while at the school, I could under-
    	stand people's reactions.  But he's not, so I don't.
    
    	This is just the next big story that "concerned citizens" such
    	as Bonnie can get all worked up about.
    

    .46
    
    Teachers are expected to be role models.  Our present society looks on
    porn stars/producers/whatever as execrable role models; ergo, a valid
    case for conduct unbecoming a teacher.

    Massachusetts law will be overturned if they attempt to use it to fire
    a teacher for engaging in a legal after hours activity. "Conduct
    unbecoming a teacher" could be used to "justify" firing teachers on
    basis of just about anything, including political affiliation. 

>    Massachusetts law will be overturned if they attempt to use it to fire
>    a teacher for engaging in a legal after hours activity.

Of course, by the time that happens, the point will be moot, as the guy
will be collecting SS and no longer be a "draw" in the XXX film market.

    .41  
    
    |How remarkably and unexpectedly moralistic of you
    
    i know.  i can hardly believe it myself (really).
    but you have to draw the line somewhere.
    
    if a practicing homosexual teacher was also starring
    in porn flicks on the side, he/she should be fired also.

    
    	Jack, he's a producer/director also.  They can get pretty old
    	before they end up retiring.
    

Ahem!  Will the class _please_ come to order?!

The guy's name is Robert (Bubba) Walenski.  He taught at Dennis-Yarmouth
Regional High School on Cape Cod.  Coached Babe Ruth League baseball.

>will be collecting SS and no longer be a "draw" in the XXX film market.

Ya never know.  The porn market has found stranger niches to market to...

     Cape Teacher Put on Leave for Starring in Porn Films

     By Brian Macquarrie, 01/15/96

     YARMOUTH - Robert (Bubba) Walenski has long been one of the most
     popular teachers at Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School, but now he is
     the talk of two towns for reasons other than his free-spirited English
     classes and devotion to Babe Ruth League baseball.

     Walenski, of West Yarmouth, has been placed on paid leave following the
     discovery that he has appeared in X-rated videos that he reportedly
     produced by the dozens on the West Coast. The most recent video is
     believed to have been filmed in August.

     His suspension by Superintendent Michael McCaffrey has startled, if not
     shocked, a community that has long known Walenski as an innovative,
     unpredictable product of the '60s. His charismatic style attracts
     crowds of students who have lined up early for a coveted seat in such
     electives as ``Musical Poetry,'' which was profiled by the Globe in
     1978 and studied lyrics by rock stars such as Jim Morrison.

     ``He's a free-wheeling type, a typical '60s prodigy,'' said a police
     dispatcher who asked that her name not be used.

     McCaffrey suspended Walenski, a 12th-grade instructor, after viewing a
     pornographic video on Friday in which the teacher appeared. The
     superintendent, who called the film ``very explicit,'' was alerted to
     the video by a local newspaper reporter, a school source said.

     There is no law against producing or appearing in pornographic films
     per se. Walenski has not been charged with any crime, and his films are
     not believed to have used any local students. He reportedly advertised
     for actresses on the West Coast and did the production work there.

     Walenski, a tenured teacher who has been on the Dennis-Yarmouth faculty
     for about 20 years, will meet soon with McCaffrey as part of an
     investigation into his X-rated work. Walenski could not be reached for
     comment yesterday.

     Suzanne McAuliffe, vice chairwoman of the School Committee, said the
     panel's authority in this matter is unclear because McCaffrey has the
     power to hire and fire teachers.

     ``Let's find out what's going on, and what the district's
     responsibility is and what the teacher's rights are,'' McAuliffe said.
     ``My job as an elected official is to represent the community. At some
     point, you have to worry about making sure the kids aren't involved and
     that we have positive role models.''

     The police dispatcher described Walenski, who is married and has two
     grown children, as a devoted husband who helped his wife overcome
     injuries from a serious traffic accident.

     The dispatcher, who took Walenski's poetry class in 1981, said he
     routinely opened his office to troubled youths and would spend hours
     counseling them.

     Another Yarmouth police employee, a veteran officer who asked that his
     name not be used, described Walenski as a ``good teacher and a nice guy
     that all the kids liked.''

     The officer said that Walenski also was a dynamic Babe Ruth League
     coach who led some of his teams to championships, and that he was a
     meticulous high school umpire who added batting advice to the balls and
     strikes he called.

     ``I've been a police officer for 32 years, so nothing should surprise
     me. But I definitely am surprised by this,'' the officer said of the
     X-rated video reports.

     Joe Dixon, 33, who owns a fish and chips store here, took Walenski's
     ``Musical Poetry'' course in 1979. He defended his former teacher as
     ``a down-to-earth fellow.''

     ``I don't think they should fire him,'' Dixon said in his shop on Route
     6A. ``He didn't involve anyone from this area. I don't think he was a
     pervert.''

     The allegations, however, drew stinging criticism from Susan Laine, a
     26-year-old mother of three who interrupted her shopping yesterday to
     say McCaffrey was ``absolutely'' right to suspend Walenski.

     Laine said residents should listen to the teacher's response, but she
     added, ``I don't think there will be anything that justifies this.''

     The police dispatcher said she expects Walenski's reputation will
     undergo a tough reevaluation.

     ``We're a small town,'' the dispatcher said. ``I'm sure there will be
     quite a few people who will look at this in a negative light, and think
     hard about how they thought about him to begin with.''

     This story ran on page 17 of the Boston Globe on 01/15/96.

    
    	Binder, do teachers have to be role models even when not dealing
    	with students?
    
    	If he's off the clock, who cares what legal stuff he's doing?
    
    	Would you fire a teacher for sleeping with women other than his
    	wife?
    

    
    	RE: .55
    
    	Thanks, John.
    
    	Notice this:
    
    > His suspension by Superintendent Michael McCaffrey has startled, if not
    > shocked, a community that has long known Walenski as an innovative,
    > unpredictable product of the '60s. His charismatic style attracts
    
    	He's innovative and unpredictable, and that's a good thing ...
    	UNTIL they find out just how unpredictable he is.  8^)
    
    
    > McCaffrey suspended Walenski, a 12th-grade instructor, after viewing a
    > pornographic video on Friday in which the teacher appeared. The
    > superintendent, who called the film ``very explicit,'' was alerted to
    
    	"Horrible, horrible stuff.  It was revolting, and got more revolt-
    	ing every time I watched it."  8^)
    
    > ``We're a small town,'' the dispatcher said. ``I'm sure there will be
    > quite a few people who will look at this in a negative light, and think
    > hard about how they thought about him to begin with.''
    
    	"He was a really nice guy until we found this out."
    

>    	If he's off the clock, who cares what legal stuff he's doing?

The fact if the matter is that the taxpayers in the school district apparently
care, Shawn.

I don't care. You may not care. But if sufficient vocal folks in the school
district care, and they wish to make a big enough deal out of it, then it's
likely that the guy will lose his position.

If I were he, at this point I'd probably resign to give myself a head start
on the job-search in a faraway land.

    I am not Binder and I do not play him on TV but I would say yes,
    teachers have a responsibility to be discreet when their external
    activities may be questionable regardless of their legality.  It might
    be possible for him to continue to be effective but, if his movie
    making was the cause of unruliness and derisiveness within the school,
    I would say he needs to go.  
    
    The question I have is how did anyone find out about this?  

The article said that the superintendent was alerted by a reporter.  Do we
suppose the reporter likes to watch porno films?

    
    	Brian, he was discreet.  He never told anyone about it.
    
    	It was that nosey reporter's fault.  8^)
    

 I can't wait til I get my son out of the public school system.





 Jim

> I can't wait til I get my son out of the public school system.

Your son has a porn star teacher?

    Sounds like it's time for teacher to devote full-time to his hobby. ;)
    It probably pays better anyway. :!

>Your son has a porn star teacher?


 Not that I know of, but then again, nothing suprises me anymore.




 Jim

    
    
    	Let me get this straight.....  for 20 years, students, fellow
    	teachers, school officials and parents thought this guy was
    	great.  He was liked by the kids he taught and was sought out
    	for advice and respected for his dedication and willingness to
    	help his students.
    
    	Now, because they've found out about something that he does on
    	his own time, on the other side of the country, that his students 
    	would be legally too young to see, and it's something that society 
    	looks upon as "bad", all of a sudden he's not so great anymore?!
    
    	Please.
    

    
    Yea, It sounds like he has all the qualities of a role model. Hard
    working, dedicated, concerned about his students.
    
    ed

| <<< Note 629.67 by SUBSYS::NEUMYER "Love is a dirty job" >>>

| Hard working, dedicated, 

	What ya need to be a porn star....

    >if a practicing homosexual teacher was also starring
    >in porn flicks on the side, he/she should be fired also.
    
     I'm not talking about starring in porno flicks. I'm talking about a
    homosexual teacher that engages in sexual conduct. So it's not a case
    of "I am who I am" but "I am what I do." In other words, I'm not
    talking about firing a teacher because s/he happens to be a homosexual,
    I'm talking about firing the teacher because s/he negages in homosexual
    acts (with other consenting adults.)
    
     From your position on the porno filmmaker, one would expect that you
    would support such a dismissal. But that would be at odds with your
    generally liberal nature. I'm wondering how you are going to resolve
    this.

    .62
    
    > I can't wait til I get my son out of the public school system.
    
    And into one of those nice squeaky clean private schools.  Like
    Phillips Academy, where at least one former teacher is a confirmed
    child molester...
    
    Problem people happen everywhere, Jim.

    
>    > I can't wait til I get my son out of the public school system.
    
 >   And into one of those nice squeaky clean private schools.  Like
 >   Phillips Academy, where at least one former teacher is a confirmed
 >   child molester...
   

     no way.  I'll get him into the Christian school we have at my church,
     where I know the teachers quite well.


 
 > >  Problem people happen everywhere, Jim.


      but less likely to happen if I go to church with them, pray with them
      and am involved in other activities with them.  



 Jim

       |I'm talking about firing the teacher because s/he negages in
       |homosexual acts (with other consenting adults.)
    
       there is the private domain, and then there is the public
       domain.  what _anyone_ does privately, in his own home, is
       no business of mine.  this guy went public by making porno
       movies.  i have no quarrel with porno movies.  the issue,
       imo, is that the man's behavior is inappropriate; it's just
       not _right_ for a teacher to engage in this profession.
    
       now, excuse me, pat buchanan's on the phone and i must take
       the call.
    
        

	Jim, I'm sure that people thought they knew the pastors who molested
children pretty well, too. You can't ever really know.


Glen

    .71
    
    You're not involved with what they do behind closed doors, Jim. 
    
    Remember, everyone thought that Jim Bakker was an honest, God-fearing,
    Spirit-touched preacher until it became public that he was actually a
    criminal preying on believers like you.

         <<< Note 629.71 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "We shall behold Him!" >>>

    
>      and am involved in other activities with them.  


	Like coaching Little League?

	On another note....

	Does anyone know the legal procedure for firing a tenured teacher?

Jim

>	Jim, I'm sure that people thought they knew the pastors who molested
>children pretty well, too. You can't ever really know.


I *know* Glen.  I know these teachers and their families.  I know the
Pastor, the prinicpals and their families and what they stand for.  



Jim

    
    	Jim's missing the point.
    
    	That long walk to the building every day must be clouding his
    	mind.  Di, whaddaya say you and Jim trade parking spaces for a
    	bit, for his well-being?
    

    
>    You're not involved with what they do behind closed doors, Jim. 

     I know to what they agree before they are hired, and I know that there
     are many who are not hired because they won't agree to the strict
     requirements.  



  >  Remember, everyone thought that Jim Bakker was an honest, God-fearing,
  >  Spirit-touched preacher until it became public that he was actually a
  >  criminal preying on believers like you.


     not me.  I never trusted the guy and never sent him a penny.  That there
     are those who didn't see this shows how much people who profess 
     Christianity don't know much about it.



 Jim

>    <<< Note 629.75 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>      and am involved in other activities with them.  


>	Like coaching Little League?



        No.  As a matter of fact we've started our own youth athletic league
        so we don't have to put our kids in Little League or other organized
        youth athletic programs.



 Jim

    
    	Do I hear yet another "WHOOSH!!"?
    
    	I believe I do.
    

    	> Do I hear yet another "WHOOSH!!"?
    
    Shawn must be showering.

    
    <-- BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
    
    {cough, cough}
    
    Oh, I can't believe I'm laughing at that sort of joke.
    

 Where am I missing the point?





 Sleep deprived Jim

    		Don't ask me.
    		    .
    		   .
    		(=)
    		 |
    		 |
    		 |
    		 |
    		 |

    
    	Jim, this guy's been teaching for 20 years and everybody loved him,
    	thought he was great.
    
    	Now it's known that he was a porn star/producer, and everybody's
    	shocked ... or at least surprised.  They never even entertained
    	the thought, because "they knew him so well".
    
    	"I'm a porn star/producer" isn't usually the 1st thing, or the 10th
    	thing, to come up during casual conversation" ... as a matter of
    	fact, it wasn't known until some busy-body reporter happened to see
    	the guy in a movie.
    
    	That could have been your kids' baseball coach, as far as you knew.
    
    	That's the point.
    

    My kids don't play baseball.
    
    What a relief!

   that glenn, he's the pitcher of relief.

    
    > My kids don't play baseball.
    
    That's because the ball is white... and when they finally find it after
    the snow melts, it's time for football!!!
    
    

    he's the relief comic.

    He makes topological jokes?

    curvy ones, fast ones, sinkers...

    
    	Don't forget the ones that sputter and die before they even reach
    	the intended target.
    

    Is that some sort of insult?
    		.
    	       .
    	    (=)
    	     |
    	     |
    	     |
    	     |
    	     |
    		

    sinkers, not stinkers!!

Excuse me but---- WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??
    		.
    	       .
    	    (=)
    	     |
    	     |
    	     |
    	     |
    	     |
    		

    
    
    Let's have a contest.... shall we???
    
    

 i am disqualifying myself.

Z    Now, because they've found out about something that he does on
Z    his own time, on the other side of the country, that his
Z    students would be legally too young to see, and it's something that
Z    society 
Z    looks upon as "bad", all of a sudden he's not so great anymore?!
 
    Dear Judy:
    
    I'm usually quite shy about these matters so please be synsytyve as I 
    give my opinion.
    
    To answer your question, no.  The teacher is a low rent scum bumb...no
    matter how congenial he is with children.  I'll touch on the role model
    thing in a minute but consider the following.  The profession this man
    has involved himself in is most definitely tied in with drug cartels,
    organized crime, abduction of children, exploitation and VIOLENCE
    toward women.  Not only that, pornography no doubt has been a tool
    which has lead to extramarital affairs, faithlessness, exploitation of
    lonely men, and no doubt has been a major factor in much of the violent
    crimes against women in this country.  Much of the profiteering from
    the pornography industry is used to fund the transportation and
    distribution of drugs throughout cities and school systems.  RE-AL-I-TY
    Judy...it is there!   
    
    Secondly and this is opinion...I see teaching as a position of high
    responsibility and a ministry, an entrusting of the minds of our youth. 
    Most children do seek role models other than their parents, and usually
    cling to a teacher.  I see this guy as somebody who, like the mentality
    of teacher unions, has lowered the profession to an idiotic blue
    collared mentality... with no regard what effect they're having on
    their students.  This guy was entrusted but his character lacks,
    therefore he has been found deficient and should be removed!  The way I
    see it is if Pete Rose can be defrocked for his personal dealings, then
    how much more should a teacher?  I say off with his head!
    
    -Jack

    I want to know if he was ever bankrolled by Phill Gramm.

	Jack, you live in an amazing world....yes you do. 


	Our Jack Martin's 5 step program to classifying anything


1) Pick a topic, any topic... 

2) think of everything imaginable about that topic. 

3) Now apply it to everyone. 

4) Pick a new topic

5) go to step 2

Moonlighting in pornography is financially viable for someone who's day
job is teaching.

There's some market forces at work...

    
    	Jack, this guy was a great guy yesterday.  If he'd been your
    	teacher you probably would have adored him.
    
    	But today he's scum because you heard something about him that
    	you deem to be negative.
    
    	HOWEVER, if you hadn't heard this something, he'd still be a
    	great guy today.
    
    	Does this make sense?  Of course not.
    

    
    
    Question for you'se out there...
    
    What if these movies were made in a state that, say, the age of consent
    was 16 and this guy was legally porking, oh, young ladies AND young
    men...
    
     Does that make a difference??
    

    
    	Not to me, no.  He's still not doing anything illegal.
    

    
    
    	Yep, 'till he breaks the law or forces someone into doing something
    against their will, he can't be touched. Period.
    
    
    

    >What if these movies were made in a state that, say, the age of consent
    >was 16 and this guy was legally porking, oh, young ladies AND young
    >men...
    
Don't you love it when somebody makes up a nonexistent problem and then tries to 
prove a point with it?

    

    
    
    	yeah, what if all the cops went on strike at once and there was no
    more police force in any town/city. Wouldn't you want a gun to protect
    yourself (hey! this could work for me!)? ;*)
    
    
    

Well, now.

What if what he was doing was illegal in the town where he teaches, but
not illegal where he did it?

Does that make a difference?

/john

    Re: .8
    
    ... So long as the man is NOT acting in an
    unprofessional manor who cares. 
                   ^^^^^
    
    What if he were acting in a professional manor, or in a professional
    regular old house, or in an unprofessional house?  Who cares where he
    does it?
    
    -- Jim

>What if what he was doing was illegal in the town where he teaches, but
>not illegal where he did it?

What if?? Same problem. It is a total waste of time to evaluate a situation 
based on a created scenario. 

    
    	ESPECIALLY when he's still not breaking any laws in ANY of these
    	scenarios.
    

    
    The best thing he can do now is to resign(retire) from the
    teacher job (I think he is qualified to retire after 20 years),
    and make big money by placing ad nationally for the video:
    
    "Your beloved teacher's fantacy life after class"
    
    Any better Ad you can think of?
    
    
    J.

Cripes. I was leaning heavily on the "This guy has no business being a 
teacher"-side until I read Our Jack Martin's expose of the eeeevils
of the porn trade in .98 . . . 

    OK, OK...now whats the name of the movie so I can put it on reserve for
    this weekend? and now that I have his real name, whats his stage name?
    They never use their real names, ya know? ROTFLMAO:')

  According to this morning network news, his 'role' in the 
   alleged(sp?) 'porn' movies consisted of massaging a woman and
    sucking on her toes.  Strange how Andy inferred he was
     involved in rather different activity.  
kb

<---remember, Andy knows all...

    A TOE sucker! What a pervert! Forget it- I'm with Bonnie. He's not fit
    to teach.

	Toe suckers are people, too! But I wouldn't want to kiss them. Maybe he
wrote that real bad song from the mid 70's called.... Popsicle Toes...

    
    maybe i am too liberal because i don't have children, but the way i see
    it, this guy did his job as a teacher very well.  he didn't bring his
    private life into class, and most of the students/teachers liked and
    respected him.  what he does outside of the school yard, as long as it
    doesn't interfer with his teaching role, is his business.  what he does
    is not illegal.  it may be in poor taste (to some anyway), but it is
    not against the law.
    
    leave him be.  as it is now, he probably will never be able to teach
    again because he had been earmarked as taboo and even if someone does
    allow him to teach, i don't know if anyone is going to be able to take
    him seriously again...
    
    

    
    re: .115
    
    >Strange how Andy inferred
    
    
    Huh??? How did you get that out of my query???
    
    
    Are you as comprehension-challenged as your buddy in .116
    
    :)
    

| <<< Note 629.121 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot." >>>


| Are you as comprehension-challenged as your buddy in .116

	How true.... I mean, for me to actually think you know all.... where
was my mind??? 

Toad suckers?

Say, Priscilla...  Got a date yet for the Saturday night toad suck?

		Lookit them toad suckers
		Ain't they hogs.
		Suckin' them sucky toads,
		Suckin them frogs.
		How to be a toad sucker?
		Don't need a ticket.
		Find yerself a toad
		Stick yer tongue out and lick it.

[From "Them Poems"]

    
    
    re: .122
    
    Gee!!! Did we forget our usual smiley???
    
    >where was my mind???
    
    
    
    ..... Naaaah..... too easy...

This morning's Globe sez his videos were soft core, and consisted mostly of
neked women alone.  When he appears, he's fully clothed.  It seems, though,
that they haven't reviewed his entire oeuvre.

       
    
    All the world is a stage....
    
    
    It's a good thing he has Tenure-(I hope this is the correct spelling.)
    or they could drop him like a hot potato.
    
    The school system should save its money on lawyers and offer him
    a cash out settlement. They are never going to be happy with him as
    a teacher and I don't think have a leg to stand on to fire him.
    
    

    -1 agreed. i'm waiting for the ACLU to show up in this one.

re: i'm waiting for the ACLU to show up in this one.

They're probably too busy (hopefully) wasting others' time as it is
without adding this. But yes, they'll probably show up.

Pete

    Jack and Glen:
    
    The facts I came up with in .98 are just that...FACTS!  I got them from
    the Nick at Night vault, Sargeant Joe Friday.  He gave a great spiel on
    the evyls of pornography right from the vaults of the Los Angeles
    Police Department!   Nyaaaahhhh!
    
    Ya know what is funny though, when it comes to a situation like this,
    the Ga gaaas out there decry privacy and freedom of choice; however,
    when Clinton got elected the first thing uttered from a limo libs mouth
    was, (insert mealy mouth voice here...like Truman Capote), "I think
    this election is great for our country.  We really need to practice
    more social responsibility....cough cough.."  

    
    	Jack, the really funny part is that you believe everything you
    	hear on TV.
    

    jack, are we supposed to read the last paragraph backwards
    or something to make sense out of it?

    Anyone else ever get the impression that the greatest contribution Jack
    could make to conservatism would be to keep his mouth closed?

    Hey, no skin off my ass!  I shun the public school system for reasons
    such as this.  I would encourage you to do the same!
    
    -Jack

    
    	Lucky for you there'd never be a private school teacher who would
    	do something like this.
    
    	Jack, meet Jim H.  Jim H., meet Jack.  I think you 2 have alot to
    	talk about.
    

 Please..there are significant differences between Mr. Martin and I.
 



 Jim

    
    	Oh, Jack doesn't have a moustache, right?
    

    < No head to which he could attach it.

    A female student from the school in question was on the radio
    yesterday.  She said that as far as she knew, this teacher was
    a model of decorum, and had never made even an off-color or lewd
    remark (or even an admiring stare) towards a female student.  On
    the other hand, she knew of several cases of other male teachers
    in the same school who were dating (and presumably boinking) female
    students.
    
    So this guy, a model teacher by all accounts, gets nuked for doing
    something in private, on his own time, not available to students,
    and not even known about by anyone in the town (videos featuring
    him are not even available in the town) until it's "exposed".  But
    actual practicing pedophile teachers are safe in their "secret".
    
    Hypocrisy, quelle surprise.  Maybe they can reassign this poor bastard
    as the Condom Distributor in the school hallway.  Isn't this town in
    Congressman Studds' district?  Perhaps they can ask him for advice on
    how to reprimand gov workers that have shady secret sex lives...
    
    Given his reputation as an excellent teacher and his record of
    never bringing up anything remotely sexual with students, I'd
    let him teach my kids.  But it's moot, since he'll be removed
    and probably rightly so, though not for the "obvious" reason.
    
    The main reason this teacher should probably not teach anymore is not
    because he's "unfit" (since his private-life matters have never
    affected any students), but rather because he's most likely suffered
    image-damage among students; he'll be the source of derision and/or
    humor for a significant percentage of his students, and that alone will
    most likely prove detrimental to the "class environment".  This would
    probably "travel" with him to any other town he might go to.
    
    One might say that he probably should have thought of this before
    pursuing his alternate career, but then that's the risk he took, and
    he did indeed "get away with it" for a while.
    
    Chris

 
  I wonder how much hubbub there'd be if it was discovered that this
 guy moonlighted as a Baptist preacher.




 Jim

    >Maybe they can reassign this poor bastard as the Condom Distributor in 
    >the school hallway.  
    
     <guffaw!>
    
    >he's most likely suffered
    >image-damage among students; he'll be the source of derision and/or
    >humor for a significant percentage of his students, and that alone will
    >most likely prove detrimental to the "class environment".  
    
     Assumption alert! From what I hear from his students, they all love
    the guy. Sounds to me like he's likely to weather the minor storm of
    controversy with the students, it's the handwringers that he needs to
    worry about. And besides, dismissing the man because he MIGHT have
    image damage is silly. If he has an image problem it will become
    apparent in short order. Prior to that, it is simply reactionary to
    predicate a dismissal on putative image harm.

    it's so funny to watch people paint this guy as almost
    a victim soon to be skewered by the hypocrisy of society...
    but if it had been a woman...

  I realize I'm in the minority here, and that my Christian values matter
  little in this anti-God society today, but it absolutely amazes me that
  there are those who actually support this guy continuing to teach.  It
  absolutely amazes me.  Even in my backslidden days a few years ago when
  the last thing I wanted to do in my life was live for Gop, I would not
  support this guy keeping his job.


  Ah well..



  Jim

    I still would not live my life for Gop.

>                         Even in my backslidden days a few years ago when
>  the last thing I wanted to do in my life was live for Gop, I would not
>  support this guy keeping his job.

You backslid and voted Democrat?

whoops.

    
    	Jim, maybe he's not a Christian.
    
    	And if all he did in the movies was massage people [and he kept
    	his clothes on], what did he do wrong?
    
    	And it wouldn't matter to me of the teacher were male or female.
    	I'd take the same stand regardless.  Nothinbg illegal, therefore
    	no problem.
    

    remember what's-her-name?  the miss america who was 
    stripped of her title when they found out she had made
    porn films?  

Vanessa Williams, no?

    
>    	Jim, maybe he's not a Christian.
 

        I don't believe I said (or implied) that he was.  


>    	And if all he did in the movies was massage people [and he kept
>    	his clothes on], what did he do wrong?
 
        According to articles I've read there was considerably more than
        massaging going on, though he did keep *his* clothes on.




 Jim





   
    

    If this were Italy, he'd become the front runner in a political
    campaign.

    
    Vanessa Williams just posed for pictures, didn't she?  I don't think
    she did films.
    

    just pictures?!  on her own time?  and she wasn't even
    a teacher!  go figure.

    re: .140
    
    >> And besides, dismissing the man because he MIGHT have
    >> image damage is silly. If he has an image problem it will become
    >> apparent in short order. Prior to that, it is simply reactionary to
    >> predicate a dismissal on putative image harm.
    
    Yeah, you're right, I'll retract that claim.  If he decides on his
    own later to quit because he's constantly having to fend off comments,
    jokes, and so on from students, thus making classroom life and teaching
    difficult, then that should be his own decision; it shouldn't be a
    before-the-fact thing imposed on him.
    
    Chris

    
    I think there have been some police officers of both sexes who have 
    posed nude and been fired.  Don't ask me for details, though.  I have a
    brain like a sieve.
    
    

    This case is similar to one happening here in Toronto where a
    University professor proclaimed (something to the effect of) "sexuall
    relations between an adult and a young adult (read 'underage') would be
    'educational' to the younger one'.  Apparently this professor also
    practices male prostitution on the side and has witnessed underage sex. 
    The students and some other professors are on his side, while others
    froth at the mouth to get rid of him.  The Mass. small-town teacher's
    escapdes certainly seem innocent in comparison.
    
    The police were speaking with this professor on charges of failing to
    prevent a crime (or something to that effect).  The debate continues.
    
    Doug

    Re .141:
    
    > . . . but if it had been a woman...
    
    If you want to proclaim your prejudice any louder, you'll have to hire
    a skywriter.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    RE: Jim, I think moonlighting as clergy would not harm his reputation
    unless it was discovered he was a member of a "satanic cult" that ran
    around in the woods on a full moon or whatever.  Intolerance based upon
    fear and ignorance would then take over. 
    
    RE: Oph, she would have been subjected to this same treatment and
    possibly more.  Witness the Miss America (disgusting IMO) hoopla of a 
    few years ago. 
    

There was a NYC female cop who posed for Playboy.  She either was fired, or
quit because she couldn't deal with the comments of her fellow cops.

    Hubba hubba!

    The NYPD had a female fired for posing nude but when it was a man...he
    left the department.

    
    
    	I believe stripping someone of a 'title' and firing them from their
    job are two completely different things.
    
    	re: Christian beliefs
    
    	I am a christian (roman catholic for those who care), and I still
    don't see the reason for condemning this man. I may not agree with what
    he does, but does not the catholic religion say we should not judge?
    Does not the good book say "let he who is without sin cast the first
    stone"? I feel we all have our little skeletons in the closet and that
    this man is no different from the rest of us. It sounds to me like he
    is an outstanding teacher/mentor to these kids and I really hope that
    doesn't change.
    
    
    jim

    .156 
    
    |If you want to proclaim your prejudice any louder, you'll have to hire
    |a skywriter.
    
    prejudice against whom?

    >it's so funny to watch people paint this guy as almost
    >a victim soon to be skewered by the hypocrisy of society...
    >but if it had been a woman...
    
     You'd be the one supporting her. :-)

    >remember what's-her-name?  the miss america who was 
    >stripped of her title when they found out she had made
    >porn films?  
    
     Vanessa Williams simply posed in some lesbian style nudie shots, she
    didn't make porno films (to my knowledge). She was stripped of her Miss
    America title. She was not fired from her job. Biggus differencus.

    |I believe stripping someone of a 'title' and firing them from
    |their job are two completely different things.  
    
    oh, why?  don't you think she worked hard for the title?
    dedicated a lot of time and effort?  at the time, she probably
    felt that her future career depended on that title.

    |You'd be the one supporting her. :-)
    
    Wrong. :p

    
    	And Vanessa Williams has gone farther than she ever could have
    	hoped to go on the wings of a Miss America Crown.
    
    	Sure, she lost out on the $50K and the new convertible and the
    	year's supply of lipstick and blush [or whatever they were giv-
    	ing away at the time] ... but what she's made since then makes
    	that look like a drop in the bucket.
    

    >oh, why?  don't you think she worked hard for the title?
    
     Irrelevant. When you enter a contest, you subject yourself to the
    rules of the contest as decided upon by the group sponsoring the
    contest. When you sign a morality clause, you are subjecting yourself
    to scrutiny in that regard.
    
    >dedicated a lot of time and effort?  at the time, she probably
    >felt that her future career depended on that title.
    
     Irrelevant. See above.

    and when you enter a public school teaching career, you
    should have the brains and character to stay away from
    the porn profession even if you don't sign a morality
    clause in the contract.

    
    well I will admit it, when i was in high school, I never had a female
    teacher who looked like Tracie Lords or Ginger Lynn. If I had, I may
    have payed attention more.

    I don't believe in Morality Clause.

    
    .171
    
    any relation to Santa Clause?

    |You'd be the one supporting her. :-)
    
    >Wrong. :p
    
     You're right. I misspoke. You wouldn't really be supporting her. You'd
    just be arguing with the guys who thought she should be canned, saying
    how they'd support her if she were a man, etc. :-)

    Now, that would be immoral if they had relations wouldn't it?

    
    	Bonnie, if morality and "off the job behavior" are so important
    	in judging a teacher, why don't teachers have to sign morality
    	clauses to ensure that they'll follow the "straight and narrow"?
    

 re .169


 I believe that character is the issue.





 Jim

>    I don't believe in Morality Clause.

	You don't believe in the Sanity Clause either. Do you?

    >and when you enter a public school teaching career, you
    >should have the brains and character to stay away from
    >the porn profession even if you don't sign a morality
    >clause in the contract.
    
     Brains has nothing to do with it. Character doesn't matter- or is 1992
    that far in the past?

    >I believe that character is the issue.
    
     So you can have a school filled with people of excellent character who
    can't teach worth a damn. Just don't expect me to support your kids
    when they come out of school unable to think (but excellently behaved.)
    
     It all comes down to what you think a school is for. If you think it's
    for learning, then tawdry extracurricular activities with consenting
    adults amount to little more than titillation fodder. If you think it's
    for surrogate parenting, well, then, I can see a problem. If nobody
    made a big deal about this, the kids wouldn't be impacted by this
    alleged "poor role model" (who was a fine role model until the story
    broke.) 
    
     And we wonder why we get bozos for teachers- what do you expect when
    you hound the talented ones out of a job?

    There is no Sanity Clause!

    |Brains has nothing to do with it. Character doesn't matter- or is 1992
    |that far in the past?
    
    i assume you're referring the elections?  brains and character
    are hardly requirements for politicians.  we're talking about an 
    important job - we're talking about teaching.

    
    	I'm glad the President was never intended to serve as any kind
    	of a role model.
    
    	Whew!!
    

    "looking for her hand in the snow"
    
     Sounds like a Lorena Bobbitt analog.

    |Bonnie, if morality and "off the job behavior" are so important
    |in judging a teacher...
    
    because society must operate on "givens".  it's a given that
    a teacher is not a murderer; a given that he's not a rapist;
    a given that he's not a pedophile; a given that he's not a 
    porn star.  some individuals blow these "givens" sky-high,
    but that does not mean that society must relinquish its
    expectations.  geesh, it doesn't seem so difficult to under-
    stand.

    .184
    Isn`t it then also a given that Priests are pedophile`s? This is
    crap...leave the person alone. He has broken no laws. I see as much or
    more damage coming for this person than for a priest. I`ll bet the
    church has covered it up for a lot longer than 20 years.

        .184
        | Isn`t it then also a given that Priests are pedophile`s?
    
        check your dosage.

    >because society must operate on "givens".  it's a given that
    >a teacher is not a murderer; a given that he's not a rapist;
    >a given that he's not a pedophile; a given that he's not a 
    >porn star.  
    
     What about "it's a given that a teacher is not a homosexual"? How can
    you justify excluding "porn stars" while not allowing others to decide
    that homosexuals must be excluded? (I take it as a given that you would
    not insist upon immediate dismissal of someone discovered to be a
    homosexual.)

    
    Re: .184
    
    I would have thought that the only given is that
    the teacher is not doing anything illegal.
    
    If not, I'd be curious to see the complete list of "givens"
    in case I ever want to become a teacher.
    
    My bottom line is that this whole thing is ridiculous.
    
    							Hank

    
    
    I agree with Bonnie....
    
    Human nature, being what it is, works on what Bonnie stated as "givens"
    or knowable facts...
    
     Pick anything and anybody...
    
     Drinking is not illegal, nor immoral... You're a frequent flyer and
    have the utmost confidence in your pilot...
    
     Would you have that same confidence, and would you get in a plane if
    you knew that at one time your pilot had a drinking problem?
    
     

    |If not, I'd be curious to see the complete list of "givens"
    |in case I ever want to become a teacher.
    
    well, hank, first tell us how you measure up on the first
    four: murderer, rapist, pedophile, porn star.

    
    If you insist...
    
    murderer...Couldn't do it. Don't like to hurt people...at all.
    rapist.....see above
    pedophile..seems sick to me. Also see above
    Porn star..much too modest, don't even like having my picture taken.
    
    						Hank

    

    	murderer, rapist, and pedophile are illegal. Porn star is not.
    Again, irrelevant.

    > Drinking is not illegal, nor immoral... You're a frequent flyer and
    >have the utmost confidence in your pilot...
    
    > Would you have that same confidence, and would you get in a plane if
    >you knew that at one time your pilot had a drinking problem?
    
     That's not an analogous situation. The issue in question has no
    negative impact on job performance.

    .191
    
    exactly my point about "givens".  thanks, hank.

    Are you saying that all such people have no hope of total redemption
    in the eyes of society?   That's a hard thought to deal with.

    
    re: .193
    
    >negative impact on job performance.
    
    Scuse me Doc??? What better example for job performance than a pilot
    and keeping his plane "performing"??
    

    > Drinking is not illegal, nor immoral... You're a frequent flyer and
    >have the utmost confidence in your pilot...
    >
    > Would you have that same confidence, and would you get in a plane if
    >you knew that at one time your pilot had a drinking problem?
    
    It's illegal for any member of the flight crew to have consumed alcohol
    within 8 hours of flying.  It's also illegal for any member of the
    flight crew to have a BAC of .04 or greater.  The flight crew is also
    subject to random drug testing that includes alcohol.  So, the answer
    to your question is, no.
    
    This whole thing is rediculous.  It's another manifestation of many
    Americans weird view of sex.  As -b would say, "You need to get a
    life."
    
    Bob
    

    
    Re: .194
    
    Bonnie, pardon my ignorance but I guess I don't understand your point
    especially with respect to my answers.
    
    							Hank

    
    re: .197
    
    Bob...
    
    Please go back and read what I typed...
    
    I said nothing about the pilot drinking on the job, now or ever...
    
    I stated "at one time had a drinking problem.." (para-phrased cause I
    was too lazy to go back and read what I wrote before this reply).
    
     How's his hands?? Shaky? How about all those dead brain cells? Is his
    judgment still good??
    
     Tell me... with a straight face, that you'd feel absolutely no anxiety
    getting onto that plane...
    

    
    	If Hank weren't modest, and LIKED to have his picture taken, it's
    	possible that he could be a porn star.
    
    	And it's still not illegal to do that.
    
    	What point did he prove?
    

    
      There are two questions here - one is a personnel question :
     OUGHT the town to fire the guy.  I have no idea, not knowing
     the guy, the town, and so forth.
    
      The other question is : if terminated, more or less on the
     role-model law, does he have any recourse in the USA ?  Pretty
     clearly, he has none, and his teaching career is over.  This very
     Massachusetts law was upheld both in the state and the Feds for a
     man who publicly crossdressed, even after being warned once.
    
      Firing him violates none of his rights.  Privacy ?  No, SCOTUS has
     ruled many times that you have no privacy rights to things you make
     public yourself.  Free speech ?  That protects you from prosecution,
     but not from being fired for public statements.
    
      If the school authorities want to, I bet they can fire him with no
     fear of losing a civil suit.
    
      bb

    hank, obviously i'm not making myself clear.
    
    take this as an example.  when you hire the next
    door neighbor's kid to come and babysit your children,
    don't you just _assume_ that this kid is not going to
    harm you're kids in any way?  i mean, don't you have to
    assume that before you reach for the phone to call the
    kid up?  don't you take it as a given?
    
    i'm not talking about the porn star here, i'm talking
    about society's right to assume at least a minimal level
    of behavioral standards, nothing more. 

    re: .199
    
    Andy, I'm sorry.  I thought you were concerned about an impaired pilot
    flying the aircraft.
    
    As far as:
    
    > How's his hands?? Shaky? How about all those dead brain cells? Is his
    >judgment still good??
    
    Every six months the pilots must pass a flight physical that
    specifically checks for physical problems that would prevent the pilot
    from being able to fly properly.  In addition, every six months the
    pilots spend time in the flight simulator where they get put through
    all sorts of emergencies, etc.  No pass.  No fly.
    
    So, my answer still would be, no.
    
    Bob
    

    
    
    	Rather ironic the show I caught a bit of on HBO late last
    	night.  Here we are, all in a hub-bub about pornography that
    	people have to rent or buy.  Most doing it in secret because
    	most of the rest of society deems it immoral and sinful.  And
    	last night I find out about shows on PUBLIC TV in other
    	countries, showing lots of T&A...... game shows, talk shows,
    	strip tease shows.....France, Russia, Japan, Czechoslovakia, 
    	etc.
    
    	Americans are far too uptight about seeing what is a very
    	natural act, on film.  The only thing we see a lot of on
    	public TV is violence.......
    

Toe sucking is a very natural act?

    
    re: .204
    
    Judy...
    
     I'll remember this reply and expect you to (un)dress accordingly this
    coming Halloween...
    
    
    :) :)
    

    
    
    	hey.....  I didn't say *I* was personally into porn.....  =)
    

    
    re: .203
    
    Okay Bob.... this should be easy
    
    Say you have two pilots with exact safety/flying records... same number
    of hours... same grades in all the stuff you mentioned...
    
     Let's say you knew one of them used to have a drinking problem...
    
    You have a choice as to who to fly with.. pilot A or pilot B...
    
    Knowing human nature... who would you choose and why???
    

    
    re: .207
    
    Hey!!! Who said anything about "porn"???
    

    
    
    	re: .208
    
    	Andy, isn't that a bit of a different situation though?
    	
    	A drunk pilot will be risking the life of hundreds of other
    	people as well as himself.
    
    	A teacher, who does a few amateur porn flicks on the side, is
    	not putting anyone's life at risk (provided those in the movie
    	are having sex safely).
    
    

    
    
    Judy...
    
    The gist of this all is the "human nature" angle....
    
     

>    	A teacher, who does a few amateur porn flicks on the side, is
>    	not putting anyone's life at risk (provided those in the movie
>    	are having sex safely).
    
Question for you porn-watchers out there: do actors in hard-core porn films
use condoms these days?

    let's wait and see if anyone answers.

    
    
    re: .212
    
    Yuk... yuk.... yuk....  :) :)
    
    
     You expect an answer Gerald???
    
     These folks'll defend to the death their freedom to not answer a
    loaded question like that!!!
    
     Why is it loaded you ask???  Maybe the teacher can tell them!!
    
     :) :)
    

    
    Bonnie,
    
    I'll have to reply later as I'm still getting over the shock
    of reading..
    
    "If Hank weren't modest, and LIKED to have his picture taken, it's
     possible that he could be a porn star."
    
    
    I believe Lady Di has the best response to entries such as these.
    
    "agagagagagagagagag"
    
    							Hank
    
    
    ps. What will I tell my wife?

>Question for you porn-watchers out there: do actors in hard-core porn films
>use condoms these days?
    
     Only the products of public schools. :-)

    
    	Gerald, I haven't watched a porn movie in 4-5 years, but as of
    	then I only remembered seeing a condom used once in maybe 10
    	movies that I'd seen.  But that isn't quite recent enough for
    	your question, I don't think.
    

    .215
    
    okey dokey, big hank ;-)

    
    
    Pheeeeeeeeew!!! Now there's a brave soul!!! And even admits to seeing
    at least 10 of them!!!!
    
    Tell me Shawn... what did you see in #10 that you didn't in #1???
    
    
     :) :) :)
    

    
    	Bonnie, don't take this the wrong way, but if you're going to
    	assume that a kid picked at random is "normal" according to
    	your standards then you must be on something.
    
    	And why do you insist that this is "harming" the students in
    	any way, like a violent neighbor could possibly do?
    

    
    	Andy, they're all the same, but I'm sure I don't have to tell
    	you that.
    
    	8^)
    

>    Tell me Shawn... what did you see in #10 that you didn't in #1???
    
He already answered that -- a condom.    

My graduate advisor has spent his professional career (over 30 years) doing
research in (among other things) pornography and its effects on people. 
Not surprisingly, this has required him to spend an inordinate amount of
time watching porno films.

He tells me they're boring as h___.  Me, I'm too much of a prude to find
out for myself.  I should ask him whether they're using condoms now...
(Although, I suspect that doing so would interfere with what he calls "the
money shots" -- and that's as much as I'll say about those.)

    
    	And it disgusted me so much I refused to watch another one ever
    	again.
    

    .220
    
    shawn, you're barking up the wrong tree.  my words did
    not say that.  over and out.

    |        And it disgusted me so much I refused to watch another one ever
    |        again.
    
    So, you just watch the same one over and over again?
    

    
    	Bonnie, if you have to "assume" that the kid is not going to harm
    	your kids, then you apparently don't know him/her well enough to
    	ask him/her in the 1st place.
    
    	And is he an axe murderer, or does he produce porn flicks in his
    	garage?  To you it would appear to be the same thing.
    

    I guess Bonnie's going to continue avoiding the uncomfortable question 
    I've been asking her (in different ways) since she joined Buchanan et
    al (most recently in .187)
    
    Well, even if she's not up to the task of answering it, the local
    school board must be. They don't have the option of punting.

    
    
    re: .221
    
    >Andy, they're all the same, but I'm sure I don't have to tell
    >you that.
    
    
     I dunno...
    
     Heaven help me, but what I recall from my Army days, with your usual
    drunk and horny GIs, was that there is indeed a "variety"...
    
     I think I finally gagged, or passed out (from being drunk) when the
    ponies and German Shepherd showed up...
    

    re: .208
    
    >Okay Bob.... this should be easy
    
    It was.
    
    >Say you have two pilots with exact safety/flying records... same number
    >of hours... same grades in all the stuff you mentioned...
    >Let's say you knew one of them used to have a drinking problem...
    >You have a choice as to who to fly with.. pilot A or pilot B...
    
    >Knowing human nature... who would you choose and why???
    
    Ignoring the fact that you didn't tell me whether it was pilot A or
    pilot B that had the drinking problem, I'll decide that pilot A had the
    drinking problem.
    
    My choice would be pilot A.  Now as to why, I figure that he probably
    could use the vote of confidence.
    
    Bob

    
    
    Well then Bob... you're a better man than me!!!
    
    My "human nature" would pick the one (minor nit-picks aside) that I
    knew wasn't a drinker because it's my ass that's on the line and it's
    HIS "job performance" that matters to keep same intact...
    

    |Bonnie, if you have to "assume" that the kid is not going to harm
    |your kids, then you apparently don't know him/her well enough
    |to ask him/her in the 1st place.
    
    no shawn, you're wrong.  even if you've known the kid for 10
    years, there is still an _implicit_ assumption on your part that
    the kid will not harm your kids each and every time you hire 
    him to babysit.

    Just to rathole that one further.
    
    If pilot A was known to have a drinking problem in the past ("used to
    have a drinking problem"), we do not know whether either pilot A or B
    CURRENTLY has a drinking problem.
    
    I will assume that if the past tense is used to describe pilot A's
    drinking problem ("used to have a drinking problem"), then we know that
    he's probably had some experience in learning that he has a problem and
    what needs to be done to control it.
    
    By contrast, if pilot B was never known to have a drinking problem, he
    may or may not have one -- it simply isn't known.  If he does, and has
    not been known to have one in the past, I wouldn't be so quick to bet
    that he understands the parameters of drinking problem as well as
    someone who has previously been uncovered.
    
    So, what I surmise about the two pilots:
    
    Pilot A used to have a drinking problem.  Past tense makes me think he
    did something about it.  Has it resurfaced?  I don't know.  I will
    assume that he does know what a drinking problem is, and the effect it
    can have on his life and job.
    
    Pilot B, I know nothing about, other than the fact that he has not been
    known to have had (or currently have a drinking problem).  Without any
    declaration, I guess that (A) he has either had one, and managed to
    keep it secret or (B) has never had a drinking problem.  Neither of
    these reassure me that he knows what drinking problem may mean, and
    neither reassures me that he understands how much is too much.
    
    I pick A, because he appears to have the better education with respect
    to alcohol abuse, and because I know more about him.
    
    Which is generally the point of this discussion:  Better the enemy you
    know than the enemy you don't know.  If it's a choice between sending
    my kids to a teacher who's well liked, keeps his hands off the kids,
    and does some part-time toe licking, or someone I know little about,
    but who has been known to hit on students, the answer is clear.

    
    	Well, that explains why you don't get out too often.  That is,
    	unless your neighbor happens to be the Pope.  Say, how much do
    	we REALLY know about the Pope [if that's his REAL name]?
    
    	Again, you're straying from the point.  "Acting in porn movies
    	on off-hours" is not equal to "harmful to children".
    
    	And how about Doc's question?  You've definitely strayed from	
    	answering that one.
    

    | Again, you're straying from the point.  "Acting in porn movies
    |on off-hours" is not equal to "harmful to children".
    
    i believe you have your points mixed up.  that was your point,
    not mine.
    
    i answered mark's "homosexual" question way back in .72. /hth

    
    	Doc, I guess she doesn't care if he's a homosexual.
    
    
    >| Again, you're straying from the point.  "Acting in porn movies
    >|on off-hours" is not equal to "harmful to children".
    >
    >i believe you have your points mixed up.  that was your point,
    >not mine.
    
    
    	If you don't agree with me, then you're straying from the point.
    
    	8^)
    

    re: .231
    
    >Well then Bob... you're a better man than me!!!
    
    Nope.  We just seem to have different ideas as to what the proper
    decision is.  You see the risk associated with flying with Pilot A to
    be significant enough to warrant choosing Pilot B.  I see the risk as
    being too small to matter, and thus I use a different tie-breaker. 
    Perhaps Pilot A will be even more careful than Pilot B because he
    thinks that his past is hanging over his head.  Perhaps he will be too
    careful and screw up because he is being hypersensitive over his
    performance.  However, given that you said that they both had the same
    record, etc., I would expect their performance to be the same, within
    acceptable bounds for normal day-to-day variations.
    
    Bob                                           

    How about this:

    You get on a plane to go to Jamaica on a vacation. As you're about to
    land, a terrible storm forms and there's a lot of turbulence and
    lightning, and people start filling their barf bags etc.

    In the pilot seat, Pilot A used to have a very bad drinking problem. In
    the co-pilot seat, Pilot B likes to bop his baloney all the time.

    Now, tell me, isn't that the worse vacation you EVER HAD?!?!

That depends if Glenn Richardson is sitting next to me.

    
    re: .237
    
    Bob....
    
     Listen... this has nothing to do with either pilot, but the "human
    nature" aspect of the whole thing... honest!! Even if I'm being
    unintentionally obtuse...
     
      From my knowledge and perception,
    
      Pilot A "used to have a drinking problem"
    
      Pilot B didn't...
    
      For all anyone knows, Pilot B can be a stark raving ex-postal worker
    with a cocaine habit!!!  I don't know that, so I'm more comfortable
    with Pilot B...
    
     That's all I'm saying... it's human nature for people to deride the
    teacher because of his past experience because now it's knowledge and
    perception!!
    
     Teacher Joe Shmoe in the next classroom from this guy may secretly be
    a pedophile and child abuser and wife beater and pinko-commie liberal
    bleeding heart!!! Because people don't know that they accept him/her.
    That's not being hypocritical, it's human nature...
    
     When people know, perceive, have "givens" they react...
    

    .236
    
    |If you don't agree with me, then you're straying from the point.
    
    i've noticed the domineering side of you, shawn.  it's
    such a turn-on.

    
    re: .238
    
    Glenn...
    
    Remind me to never book with your travel agent....
    
    

    re: .238
    
    Great!  But you forgot to ask about the swallow.
    
    Bob

    I did?
    
    OK, what about the swallow?

    
    
    So? What's to know???
    
    Capistrano is no where near Jamaica!!!!

    re: .244, .245
    
    I just thought I'd mix in some Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
    
    Bob

    
    	Thanks for clearing that up, Bob.  I thought you were referring to
    	the "bop the baloney" line.
    

    um, eeeeeuuuuuuuuuwwwwwww!

    
    >|If you don't agree with me, then you're straying from the point.
    >
    >i've noticed the domineering side of you, shawn.  it's
    >such a turn-on.
    
    
    	One of many sexy features I possess, if I may say so myself.
    
    	And that smiley face was there for a reason.
    

    Z        Americans are far too uptight about seeing what is a very
    Z        natural act, on film.  The only thing we see a lot of on
    Z        public TV is violence.......
    
    Judy my dear...I thought we already cleared this up.  Pornography is a
    major profit maker for the syndicate and is used to finance the
    importing of illegal drugs throughout the country.  Yes tried to make
    it lighthearted with the Joe Friday schtick but I was quite serious.  
    
    So to comment, yes, scum bumbs participation in this industry IS in
    fact contributing to a major societal problem.  Furthermore, it has
    been established that men who were involved in heinous sex crimes have
    in fact for the most part been addicted to smut.  Smut throughout their
    apartments.  
    
    Yet another analogy.  A certain man applies and gets a job as a desk
    clerk with the SS.  This man gets the job and actually commits no
    bodily harm to anybody.  Six months later the war is over and this man
    is considered wanted by the allies.  By your logic, I would say you
    should leave this man alone.  He has hurt nobody...and he was just
    doing a job.  Therefore, the allies have no business hunting this guy
    down.  In other words, guilt by association doesn't apply here.  This
    is how proposterous some of the replies here have been.
    
    -Jack

    Many men who committed heinous sex crimes also drank water.

    
    That explains why Nordic countries that show gratuitous sex on the
    telly have such high rates of crime.

    
    	Jack, money is laundered through Chinese restaurants, and Mob
    	bosses many times own Italian restaurants.
    
    	Do you go avoid Chinese or Italian food restaurants?  And not
    	just because they don't speak your language, of course.
    

    Well all support the status quo in some form or other.

    
    
>    Yet another analogy.  A certain man applies and gets a job as a desk
>    clerk with the SS.  This man gets the job and actually commits no
>    bodily harm to anybody.  Six months later the war is over and this man
>    is considered wanted by the allies.  By your logic, I would say you
>    should leave this man alone.  He has hurt nobody...and he was just
>    doing a job.  Therefore, the allies have no business hunting this guy
>    down.  In other words, guilt by association doesn't apply here.  This
>    is how proposterous some of the replies here have been.
    
    	Just because the man is on the losing side in a war does not make
    him a war criminal. Was every person in the Waffen SS sought for war
    crimes and labeled a war criminal? I think not.
    
    	The U.S. govt had released radioactive particles into the
    atmosphere around Los Alamos New Mexico in the 50's/60's to see its
    effect on the human population there. All this info was released two
    years ago. Are the clerks who worked for the U.S. govt at the time to
    be called up on criminal charges? I think not.
    
    jim 
       

    RE: .250

>    Yet another analogy.  A certain man applies and gets a job as a desk
>    clerk with the SS.  

    I know that the structure of SS was a big mistake and the
    implementation was doomed to failure without an ever increasing
    population base, but why would you consider someone working for the
    social security administration to be a war criminal?  ;^)

    -- Dave

 Z   Do you go avoid Chinese or Italian food restaurants?  And not
 Z   just because they don't speak your language, of course.
    
  Shawn, that's like comparing Freddie the pimp with a Washington DC
    prostitution ring.  No doubt there is corruption in the smallest
    places.  I contend here that the porn industry is a major contributor
    to violence toward women and the distribution of narcotics.  
    
    As far as I'm concerned, the guy has a seedy character and regardless
    of what a candy man he is to all the kids, he has lost his privelage to
    be a role model for children...just as Pete Rose lost his place for 
    gambling with his own money.
    
    -Jack 

  ZZZ   social security administration to be a war criminal?  ;^)
    
    B%stards...the whole lot of them! :-)

    Z    Was every person in the Waffen SS sought for war
    Z    crimes and labeled a war criminal? I think not.
    
    I say yes because Schindler from "Schindler's List" at the end stated
    he must depart because he is now a fugitive of the Allied Command.  Yet
    he was considered a hero to the Jews he saved!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    	I'm sorry jack, backing your statement with a line from a movie
    (and a single example I might add) does not wash.
    
    
    	jim

    
    
    	Also, I'm sure the allied forces were not enlightened to Mr.
    Schindler's kind actions at the time.
    
    
    jim

    .216
    Depends on the actress. 

 >   i answered mark's "homosexual" question way back in .72. /hth
 
     You said _you_ didn't care whether a certain person was homosexual or
    not, but you failed to provide a justification for dismissing the
    teacher on the basis of his porno moonlighting that could not be used
    to dismiss a teacher who was a practising homosexual (practice makes
    perfect, eh, Glen?) by someone whose morality filter kicks in for
    homosexuals.
    
     Public policy cannot be formulated so subjectively. It can't be a
    matter of "this guy gives me the creeps" or "I don't like what he does
    after hours so that makes him a bad role model." There has to be an
    objective measure, one that transcends personal biases, else there is
    no equal protection under the law. That, dear Oph, is where you've
    fallen short.

    Re .162:
    
    > prejudice against whom?
    
    Can you really not see in .141 where you have pre-judged a situation
    that has not yet happened?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

         .263
         |You said _you_ didn't care whether a certain person was homosexual
         |or not, but you failed to provide a justification for dismissing the
         |teacher on the basis of his porno moonlighting that could not be
         |used to dismiss a teacher who was a practising homosexual...
    
         bubba baby crossed the line from the private domain to the 
         public one when he participated in the porn industry.  that's
         my measuring stick - he went public.  but i've said that all
         along.
    
         from mr braucher's .201 note:
    
         "Privacy ?  No, SCOTUS has ruled many times that you have no
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
         privacy rights to things you make public yourself.  
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         Free speech ?  That protects you from prosecution, but not 
         from being fired for public statements." 

    
    
    	Jack,
    
    	I'll be completely honest here, it may be that I'm just
    	naive but, where do you get your information tying pornography
    	to the narcotics trade?  When I've been made aware of large
    	drug busts on the news, I don't recall hearing the word
    	"pornography" mentioned.
    
    	JJ
    

    
      Doc's point in .263, about the 14th Amendment, was, in fact, the
     claim made by the crossdressing man who was fired, even though
     tenured, under the law about "conduct unbecoming a teacher".  He
     sued and lost, arguing that the law was arbitrary and capricious,
     and "unconstitutionally vague", thus he was deprived of property
     without due process of law.  He made no privacy or free speech claim,
     because there was overwhelming precedent that he would lose on those
     grounds.  The Massachusetts courts said it wasn't all THAT vague, and
     tossed his case.  The Feds were even more unsympathetic.  They said
     tenure wasn't "property" since you can't buy or sell it, so the 14th
     Amendment didn't even apply.  You can only protest a firing if you
     claim to be discriminated against as a member of a "suspect class",
     and crossdressers don't qualify.  It just isn't unconstitutional in
     the US (and there's plenty of case law on this), to fire somebody for
     activities off the job.  Even for a government agency.  They have no
     right to snoop on him (privacy), but if he goes public, it's fair
     evidence in a termination proceeding.
    
      bb

I've also read (in Forbes?) that virtually all mozarella (sp?) production
is owned by The Mob.

Guess that makes pizza eating a no-no?

    >     bubba baby crossed the line from the private domain to the 
    >     public one when he participated in the porn industry.  that's
    >     my measuring stick - he went public.
    
     If if our hypothetical homosexual teacher romantically kissed a MOTSS 
    in public then that would be grounds for dismissal?

    
    	The questions are getting trickier by the day.
    

    Jack is correct but not accurate.  There are legitimate producers of
    adult entertainment as well as fly by night operators and those that
    would prey upon the helpless and easily manipulated.  Jack's assertions
    are akin to saying all solicitations made by organized religion are
    self serving and avaristic which is what would would be led to
    believe by only watching a garden variety televangelist.  One simply
    cannot make such an absolute conclusion from a position of relative
    ignorance, then again......
    
    My objection in this (not that anyone is particularly interested) is
    that based upon the hypocrisy we live with, he should be let go.  It is
    not fair nor is it necessarily right.  I would like to see as many
    effective teachers be retained as possible.  I question his ability to
    continue to be effective given the expected reactions of his peers and
    townfolk.  It would certainly be refreshing to read that he will
    maintain his position and the community can accept him as a teacher
    based upon his skills as such.  IMO, he should have expected this to
    happen sooner or later.  He should have been able to understand the
    outrage that might manifest itself given the narrow mindedness he would
    have to confront.  He gambled, got "caught", and must now live with the
    consequences.  Like it or not, this is highly controversial especially
    when his activities regardless of how mild they may be on the "porn"
    scale as seen as perverted in the minds of the less prurient amongst
    us.  I agree with the assessment that we are far, far too uptight about
    such matters.  That is not going to change overnight if at all,
    unfortunately.   
    
    Brian

    This is a typical, if extreme, example of an issue that comes up all
    the time these days in school boards everywhere -- to what extent do we
    expect our babies' teachers to be role models in every aspect of their
    lives?
    
    Personally I believe it shouldn't matter where you work -- your
    after-hours activities are nobody's business but you own.  But in any
    given town there are bound to be some parents who will get hysterical
    in the face of anyone other than Snow White teaching their little
    doofuses math for 40 minutes a day for a few months. 
    
    In Kennebunk abou 5 years ago the Superintendent of Schools, a
    Principal of one of the schools, and a history teacher (among others)
    were having a glass of wine with their dinner at a local restaurant on
    a night when there were several middle and high school students acting
    as wait persons as part of a class project.  In fact the school
    personnel were there to support them in that effort, as were many
    parents, along with the normal patronage of the restaurant, which was
    open for business as usual other than that.
    
    A small group of parents decided that for school personnel to partake
    of alcohol when students were present was grounds for firing the lot of
    them on the stop, and these parents made their point very loudly in the
    local papers and before the school board.
    
    Being less than fully employed at the time, and being incensed at the
    small-mindedness of the anti-alcohol contingent who wanted to destroy
    all those lives and careers, I wrote some letters to the local paper
    and showed up at school board meetings to lend whatever support I could
    to the victims.  In the end it was decided that there was no problem,
    and the whole thing died the miserable death it deserved, but a seed
    had been planted that grew into what I consider to be a venomous little
    weed that is the start of a possible infestation that is going to be
    very hard to root out.
    
    As part of the compromise in which the victims were let off the hook
    for their glasses of wine, a new rule was adopted by the school board,
    which says that school system personnel are no longer permitted to
    drink alcoholic beverages anywhere any time when students might be able
    to see them.
    
    In part this was in support of a state and federal policy that was part
    of the anti-drug-and-alcohol programs at state and federal levels, and
    by passing this policy the local school system was able to be given
    $12,500 in a federal grant to fight drugs and alcohol.
    
    By the time the vote came up on the new "rules", I had just won
    election to the school board, and cast the only vote against the
    new policy.  It passed 8-1.  I thought it was pretty sad that the 
    school board would sell out people's rights and freedoms so easily 
    for $12,500 and to appease a bunch of anti-alcohol fanatics.
    
    

    what the heck is a motss?
    
    (untricky question)

    
    	RE: .272
    
    	Amazing, isn't it?
    
    	Is it safe to assume that those parents never drank in front of
    	their kids, and if they did, they'd be "fired"?  Or maybe executed?
    

Member Of The Same Sex.  I figured it out all by myself.  Do I get a pat on 
the back?

    Yeah, from Glen.

>> Member Of The Same Sex.  I figured it out all by myself.  Do I get a pat on 
>> the back?
    
    Yes, but around here we call it a POTB.
    
    Chris

    |If if our hypothetical homosexual teacher romantically kissed a MOTSS
    |in public then that would be grounds for dismissal?
    
    did they get naked and go beyond foreplay into the good stuff
    in front of a film crew and then market their opus in video
    stores?  then, yes.
    
    btw, bubba does not appear to be too bright.  last night on the
    news someone claimed he was peddling his oeuvres at a store 
    that's a mile and a half from the town he teaches in.

    Mr. Goodwin makes a great case for privatization of schools and
    removing the burden of supporting such establishments from the Dole of
    the working class.  What I hear alot in these messages is pay up and
    shut up.  I also believe in the individual freedoms of the citizenry,
    provided said rights do not injure the society at large.  If you are
    trying to convince me the porn industry does not have an adverse effect
    on society, then I am highly dubious of your answer.  Nevertheless, if
    I am going to be forced to support the establishment, then I will
    continue to exercise my right of dissent.  
    
    -Jack  

    
    >btw, bubba does not appear to be too bright.  last night on the
    >news someone claimed he was peddling his oeuvres at a store 
    >that's a mile and a half from the town he teaches in.
    
    	Last I knew, that was perfectly legal.
    

    
    	Jack, SOCIETY has an adverse effect on society.
    
    	What "we" do to ourselves is no one's fault but our own, unless
    	our lawyers instruct us otherwise.
    

    |Last I knew, that was perfectly legal.
    
    indeed it is.  and incredibly boneheaded.  it's
    almost as if he wanted to get nailed.

    >> btw, bubba does not appear to be too bright.  last night on the
    >> news someone claimed he was peddling his oeuvres at a store 
    >> that's a mile and a half from the town he teaches in.
    
    I'm confused... I thought that only women had oeuvres.
    
    Chris

    
>    >btw, bubba does not appear to be too bright.  last night on the
>    >news someone claimed he was peddling his oeuvres at a store 
>    >that's a mile and a half from the town he teaches in.
    
 >   	Last I knew, that was perfectly legal.
  

        ..and what he did in private has now become public.



 
 Jim

    
    > I'm confused... I thought that only women had oeuvres.
    
    Most armies have manoeuvres.
    

    >did they get naked and go beyond foreplay into the good stuff
    >in front of a film crew and then market their opus in video
    >stores?
    
     Irrelevant. If someone view homosexuals as "not good role models" and
    they demonstrate their homosexuality in public, then they have met the
    conditions to be dismissed, per Mz. Morality.

    Dissent all you wish Jack.  Your assertions on the effects of
    pornography on society and the generalization of the industry as a mob
    run, drug running front for female exploitation is inaccurate.  There
    is a market for it.  The market is lucrative.  It is legal to produce
    and provide albeit with limits regarding age etc.  You obviously do not 
    like this.  Tough noogies.  The only adverse effect on society I can 
    see is the gnashing and frothing provided by the RR and those that that 
    would try to exercise control over the flock based upon their own skewed 
    sense of morality.  BTW, firmly believe you are correct in asserting 
    there are some operations with the unsavory attributes listed above.  
    To broadly portray the industry as such is inaccurate.  
    
    I still say the guy screwed up by not taking into account the reaction
    he would get when eventually found out.  

    i declare this horse deader than dead.
    
    now, on to my next morality play.

 The world will know the guy's fate at 3PM today.





 Jim

    I predict he is toast, for better or worse.

    Of course he's toast. The squeaky wheel, and all.
    
    The people of Yarmouth will get the quality of teachers they deserve.

Let's see,

The guy keeps his personal life completely separate from his professional
one. 

In his professional life he appears to be an outstanding teacher supported
by parents and students. None have stepped forward to contradict this
appearance.

In his private life he makes soft porn films. He does not
make these films available too or discuss the subject matter with the kids he 
teaches and these films are only available to adults by law. Everything he 
has done is legal. 

I just don't see a problem here.

The question of prudence is for each individual to decide.

Doug.

    What sort of filth does he peddle??
    
    Big Boucers? Shaven haven? Readers wife`s specials?
    
    Just curious.
    

    For many years now we have insisted that our teachers and our
    politicians be paragons of moral rectitude first and foremost.  
    
    And we have been less and less satisfied with both.  Someday maybe
    someone will notice a connection.
    
    I don't care if the president likes to sleep with goats, as long as he
    is effective in running the country, but apparently that puts me in a
    small minority.
    
    Of course, if the goat is good looking, then who wouldn't...

    
    >Of course, if the goat is good looking, then who wouldn't...
    
    
    	Deb, does this trouble you?
    

Hey, the president's name is Billy.  It's natural for him to sleep with goats.

    Where`s Haag when ya need him?

    
    Shawn:
    
    Why yes, I do find the "open style" use of points of ellipsis to be 
    troubling.  Why do you ask?
    

Students walked out of class today and held a protest of Bubba's paid leave.

    I believe there is alot of integrity in holding people of particular
    occupations to a higher standard.  Doctors, Clegy, and Teachers are on
    the top of the list.  
    
    -Jack

    
    >Why yes, I do find the "open style" use of points of ellipsis to be 
    >troubling.  Why do you ask?
    
    
    	Just wondering ...
    

    
    	John, are the students for or against the teacher?
    
    	Your entry doesn't make that too clear, although I'd guess "for".
    

    
    I can not believe how many replies this topic has generated in the past
    two days.

    Enter any issue with a significant emotional component and two
    diametric, strongly held positions and you'll see the same thing.

      <<< Note 629.301 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    I believe there is alot of integrity in holding people of particular
>    occupations to a higher standard.  Doctors, Clegy, and Teachers are on
>    the top of the list.  
 
	Why?

	I'll "give" you clergy, since their "job" is to convince people
	to behave in a certain way. You might be able to stretch that
	to teachers. But of course you only want teachers to teach the
	three Rs, not morality, so it will be interesting to see how 
	you make the connection. But doctors? 

Jim

    Yes, doctors are under the hypocratic oath.
    
    As far as teachers go, I put them in league with Day Care personnel,
    Scout leaders, and military officers.  Teachers are given the
    stewardship of the minds of youth.  I don't care what is being spouted
    here, a teachers profession and personal life ARE NOT mutually
    exclusive.  While it is true a student will not necessarily emulate the
    teacher in behavior, the attitudes and values of the teacher play an
    integral role in the development of a child.  They help mold the childs
    outlook on life and responsibilities in life.  I think you people are
    to libertarian for your own good, especially when it comes to the
    learning modes of other peoples children.
    
    -Jack

      <<< Note 629.307 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    Yes, doctors are under the hypocratic oath.
 
	You do realize that doctors never really take this oath,
	don't you? 

	Even so, the oath deals with their treatment of patients. It's
	job related, not off-time related.
   
>    As far as teachers go, 

	But if a teacher is competent in teaching the subject matter
	that YOU insist they teach, then the teacher's personal morality
	will never enter the classroom. So what does it matter?

>I put them in league with Day Care personnel,

	Same for daycare personnel. Competency should be all that matters.

>    Scout leaders,

	Scout leaders are different. Again, part of the job is to teach
	certain (moral) behaviors. More like clergy than teachers.

> and military officers.  

	Military officers (what about enlisted personnel?) are never 
	really off the job. They give up their "private lives" for the
	length of their serice.

>They help mold the childs
>    outlook on life and responsibilities in life. 

	But you have argued, rather stridently at times, that they
	should NOT do this very thing.

	Have you changed your mind on this issue?

Jim

    One point to consider is that if this guy were to be applying
    for a teacher job as a "new hire", i.e., with no track record
    as a teacher, I'd be extremely wary of hiring him.  But in this
    specific case, he has a track record of many years of apparently
    excellent teaching with not even a single incident, questionable
    remark, or admiring glance.
    
    That should count for something.  After all these years with this
    pattern of good behavior, he isn't going to suddenly become the
    Mad Groper.  I'd say the kids are safe.
    
    So then it becomes an abstract issue, i.e., along the lines of
    "We don't want 'someone' who's done this teaching our kids", "What
    will the kids think", and so on.  But it doesn't seem fair to fire
    a specific person for an abstract cause.  It starts to look a lot
    like a witch-hunting mentality at that point.
    
    Chris

Porn is a multi-billion dollar profit making industry.  Teaching isn't.

Again, a reflection of market forces at work (not to mention national
priorities).

I'm just looking forward to the day when scandal breaks out when we find
that a porn star has been secretly moonlighting as a teacher.

    Jim, I haven't changed my mind on this at all.  However, if school
    teachers were as you say they are, then it would seem the best thing to
    do is have every child in a cubicle where he can put on a headphone and
    learn the data there.  The set up is for personal interaction and it
    would be foolish to believe a teachers attitude and outlook on life
    doesn't have any effect on the students.  This is simply not true!
    
    Re: doctors, doctors most definitely have their personal lives
    infringed upon....just as police officers do.  
    
    -Jack

      <<< Note 629.311 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    Re: doctors, doctors most definitely have their personal lives
>    infringed upon....just as police officers do.  
 
	In what way?

Jim

    
    	Jack, if the teacher's method of teaching were somehow influenced
    	by his night job, don't you think this would have surfaced long
    	ago?  You know kids, and how they love to talk about "question-
    	able" things from school.  Surely parents would have found out
    	by now.
    

    Well, for example, doctors beepers go off at the worst times.  My
    wife's doctor was woken up for our third child and I call that an
    infringement.  Yes, it is his choice but it still woke him at 2:00 A.M.
    nonetheless.  Doctors are on call, they are married to their work!
    
    

    
    > wife's doctor was woken up for our third child
    
    He managed to sleep through the first two?

    Naw, we pestered other doctors for the other two!!!!
    
    

    Not all doctors are on call.  Many leave their practice behind when
    they go home at night.  Many are on call for a number of other doctors
    as well as themselves.  They are entitled to having a life just as you
    and I are, as are teachers.  
    
    Face it Jack, the guy is an upstanding member of the community.  He is
    well liked by his students.  He kept his affairs private for a long
    time and no one was the wiser or worse off for it.  Folks are just
    p.o.'d because he was involved with something on the fringes of society
    and folks got their undies in a bunch because "it's durrrty".  His only
    mistake was not judgin the overreaction his second career would
    generate.  

    
    	OK, so the doctor's beeper goes off while he's filming a porno
    	flick and he has to leave to deliver a baby.
    
    	Isn't that preferable to a doctor's beeper going off while he's
    	delivering a baby and he has to leave to film a porno flick??
    

    Jack,
    
    How does being a porn star affect his ability to teach?  The only
    way I could see this having an impact on his students would be if
    he taught the class in his birfday suit and perhaps brought in a
    co-star to demonstrate angles ;-}
    

    
    	And I'd guess he's got acute co-star or 2.
    

    With an all-over Tan.

                    He was fired this afternoon.

    
    >> And I'd guess he's got acute co-star or 2.
    
    shawn, don't be so obtuse...
    
    

Porn maker teacher fired
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press

YARMOUTH, Mass. (Jan 17, 1996 5:59 p.m. EST) -- A high school teacher was
fired Wednesday for making and appearing in porno movies and for allegedly
asking a student to appear in an X-rated video.

Robert "Bubba" Walenski, a freewheeling teacher who let students call him by
his first name and taught poetry with rock music, was dismissed after 25
years at Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School.

His whereabouts were not immediately known Wednesday. He has not spoken
publicly since he was abruptly suspended on Friday.

Walenski has produced and appeared in low-budget porno movies filmed on the
West Coast. The movies are called "Bob's Videos."

In one video obtained by the Boston Herald, Walenski is seen massaging a
woman's bare buttocks and licking her toes. "Boys will be boys," he says.

At a news conference crowded with students, many of whom have supported
Walenski, Superintendent Michael McCaffrey said the teacher's actions
constituted "conduct unbecoming a teacher."

McCaffrey also said Walenski approached a student last school year about
appearing in a video, and she declined. The superintendent would not
disclose her age and said she no longer attends the school.

State Education Commissioner Robert Antonucci said he would move to revoke
Walenski's license to teach in Massachusetts. Walenski has three weeks to
appeal.

The Massachusetts Teachers Association said it will represent Walenski if he
asks for union help.

"Everybody has to bear in mind, he didn't do anything illegal here. And like
so many teachers, he works during the summer to augment his income," union
spokesman Steve Wollmer said. "I think if this thing is contested, it will
be contested on the basis of the First Amendment."

The question of whether Walenski should be allowed back in the classroom had
divided the Cape Cod town.

Dozens of students left their classrooms to protest Wednesday at the
superintendent's office nearby. Signs reading "We Love Bubba" and "Bring
Back Bubba" hung from trees, school buildings and Walenski's empty house.

Three of the protesters, all former students, were arrested and charged with
trespassing on school property during the demonstration.

"He's obviously seduced their minds to accept this kind of behavior," said
Ruth Boragine, a volunteer at a thrift store. "We should fire him on the
spot."

    
    
>"He's obviously seduced their minds to accept this kind of behavior," said
>Ruth Boragine, a volunteer at a thrift store. "We should fire him on the
>spot."
    
    	yeah, sure thing you narrow minded, myopic, arrogant turd...
    
    
    

    RE: .324

>McCaffrey also said Walenski approached a student last school year about
>appearing in a video, and she declined. The superintendent would not
>disclose her age and said she no longer attends the school.

    If he had approached my daughter (even if she was 18 at the time), I
    would want to see him fired ... and subsequently charged with sexual
    harassment.

    -- Dave

    uptight
    

 outasight

>McCaffrey also said Walenski approached a student last school year about
>appearing in a video, and she declined. The superintendent would not
>disclose her age and said she no longer attends the school.
    
    This casts a different light on things, if the allegation is true.

    Bonnie, aside from the accusation of the former student (which is
    probably fishy anyway given one individual came forward after all
    the years), you support the right to non-privacy by getting involved
    in public activity using the the SCOTUS. However, you conveniently
    fail to mention that the Constitution insures that an individual has
    the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (you know,
    those silly inalienable rights that get so bothersome in these
    debates).
    
    what about his rights under the Constitution?

      <<< Note 629.314 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    Well, for example, doctors beepers go off at the worst times.  My
>    wife's doctor was woken up for our third child and I call that an
>    infringement.  Yes, it is his choice but it still woke him at 2:00 A.M.
>    nonetheless.  Doctors are on call, they are married to their work!
 
	Not all doctors are on call at all times. I would agree that
	someone that is on call needs to be prepared for the chance that
	the beeper will go off. But that applies to anyone in that situation.

	But as soon as the pager is turned off, their time is their own
	and no special standard of conduct should be imposed.

Jim

    If my beeper goes off for a fire I go...thats part of the responsiblity
    but it is something that I enjoy doing...probably as much as making a
    porno movie. 

                      <<< Note 629.332 by MAIL1::CRANE >>>

>    If my beeper goes off for a fire I go...thats part of the responsiblity
>    but it is something that I enjoy doing

	My thoughts concerning the "on-call" situations relate more to
	making sure that you are fit for duty while wearing the beeper.

	Along the lines of not overindulging in certain mind expanding
	chemicals from the Highlands of Scotland, for example. ;-)

Jim

    Then Islays are ok? ;-)

    
      Leaving aside the legal question, "Does he have a case ?", I'd
     like to say I completely disagree with the libertarian view so
     prominent in here, that all that matters is his teaching competency
     in making an employment decision.
    
      From the point of view of management, what matters is the overall
     success of their enterprise in achieving its goals.  In some
     situations, competency may be completely irrelevent, even be a
     negative.  Think of the Dallas Cowboys hiring supertalented hotdog
     loose cannon Deion Sanders.  The important consideration wasn't how
     good a defensive back Sanders is, but how his schtick would sit with
     the fans, the coaches, his teammates, the owner.  I don't think it
     would be winning strategy for any enterprise to leave personnel
     decisions to a robot competency examiner, or a computerized test.
     It is the personal chemistry that determines success of groups,
     and bringing in or keeping controversial figures is always a gamble
     (which, in the Cowboy's case, is paying off, but I could also give
     plenty of examples of stars wrecking a team).
    
      Here in Digital, we have a philosophy that wide employee freedom
     is a winning strategy.  It has sometimes served us well, sometimes
     very badly.  I've often thought we need a VP of Conformity, to go
     along with our VP of Diversity.  Other organizations take a very
     different view, and eschew free spirits like the plague.  As to
     "Fairness", that may or may not be a good company goal.
    
      The result in DEC is an unusual collection of opinionated people,
     including many more "libertarians" than normal, skewing this file.
     But keeping the porno teacher is a delicate decision in managing
     a plethora of constituencies : administrators, fellow teachers,
     students, parents, taxpayers, elected officials, state and federal
     agencies, etc.  Our laws give latitude to the school officials in
     Yarmouth to consider other issues besides competency, and I find that
     very reasonable.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 629.327 by MAL009::RAGUCCI >>>

| uptight

	That's a song by Ruth Ruth. Very good song....and a little on the
psychotic side. :-)

    I have had to endure two complete physicls within the last 14 months
    and I am both physically and mentally fit to perform the duties. As one
    of my instructor`s said," how stable can one be to WANT to run into a
    burning building". 

             <<< Note 629.334 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>

>    Then Islays are ok? ;-)

	Trying to start another religious discussion are we???

	;-)

Jim

    If the allegation is true, yes, this is different.  I too am
    skeptical however.  Seem rather convenient.  Oh well, his teaching 
    career is toast.  If he is innocent of the solicitaiton, this is 
    truly too bad IMO.
    
    Brian
    

    the sad truth of the matter is we may never know. right now it appears
    he is not going to pursue challenging the termination. if he were rein-
    stated, my guess would be his continued employment would not be much
    fun.

    The teacher was apparently seen holding hands with another MAN! It
    turns out the other man is none other than Pilot B!

    .330
    
       |the Constitution insures that an individual has
       |the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
    
       chip, as far as i'm concerned, he still has 'em.  the
       yarmouth school board has spoken (that's their right,
       right?)  conduct unbecoming a teacher.
    
       and i don't find it that hard to believe that he may 
       have solicited a student...only time will tell.  
    
       perhaps he can seek employment in washington as a supreme
       court justice.

    
      well, actually "pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration
     of Independence, not the Constitution, but who's counting ?
    
      And what about the employer's pursuit of happiness ?  You mean
     employers are forced to keep people who make them gak ?
    
      bb

    
    	Bill, if DEC didn't like you because you made them gak, would
    	they be correct in firing you?  Maybe you're a horrible dresser
    	and can never seem to match colors too well, or something like
    	that?
    
    	I also doubt that the female student was approached, but I guess
    	anything is possible.
    

    
      Yes, Digital can fire me for the way I dress.  It is their right.
    
      bb

    >  From the point of view of management, what matters is the overall
    > success of their enterprise in achieving its goals.  In some
    > situations, competency may be completely irrelevent, even be a
    > negative.  
    
     If competence is not the single most important factor in determining
    the "success of [an] enterprise in achieving its goals" one may
    question what the goals of the enterprise are. Which is not to say that
    competence need be or should be the sole concern, but in a country
    where the academic achievements of public school students are in such
    steady decline that standardized test scores have been "recentered" in
    order to keep from damaging the delicate psyches of the students, one
    must consider that competence is damn important. The quality of public
    education ought to be the goal being sought here, but that is clearly
    taking a back seat to other concerns with the concomitant decline in
    student achievement being readily visible.
    
    >It is the personal chemistry that determines success of groups,
    
     Personal chemistry is hardly the overriding issue when it comes to the
    success of organizations. It is a factor, but it is infrequently the
    most important one. Frequently common goals serve to diminish
    individual chemistry clashes to the point where success can be
    achieved, only to unravel when the lack of a common goal allows
    personal chemistry clashes to resurface. This has frequently been seen
    in war, business, the entertainment world, etc. 
    
    > Our laws give latitude to the school officials in
    > Yarmouth to consider other issues besides competency, and I find that
    > very reasonable.
    
     I don't dispute that other issues besides competency deserve
    consideration, but others issues ought to be viewed in light of
    competency and efficacy. It is one thing to put a brilliant scholar who
    happens to be a pedophile in charge of young children. It is quite
    another to put a competent educator out on the streets on the basis of
    legal activities s/he does outside of school. How long before we start
    seeing gun owning teachers fired simply because they choose to own and
    use firearms because "it sends the wrong message to students"? This
    isn't the camel's nose; we're all the way to the 2nd hump.
    
     What I find most disturbing about this dismissal is that the
    self-proclaimed moralists came out of the woodwork to call for this
    guy's head the second the story broke, and that no consideration was
    given to anything besides this teacher's perfectly legal off hours 
    behavior. The contrast between the handling of this incident and that
    of a chronic illegal drug user, or a teacher convicted of his nth DWI,
    etc is stark. Are such people really better role models? I don't think
    so. Where are the self-proclaimed moralists clamoring for ritual
    beheading, I mean dismissal? If this teacher who is considered to be
    competent by consensus can be terminated without warning due to
    engaging in legal acts that some consider unsavory, then there should
    be terminations for illegal acts. After all, if one breaks the law,
    what kind of example is being set for the students?
    
     The simple fact is that this isn't about effectiveness in educating,
    this isn't about role models, this isn't about setting examples. This
    is about kowtowing to a vocal minority who have set themselves up as
    the arbiters of morality. And they aren't even any good at it. I have
    no problem with moving towards a moral society, but it has to be
    self-consistent and even handed. Attacking a man who tapes sex sessions
    for fun and profit while remaining silent when others are convicted of
    DWI or spousal abuse doesn't seem particularly moral or consistent or
    fair to me.

    OBTW- I await your explanation for how competency can be a negative.

    but Bonnie, he doesn't have them, he's lost his job.
    
    why is it that you would find it easy to believe that he would
    soliciate a minor? simply because he is involved in adult
    entertainment?
    
    big ooops on the DoI...

    
      To take a wild example, President Richard Nixon selected William
     Rogers as US Secretary of State because he was loyal to Nixon and
     knew absolutely nothing about foreign policy.  Nixon didn't want
     anybody, no matter how loyal, inserting his own views into an
     arena he considered his own and Dr Kissinger's (as National Security
     Advisor).
    
      To take an example closer to this one, consider Dr. John Silber's
     takeover of Chelsea public schools.  Grossly overqualified, and that
     may be one of his big problems. (His volatility in personal situations
     also matters).
    
      I very much disagree about the overall importance of cooperation in
     work, although it varies by profession.  Many times I have seen
     Digital fail with squads of brilliant, arguing experts, when a few
     diligent plodders outperformed them with vastly less talent. At least
     in engineering, where I think both of us work, team management is
     the single biggest determinant of success, in my view.
    
      bb

 ZZ    the sad truth of the matter is we may never know. right now it appears
 ZZ    he is not going to pursue challenging the termination. 
    
    The fact is that he was terminated because he is Polish.  Therefore, he
    should file charges.

    Ooops, Polish people aren't a protected class.  Nevermind!

    Why is it that the same group of people keep preaching about "rights"
    and the Constitution when issues like this come up, but then see no
    connection between their knee-jerk liberalism and the downward spiral
    of society.
    
    there are really two issues here.  The first is that an organization
    should be able to establish standards that are appropriate and should
    be able to take any action required to defend themselves should an
    employee conduct themselves to bring shame, ridicule and disrespect on
    the organization.  I beleive that any organization has this ability. 
    the school district has received undue attention because of this
    individuals activities.  These activities were well known by the
    individual before the fact, that they would bring negative reflections
    on his employer if they were to become known.  He chose to go ahead
    with them any way, and his employer can dismis him.  
    
    Anyone who can not see that there is a serious problem with the
    recruitment of young people into this industry is being intentionally
    blind.  All you need do is look at Pete Rose to see that there are
    activities that are considered, outside of the job, that can have
    negative consequences.
    
    The second point is that teens are looking for role models.  A new
    study just released indicated that the overwhelming majority of high
    school juniors and seniors feel that the most important problem facing
    the US today is the decline in morals and ethics.  These are the same
    kids exposed to this person on a daily basis.  they are looking for a
    strong stance by authority tyo identify what is right and wrong. 
    Depsite what they say, these kids want leadership and a firm moral
    code.  So all of this nonsense about rights and legal, etc have nothing
    to do with what is being identified as the key problems in this
    country.
    
    There is a big difference between what is legal and what is proper. 
    This guy may have done something legal, but he knowingly did something
    that was not proper, particularly based on the position he occupies.
    

So let's see, the videos weren't enough to justify firing the guy
outright, so now we get this convenient secret person who comes out
of the woodwork more than a year later with a secret accusation that
he asked her if she wanted to appear nude in a video, and without so
much as a hearing, they simply take her word for it and fire the guy.

Now, let's see.  In the past, what has happened to a teacher when a
student has come forward (even ignoring the "a year later" part) with
an accusation of actual sexual activity (even worse than a "proposition").
Is the teacher fired on the spot, on the basis of the student's accusation
alone?  Or is the teacher suspended pending a hearing or trial?

Look, if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt (remember those words,
sports fans?) that he did indeed proposition this girl to appear in one
of his soft-porn videos, then of course he should be fired.  But to fire
him solely on the basis of an accusation, and even then a questionable
time-delayed accusation at that (shades of Anita whatzername) that "just
happens" to be pulled out of a hat at a most convenient moment, is
the stuff of witch hunts and unruly mobs waving torches.

Scary stuff, it is.  And a damn good reason not to become a teacher,
as I'd been thinking of doing in ten years or so.  I've heard this from
others as well, particularly men, that there's no way they'd go into
teaching in the current psycho environment.  I'm beginning to understand
their reasoning.
    

re: legal vs. proper

But along the same line, while it may be "legal" for the administration
to fire Walenski, is it "proper" to remove someone from their job, destroy
their career and part of their life, etc., due to perceived improper
behavior?  Who gets to decide what constitutes "improper" behavior?
Whose set of values gets used in this grand judgment of someone's life?

Chris

    >  I very much disagree about the overall importance of cooperation in
    > work, although it varies by profession.  Many times I have seen
    > Digital fail with squads of brilliant, arguing experts, when a few
    > diligent plodders outperformed them with vastly less talent. At least
    > in engineering, where I think both of us work, team management is
    > the single biggest determinant of success, in my view.
    
     I disagree. I have participated in the development of very successful
    products in which some of the major participants shared an active
    mutual dislike for one another, but whose technical prowess prevailed
    (even despite the arguments.)
    
     Now how you define success certainly plays a role in how one arrives
    at a conclusion regarding what the single biggest determinant is. I
    would never say that a close team with inferior talent cannot
    overachieve and indeed outperform a more talented but disputatious
    group (at least over the short term.) But the ultimate level at which a
    group can perform is predicated upon their level of talent. Obviously,
    talent can be squandered over personal squabbles and contention. But a
    close-knit group of untalented individuals can only leap so high, even
    in concert. So how you define success is important. If success is
    predicated on long term contentment and satisfaction, then clearly
    personal chemistry will play a larger role than if success if
    determined by the level of achievement. Put another way, a talented
    group of individuals can make a mind-bogglingly complex and powerful
    system work. After that project ends, perhaps some of the personalities
    move onto new challenges. Another group puts together a lesser system,
    but still a very good system through cooperation and harmonious
    interaction. Then they do the next system. And the next. See what I
    mean about how the definition of success affects what is most important
    to achieving it?
    
     And one other thing. Engineering, particularly the kind we do, is very
    well suited to segmentation and thus is well adapted to putting a very
    talented person in a room to build a black box. I would think that
    other fields of endeavor are more likely to be more heavily weighted
    towards chemistry as a strong determinant of success (like an auto
    delaership, for example.)

    Re .335:
    
    > . . . the libertarian view so prominent in here, that all that
    > matters is his teaching competency in making an employment decision.
    
    The libertarian view says no such thing.  Were the employer a private
    party, libertarian views would place no restrictions on the hiring or
    firing of the teacher other than that force or fraud were not used.  If
    employer wanted to fire every employee who wore any green on
    Wednesdays, libertarians would let them.
    
    You may have meant the liberal view.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>Scary stuff, it is.  And a damn good reason not to become a teacher,
>as I'd been thinking of doing in ten years or so.

Chris, where are your porn videos available?

    |but Bonnie, he doesn't have them, he's lost his job.
    
    he's lost _one_ of his jobs.

    .353
    
    As far as who gets to decide, it should be the immediate society
    affected by the action.  Beyond that it should be a simple fact for any
    "responsible" person to know what is proper in the role that thay
    fulfill.
    
    Even more important is the fact that kids are looking for leadership,
    not wishy-washy feel-good, do-whatever-you-want platitudes.  This
    attitude is nothing but a warmed over response to the 60s "if it feels
    good, do it" environment.
    
    Well, we are now facing the results of just those attitudes.  It feels
    good for a 14 year old girl to have sex, and ends up with a baby that
    needs to be supported by society and then fund her life forever.
    
    If you want to throw out irresponsible statements, at least have the
    moral integrity to state that you really don't care what the effect on
    society is as long as you have nor restrictions on your actions.
    

>> Chris, where are your porn videos available?
    
    I'd been thinking of making a series of comedy porn videos
    involving the Pillsbury Doughboy come to life, like Pinocchio.
    Only it's not his nose that gets longer.
    
    Actually I was referring to the fact that in the current climate,
    a mere accusation by another student is considered as The Truth,
    and is more than sufficient to get fired immediately without any
    hearing or opportunity to defend oneself against the charges.
    
    Chris

    Penocchio :-)

    <- Or a Jack Martin short.

    Pinocchio, nnttm etc.

    >> As far as who gets to decide, it should be the immediate society
    >> affected by the action.
    
    Okay... was there a vote?  Exactly how was it decided in this case?
    From what I've heard, the majority of said "immediate society affected
    by the action" supported the teacher.
    
    To a certain extent, I'll go along with the "majority decides" thing,
    but that wasn't even done in this case.  It was an autocratic, single
    point of decision, done to placate what appears to be a minority of
    squeaky wheels who demanded the guy's firing.
    
    What's worse than this, though, is that the primary "justification"
    offered for the firing appears to be not the videos, but instead
    this mysterious secret accusation.  That's the scary part.  If the
    administration wanted to fire the guy over the videos, then they
    should have had the courage to state that up front, instead of hiding
    behind this vague, convenient, and totally unproven charge.
    
    Chris

    >> Pinocchio, nnttm etc.
    
    That's what I said.  Oh, you mean Doctah's "Penocchio"?  I believe
    that misspelling was, uh, intentional...
    
    Chris

    >Pinocchio, nnttm etc.
    
     Ok, let's do this one step at a time. Pinocchio is the wooden puppet
    that wanted to become a boy whose _nose_ grew with each lie. Chris
    wants to make a porno flik with a character whose "something else"
    grows instead of his nose. THAT character might well be named
    Penocchio.
     ^

    Make sure you copyright it!

    
    	Brian must've taken a few hard falls and damaged something imp-
    	ortant.  Or maybe he only damaged his head.
    

    right Bonnie (technically).
    
    hey, maybe the porn movie makers guild (or whatever affiliation or
    association there is) should've have prevented him from making
    film because he was a teacher. just as ludicrous IMHO.
    

    Doh!  

    think of it this way.  now he can put his full energies
    into his film making.  however, i don't hold out too much
    promise for him.  saw him in a short scene last night.
    gerry garcia wannabe with the talent of ed wood.
     

    >Why is it that the same group of people keep preaching about "rights"
    >and the Constitution when issues like this come up, but then see no
    >connection between their knee-jerk liberalism and the downward spiral
    >of society.
    
    There exists no "downward spiral of society" in the first place, and
    whatever problems we do have are not caused by the constitution or
    our rights.  You do have a point, though, about knee-jerk liberals,
    but I would call someone who supports the constitution a conservative,
    not a liberal.  Unless, of course, you are British, in which case
    you may have a different view of the American Constitution, BOR,
    Declaration of Independence, etc.
    
    >...there is a serious problem with the recruitment of young people
    >into this industry...
    
    It has been proven that he did this, then?
    
    >The second point is that teens are looking for role models.
    
    If Mom and Pop can't do that job, then they have no right asking
    anyone else to do it or compaining that anyone else isn't doing
    that involuntary job to their satisfaction.
    
    >A new study just released indicated that the overwhelming majority
    >of high school juniors and seniors feel that the most important
    >problem facing the US today is the decline in morals and ethics.
    
    Yeah, right.  And who was the sponsor of that "study"?
    
    >So all of this nonsense about rights and legal, etc have nothing
    >to do with what is being identified as the key problems in this
    >country.
    
    So let's throw out all that inconvenient legal, constitutional stuff
    and go back to a society ruled by religious leaders?  No thanks.
    Besides, were those societies more moral than ours?  Not in my opinion.
    
    >There is a big difference between what is legal and what is proper.
    >This guy may have done something legal, but he knowingly did something
    >that was not proper, particularly based on the position he occupies.
    
    No...  He did something legal -- engaging in after-work activities
    that are not against the law.  And he did nothing improper. If you
    happen to believe that sex is wrong, then that's *your* problem.
    
    

    Not "Doh!", "Dough!".  Hey, that's a pretty good title for my flick.
    
    See, the puppet who wants to become a real-life boy is Poppin' Fresh,
    the Pillsbury Dough Boy, instead of Pinocchio.  He gets started on his
    path to reality when he realizes how much he likes getting poked in the
    tummy by the lady in the commercial.  Sort of like tummius titillatus.
    
    He has to get back to the breadbox before midnight or else he'll
    go stale.
    
    Chris

    Unless of course, you are British, in which case
    you may have a different view of the American Constitution, BOR,
    Declaration of Independence, etc.
    
    You mean envy?

The Pillsbury Doughboy is, um, genitally challenged, Chris.

    With statements like the one at the end of the news report, I'd say the
    town is going to get the qualilty of teachers it deserves. 
    Unfortunately, the students won't.
    
    Bob

    >As far as who gets to decide, it should be the immediate society
    >affected by the action.  Beyond that it should be a simple fact for any
    >"responsible" person to know what is proper in the role that thay
    >fulfill.
    
    And that is exactly why we have laws -- to protect us all from the
    zealots who would like to rule society by decreeing what is or is
    not "proper".
    
    Again, if sex movies are "improper" to you, that's your choice.  You
    do not have permission to declare them improper for everyone else,
    and fire people on that basis.
    

>> The Pillsbury Doughboy is, um, genitally challenged, Chris.
    
    Well, of course... that's why he wants to become real!
    
    Or maybe he's not actually genitally challenged, but you just
    can't see them under normal conditions, like with guinea pigs
    and parakeets, or other small pets.
    
    Chris

    .363
    
    The decision was made by the administration that is put in place to
    deal with exactly these situations.  There is no need to have a public
    debate when there can be no doubt about the fact that the actions this
    guy took were totally wrong for a teacher.  There is no way to justify
    this if you are really concerned about setting a moral and ethical
    example for teens.
    
    I do not know whether the accusations by the previous student were
    valid or not, but it seems that this may have been a convenient "fact". 
    It may have been used in order to try and get the end result without
    having to get into the discussion around right and wrong.  this being
    that the ACLU, and others would be all over this.
    
    The fact remains that this guy was wrong and if we ever hope to
    re-establish a moral compass to this country this type of activity by a
    teacher must be dealt with immediately and directly.
    

    >> The Pillsbury Doughboy is, um, genitally challenged, Chris.
    
     Wait 'til he starts lying!

    RE: .348

>    why is it that you would find it easy to believe that he would
>    soliciate a minor? 

    I haven't seen the news on this (only read the postings here), but do
    we know that the (former) student that came forward was a minor?  An 18
    year old high school senior is not unheard of.


    RE: Waiting a year

    I know someone who has sexually harassed (at least) three different
    women.  All three have said that if anyone files a sexual harassment
    charge against him they will follow suit (no pun intended).  None of
    the three wanted to risk their careers.  No suit has been filed.  It
    has been well over a year.

    -- Dave

    
      It has come to my attention that Massachusetts' Department of
     Education is now considering revoking his license to teach anywhere
     in the state.  While I think they have the legal right to do so,
     I think it unwise.  They should make sure any potential employing
     school system knows of his porn actor status, but unless he
     actually attempted to recruit students or teachers, I don't see
     why they should do this.  Looks like political piling on by the
     Weld administration to me.
    
      Sure, I support the Yarmouth school system's freedom to hire and
     fire whomever they choose.  If they do, or don't, want moonlighting
     porn actors, that's their decision.  Remember, secondary school
     teaching is a majority-female profession.  Not just moralistic
     conservative women, but also feminist, anti-exploitationist
     liberal women might object to working with him.  Not to mention
     the parents and taxpayers.
    
      But why should Massachusetts prevent any town from hiring him if
     they want to, knowing he is a porn actor on the side ?  If, say,
     Chelmsford wants a faculty of B-grade porn performers, why should
     the Bay State preclude them from having it ?
    
      bb

                     <<< Note 629.378 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
>                            -< He is still wrong. >-

	Jack and Steve have dodged the issue so let me ask you.

	Why is it that the "Teachers should teach, not instill students
	with their personal views" crowd, are arguing so fiercely that
	now "Teachers should provide moral examples"?

Jim

    >  It has come to my attention that Massachusetts' Department of
    > Education is now considering revoking his license to teach anywhere
    > in the state.  While I think they have the legal right to do so,
    > I think it unwise.
    
     Why the inconsistency. If he's such a moral hazard to the students of
    Yarmouth that he needs to be summarily dismissed, why shouldn't he lose
    his license? Oh, you mean, some less-uptight school district might
    decide that they'd prefer to have a teacher that could teach than a
    teacher that couldn't but was a model citizen? Nah.

    
    	It's like statistics, Jim.
    
    	You bend the story this way and that to get it to fit in with
    	the current argument.
    

    
      Doc, now it's me that's confused.  I'd have thought it would be
     inconsistent for me to SUPPORT the state.  I just argued that
     personnel matters are about "groups", "teams", interpersonal
     matters, and that employers are, and ought to be, free to use any
     public information about an employee or applicant in making their
     decisions.
    
      So how could I want the impersonal state to curtail the freedom
     of the local school system ?  Or was I unclear in what I said ?
    
      bb

     Sorry. There's such a plethora of "justifications" for the dismissal.
    You're basing your support for the dismissal on the premise that the
    hiring and firing decisions of a school board should be completely
    unfettered, like if they insist that Wednesday is Prince spaghetti day,
    then if they catch a teach at Taco Bell they can dimiss him? 

    
     Yes, that's about it.  I think the key question is, what is the
     overall effect on the Yarmouth High School ?  That decision
     should be made by the representatives of the people of Yarmouth.
    
      bb

    Well, now that I know who we are talking about I feel a little better
    about waht I`m gonna say. After watching several of Bob`s Videos I have
    never seen him in them. He usually just introduces the movie and might
    make a comment during the movie. I do not consider sucking toes or
    massageing buns to be obsene (SP). I, also have my doubts about the one
    female who said she was asked...why just her? He had the opportunity to
    ask literally hundreds of women/girls.
    
    and yes, I would/do watch porno but STRICKLEY for educational purposes!  

    >> 	Why is it that the "Teachers should teach, not instill students
    >> 	with their personal views" crowd, are arguing so fiercely that
    >> 	now "Teachers should provide moral examples"?
    
    That's a generalization that doesn't hold up if you look at the
    replies in this topic.  Several of us "teachers should teach"
    types have stated that the teacher should not have been fired.
    Others have stated that the teacher should have been fired.
    
    This doesn't appear to fall along the usual liberal/conservative/
    libertarian lines.  There are some conflicting values and dilemmas
    here.  What I keep falling back on is the long-standing track
    record of the teacher's classroom behavior, assuming that he's
    innocent of this Jane-in-the-box accusation, which is his right
    last time I checked.
    
    Chris

    
    	If he wasn't married to the girl whose buns he was massaging then
    	that's just the sort of moral issue the school board is talking
    	about.
    
    
    >and yes, I would/do watch porno but STRICKLEY for educational purposes!  
    
    	Well, so far it hasn't helped your spelling.  8^)
    

    .388
    
    |and yes, I would/do watch porno but STRICKLEY for educational
    |purposes!
    
    say, i watch 'em strickley for that purpose too!!  why, i never
    dreamed of the anatomical peculiarities that porno flicks 
    document!!  take "deep throat", fer instance!!  who'd a
    thought that _that_ could happen!  
    
    but you know, it's all very natural and beautiful.

    .390
    I don`t watch them to learn how to spell. 

    RE:  Deep throat......what does Watergate have to do with pornos.
    
    
    My take on this is that it depends upon what function our schools are
    going to serve.  If it's to be taught reading, writing, math, history
    and all, then it's not that big of an issue.  If they are going to be
    in the social education game, then it's more of a factor.  If he did
    approach one of his students/ex-students, then he should be out on his
    can.
    
    

    
    .391
    
    Oph, you just watch them so you'll know what to do in real life, when
    the oportunity comes knocking on your door. :-)

    > Yes, that's about it.  I think the key question is, what is the
    > overall effect on the Yarmouth High School ?  That decision
    > should be made by the representatives of the people of Yarmouth.
    
     But there is a rights issue here, and a legal one as well.
    
     What if "the people of Yarmouth" decided that black teachers did not
    make good role models, or gun owners, or democrats or whatever? There
    should be a fair and consistent and _objective_ policy. It's the lack
    of the same that I find most objectionable.

    .394
    
    hey, knowledge is power!!  ask mr crane!!

    >Oph, you just watch them so you'll know what to do in real life, when
    >the oportunity comes knocking on your door. :-)
    
     Well, Markie, I hope you're practising safe sex.

    re .378
    
    >The decision was made by the administration that is put in place to
    >deal with exactly these situations.  There is no need to have a public
    >debate when there can be no doubt about the fact that the actions this
    >guy took were totally wrong for a teacher. 
    
    This is exactly what IS being debated, whether his actions were right
    or wrong for a teacher.
     
    >There is no way to justify this if you are really concerned about 
    >setting a moral and ethical example for teens.
    
    That's correct. But part of the debate is whether the teacher SHOULD be
    setting a moral and ethical example for children. And before this came
    out, was he setting a moral example.
    
    
    >The fact remains that this guy was wrong and if we ever hope to
    >re-establish a moral compass to this country this type of activity by a
    >teacher must be dealt with immediately and directly.
    
    	Again, this is opinion, not fact.
    
    ed

    
    	Even more so, the debate is whether his actions were right or
    	wrong for a teacher who was off the clock at the time.
    

    
    For the people who support the decision to fire this teacher.
    
    
    	It has been said that he broke some code of conduct. I would be
    willing to agree with this if it had been spelled out exactly what
    conduct he violated. In other words, if you want to be able to conduct
    business this way, you must supply a list of conduct that is not
    allowed. It must be specific, not just 'conduct unbecoming a teacher'.
    That kind of language has a tendency to change to fit the occasion.
    
    
    ed
    
    PS The list must be agreed to by all parties prior to the contract
    being signed.
    
    

    
    ><<< Note 629.310 by BULEAN::BANKS >>>
    >Porn is a multi-billion dollar profit making industry.  Teaching isn't.
    
    Teaching isn't what? Multi-billion dollar or profit making.  But in
    either case you note exactly correct.  Public schools account for
    billions and billions in tax dollars.  Private schools, day care,
    colleges, training programs etc also suck in billions and billions. 
    The profit margins may be greater in the porn industry, but then again
    the overhead is less (they don't even need clothes!).
    
    	Skip

    
    	Ummm, Skip ... last I knew the average salary for a teacher was
    	somewhere around $25K, if that.
    
    	A porn producer/director has the opportunity to make a whole lot
    	more due to the nature of the industry.
    

    RE: .400

>    	It has been that he broke some code of conduct. I would be
>    willing to agree with this if it had been spelled out exactly what
>    conduct he violated. 

    Hmmm.  When I joined Digital I didn't see anything about not sexually
    harassing co-workers ... or anything against asking if one of them
    wanted to appear in an X-rate movie I was producing.  I still believe
    that Digital would be within it's rights to fire me for such an
    offense.

    -- Dave

    So you're hanging your hat on the stealth former student who
    purportedly told the school board that he propositioned her but who
    remains anonymous? Would it matter if he refuted the charge, or is the
    accusation sufficient cause for dismissal?

    With a name like Flatman, I doubt you would have made it in that
    industry anyways.

       Z     Why is it that the "Teachers should teach, not instill students
       Z     with their personal views" crowd, are arguing so fiercely that
       Z     now "Teachers should provide moral examples"?
    
    Jim, I have touched on some of the reasons.  I believe teachers are
    stewards of young minds and have an awesome responsibility.  In this
    forum, I will usually give an opinion regarding private
    institutions...like Harvard which although is a school of prestige, has
    become an educational harlot in the area of humanities.  Nevertheless
    it is a private institution and I say, if you want to take your kiddies
    toward the path of perdition, then more power to you.  However, the
    public school system does not share the rights and privelages to become
    a whore like private institutions can, and since I am forced to support
    the establishment, my opinion holds as much weight as anybody elses.
    
    Jim, teaching is a position of honour, and not one to be taken lightly.
    I question the integrity and character of ANYBODY who participates in
    the porn industry, it is a dishonorable occupation and does nothing but
    exploit women and children...no matter how nice they make it sound.  
    A child WILL be drawn to a role model...some choose gang leaders, some
    sports legends, and many choose teachers.  Since this man has
    apparently chosen an occupation of questionable character, I believe in
    principle he has forfeited his right to be that role model for
    children.
    
    Make sense?  Maybe...maybe not, but as far as I can see, any occupation
    which contributes to the 60's mentality has no place in the school
    system...especially when young minds are dealing with AIDS, broken
    homes, and drugs.  Jim, your defense of this guy is dishonorable in my
    view...and I'm libertarian in much of my thinking!
    
    -Jack

    By the way, how do we spell privelege?!

>    	Ummm, Skip ... last I knew the average salary for a teacher was
>    	somewhere around $25K, if that.
>    
>    	A porn producer/director has the opportunity to make a whole lot
>    	more due to the nature of the industry.
    
There are a lot more teachers than pornography workers.

    |I question the integrity and character of ANYBODY who participates
    |in the porn industry...
    
    I'm with Jack!!

    Oh...how long have we been together?!

    RE: .404

>    So you're hanging your hat on the stealth former student who
>    purportedly told the school board that he propositioned her ...

    If this had come up back in '88 or '89, I would doubt that someone
    would have remained silent for a year before coming forward.  Since
    then I have seen numerous cases of sexual harassment where the person
    being harassed let it slide because they either didn't want to go
    through the aggravation of "proving" the charge or they didn't want to
    get a reputation of making wave and thus damaging their own career.

    If a year after an incident a woman comes forward after other
    allegations come to light, I would consider the probably that she is
    telling the truth to be the same as if she came forward the day after
    the incident occurred.

    Without the other allegations, she is just being "hysterical", he's
    such a nice teacher, all the other students love him, she's just mad
    because he gave her a D, etc.  It's much easier to come forward if you
    don't have to break the ice on the issue.

>    but who remains anonymous? 

    I believe that a person has the right to face their accusor.  But as
    long as it isn't in the public trail phase, I see no reason to release
    the woman's name to the public.  The names of rape victims are often
    withheld because of the unwanted publicity.

>    Would it matter if he refuted the charge, or is the
>    accusation sufficient cause for dismissal?

    If he refuted the charge, I would place him on administrative leave with
    pay and get a restraining order baring him from the school campus.  

    Why?  CYA.  If I was the principal, I would not want to open up the
    school district and/or myself to lawsuits for sanctioning sexual
    harassment.

    -- Dave

    Well, since this latest Sacrifice to Correctness has been handed
    a bag of lemons, he should make lemonade.  That is, he should use
    his fifteen minutes of apparently-national (?) fame, his widespread
    public support, and his cinematic proclivities, to find some backers
    to make a big-screen movie about this whole experience.
    
    What the heck, if Simpson (who was found not guilty with lots of
    evidence, while this poor Walenski was fired over an accusation) can
    manage to sell a video, then Walenski should be able to profit from
    his experience as well.
    
    
    re: Delayed accusations
    
    There should be some kind of statute of limitations on these things.
    It's getting to be a circus.  Every time someone gets in some kind
    of trouble, fifty people jump out of the shadows with their stories
    going back ten years or more in some cases.  This is a modern-day
    phenomenon that should be discouraged.  If the alleged incidents are
    important enough to report and pursue at all, then they should be
    done as soon as possible after the incidents.  These years-later
    me-too-ies are highly suspicious at best.  They remind me of people
    who show up after-the-fact at the scene of a bus accident, lie down
    and start screaming.
    
    Chris

    >If a year after an incident a woman comes forward after other
    >allegations come to light, I would consider the probably that she is
    >telling the truth to be the same as if she came forward the day after
    >the incident occurred.
    
     I don't discount long after the fact complaints as a matter of course.
    I understand the dynamics at work here.
    
     What I find discomforting is the way this allegation popped up,
    seemingly out of thin air, when it was most convenient for the
    superintendent, coupled with the fact that no one has been produced that
    is actually making this claim. It's as if it was made up specifically
    to galvanize support for the dismissal.
    
    >I believe that a person has the right to face their accusor.  But as
    >long as it isn't in the public trail phase, I see no reason to release
    >the woman's name to the public.  
    
     If they are going to hold a hearing and use it as evidence of
    wrongdoing, it seems to me that there ought to be evidence of an actual
    person behind the complaint. At a minimum, the person ought to appear
    before the board in a closed door session so other members of the board
    can say "we met her, we interviewed her, and she told us the specific
    nature of her allegations" so we can have reason to believe this is
    legitimate. (Things this convenient inspire mistrust.)
    
    >If he refuted the charge, I would place him on administrative leave with
    >pay and get a restraining order baring him from the school campus.  
    
     The restraining order seems a bit much.

    RE: .413

    First off, you probably have more information on this incident than I
    do.  I only have what's in the 'box and therefore can't pick up on the
    nuances of what is going on.

>    At a minimum, the person ought to appear
>    before the board in a closed door session ...

    I have no problem with that.  I would have expected that more than one
    person to have heard the woman's complaints.

>     The restraining order seems a bit much.

    Fair enough.  Don't have one issued unless he shows up on campus after
    being put onto administrative leave.  From a CYA point of view I would
    not want him to have the opportunity to proposition another student on
    school district property (not that I know where the first proposition
    took place).

    -- Dave

    
      By the way, under the Massachusetts law, Bubba can request a
     hearing, and can have an attorney present if he wishes, anytime
     within a short period (ten days, was it) after getting sacked
     for unbecoming conduct.  But my guess is, he'll be advised not
     to bother.
    
      bb

    He shoulda gotta job at Home Depot.

Selling power toe suckers?

    Power toe suckers are in aisle 13A, bin 467555. Ask for Flo.

    
    	Flo B.?  I think I've heard of her.
    

    
    You can buy power toe suckers at the Home Depot %^o?
    

    .398
    
    I don't believe that there truly is any debate required on this.  Just
    about anyone but a flaming ACLU type knows intrinsically that this is
    wrong for a teacher involved with impressionable teens.  Administrators
    are there to deal with these and the guy did the right thing.  You
    break the code of conduct and your gone.
    
    some asked about spelling out the code, well that's a silly defense
    since there are numerous activities that can not be forseen so would
    not be included.  Does that make the person free of responsibility?  I
    don't think so.
    
    A similar incident happened with a female police officer in Milwaukee
    who posed in Playboy.  she was fired when the photos appeared for
    conduct unbecoming.  I was right for her and it's right for him.
    
    Lastly, all of you who are supporting this guy to keep his job.  will
    you be just as supportive of the school district when this guy does
    solicit and get a girl to be in a movie and then the district gets sued
    for not getting rid of a potential threat.
    
    You want it both ways, but this one is clear.
    

| <<< Note 629.420 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Little Chamber of Tear-Off Bottoms" >>>


| You can buy power toe suckers at the Home Depot %^o?


	I'm sure if you were there, it wouldn't cost you a penny.... :-)

    re: .421
    
    >You want it both ways, but this one is clear.
    
    Yep, it is very clear.  This man has done nothing that impairs his
    ability to be a good teacher and yet he has lost his job over an
    unsubstanciated allegation.
    
    Bob
    

    .423
    
    There is nothing unsubstantiated about his work in the porno industry. 
    that is the issue.  The claim of the young lady is really a side issue
    and doesn't need to be part of the discussion.  this guy went far
    beyond the conduct of a teacher and should not be part of the
    educational system.
    
    You make choices every day and this guy made a bad one and now needs to
    face the consequences of his decsions.
    
    It's really simple and those who wish to raise all sorts of extraneous
    issues fail to realize the impact on young people by those in
    authority.
    
    If a woman was a hooker, but only hooked while her kids were in school,
    therefore on her time, she would lose her children and not many people
    would question it.  The issue remains the same.
    
    

    re 421
    
    
    	OK then, Do you now go to all the other teachers in the school
    district and ask them if they have been involved in porno?
    
    ed

    
    re .424
    
    Hooking is illegal. Yes, take her kids away because she would be in
    jail. If she were a stripper, she can keep her kids.
    
    ed

    
    	RE: .425 [Ed]
    
    	No, you fire them 1st, just in case they were, and THEN you in-
    	vent the required evidence.
    
    
    	RE: ROCUSH
    
    	Why do you think the Milwaukee policewoman should have been
    	fired?  What did SHE do that was illegal?  And since when are
    	police officers expected to be the epitome of morality?
    

    
    	RE: Ed
    
    	Hooking isn't illegal everywhere.
    

   >this guy went far
   > beyond the conduct of a teacher and should not be part of the
   > educational system.

   What did he do, while in the performance of his job, that exceeds the
   expected conduct of a teacher?

   What he does in his private life, given that it does not affect or conflict
   with his public life, is his own business. 

   Recruting students for his private affairs puts him in conflict and if the
   allegation is true, he should be fired. 

   (since when are teachers public persona anyway? it's not like they are 
   voted into their jobs...)

    
      You keep saying that "what he does on his own time is his own
     business".  But we don't agree with you about that.  We think
     it should be "what he does IN PRIVATE is his own business."  And
     Massachusetts law, the US Constitution, and the case law from
     the Supreme Court, agree with us.  Why shouldn't the Yarmouth
     school board use any public knowledge in its personnel decisions ?
    
      bb
    

    re . 428
    
    	Then where its legal, no loss of kids.
    
    ed

    thank you, hammurabi.

     >Why shouldn't the Yarmouth
     >school board use any public knowledge in its personnel decisions ?
    
    For the same reason they are not allowed to fire someone for being the
    wrong color, as they used to do, or for being the wrong sex, or for
    being a married woman, as schools used to do, or for being the wrong
    religion or the wrong ethnic background, or for any number of other
    wrong reasons.
    
    If you work for a private company, they can fire you for any reason at
    all or none at all, and you can sue them, and people do and they often
    win.
    
    At a minimum the same ought to be true of a government position, but I
    would go further (if I were the judge) and say that a public
    institution should be scrupulous in making their decisions based on
    legal considerations only, not on the basis of the opinions of the most
    uptight among us, and therefore this teacher can not be fired for his
    after-hours activities, and the cop in Chicago couldn't either.
    
    Both firings are morally reprehensible and ought to be illegal.

The answer is simple. Hang the guy by his testicles for one hour. If he falls to 
the ground within that time he is guilty. If not OK. One witch hunt is as good as 
another.

       <<< Note 629.434 by GENRAL::RALSTON "life in the passing lane!" >>>

The answer is simple. Hang the guy by his testicles for one hour. If he
falls to  the ground within that time he is guilty. If not OK. One witch
hunt is as good as  another.

sorry!

                     <<< Note 629.424 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

>    If a woman was a hooker, but only hooked while her kids were in school,
>    therefore on her time, she would lose her children and not many people
>    would question it.  The issue remains the same.
 
	Brother Rocush, do you understand the difference between legal
	and illegal activities?   

Jim
    

    
    So... it looks like the school board was within their "legal" rights to
    fire him...
    

    
    Re: last few
    
    No, I do not have any difficulty identifying legal and illegal
    activities.  I think, once again, you are looking at nits as opposed to
    the intent, but then I guess that's how your minds work.  OK, lets say
    the woman was an alcoholic, drinking is legal and she would more than
    likely lose her kids.  And she should.
    
    Also, the question is simply that you are a representative of the
    organization that employs you 24 hours per day.  If you do something
    that brings shame or ridicule on Digital in your off hours, in a public
    fashion, then you would be terminated.  This is what the teacher did.
    
    Also, I still have not seen any response to the second question.  If
    the school board knew about this guys activities and did nothing,
    because of all your gripes, then he got some kids into the films, would
    you be screaming for the school boards collective heads.  I feel
    reasonably certain that you be.  You be claiming that the school board
    was iiresponsible for allowing a known porno star to be involved with
    young children and the school board should have taken action to keep
    this guy away, etc, etc.
    
    But all of this ignores the basic question, which is, are there
    professions that require a higher standard of personal conduct than
    others?  I believe that the teaching profession is one of those that do
    have such a requirement.  Lastly, as someone said, there is a different
    between what you do in PRIVATE and what you do on your personal time. 
    If your personal time is spent in the public view then you can't claim
    that you can't be held accountable for your actions.
    
    There is a difference between what is legal and what is right.  this
    guy was wrong and needs to go.
    

    Fortunately, the furor over this incident is likely to provide an
    increased audience of curiosity seekers, which will provide greater
    royalties to Bubba. Some compensation, anyway.

    
      re, .433 - yes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed a horrendous
     limitation on the rights of employers.  They have to show the
     firings were not based on a list of protected reasons - race, creed,
     and, as amended, gender.  People sue and win on those grounds.  But
     if you think people sue and win on grounds not listed, you are
     incorrect.  See "The Right of Privacy", a recent summary of the law
     on this subject in the whatchyoubeenreading note, or if you care to
     debate the facts, I'll quote it for you next week, if you like.
    
      Now as to "you OUGHT to", as per your note, of course, that is a
     matter of opinion.  The fact is, in this case, you can't.  That is
     a political matter, like all laws.  Good luck convincing the public
     to extend the list in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include porno
     acting.  You couldn't even get the signatures to get on the ballot,
     and you couldn't find the sponsors to even get a vote in Congress.
     The society doesn't agree with you.  And nothing in the US
     Constitution protects you either.
    
      On the logical question, I fail to see what possible public purpose
     such an egregious addition to the protected list would serve.  There
     just isn't any.  And as with all US laws, the usual political
     standard applies - utilitarianism, like the founding fathers as per
     Mill and Bentham, the British philosophers.  "Greatest good of the
     greatest number."  We think keeping porno as far from kids as
     possible meets this test.  If you don't, get a majority.
    
      bb

    You know, it's almost as if this guys life was over.
    
    What's the big deal?
    
    Oh yeah, his right to bare bottoms, I forgot.

    Tell you what, we'll summarily toss you from your job and make so that
    you can't get another job in the industry, and we'll see what the "big
    deal" is.

	>A new
    	>study just released indicated that the overwhelming majority of high
    	>school juniors and seniors feel that the most important problem facing
    	>the US today is the decline in morals and ethics.

	Aren't these the same students who also admitted in a study
	(perhaps the same one) that the vast majority of them have 
	cheated in school?


	Anyhow, this whole thing is crazy. So it's ok if many
	people in town routinely view adult videos but not ok
	to be in one. The man has not broken any laws and is fired
	but the same voters support the reelection of Gerry Studds
	(what...6 times). It's not as if the man has a pending sexual 
	harrassment lawsuit to face ala Bill Clinton.

	Fine, support this travesty. But don't complain when some of
	you also lose your jobs for [legal] activities you engage
	in after work. 
 

    
    	Hank, it's a different story when it happens to someone else.
    

    Other school boards would be interested in him I think. If he promised
    to not do porn, I'm sure he could get another job.
    
    He should have realized that he'd get in trouble for his nhobby sooner
    or later.

    
    	His nhobby what?
    

    nhobby for her pleasure?

    .444
    
    Yes, I believe the this was the same study.  It really showed the
    problems facing people, particularly teens, today.  These kids are
    looking for solid leadership and rules, not feel-good stuff like is so
    common by the liberal end of the spectrum.
    
    I have had the opportunity to work with teens for several years and 
    they are literally crying for boundries and the adult population is
    abdicating it's responsibility by saying, "Oh, it's OK, just be
    careful" to whatever the kid asks for.  What they are really asking for
    is limits and rules.
    
    As far as your claim that because of some jerk being involved in an
    activity that he knew would get him fired before he started, equates to
    me getting fired for no reason, is a lame knee-jerk response.  If you
    want to say that I can get fired for participating in a public rally
    that embarrasses Digital, then yes I could and should.
    
    You consistently miss the point that there are professions that should
    have a higher standard and failure to meet them means that you should
    not be part of that profession.  Take the good with the bad, but don't
    complain.
    

        Z    Fine, support this travesty. But don't complain when some of
        Z    you also lose your jobs for [legal] activities you engage
        Z    in after work. 
    
    Hank, I have a friend who lost a job because he was a white male. 
    Does that count?
    
    -Jack

              <<< Note 629.446 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Glennbert" >>>

>    Other school boards would be interested in him I think. If he promised
>    to not do porn, I'm sure he could get another job.
 
	I bet you missed the part of the story that reported that the
	Commonwealth was going to revoke his teaching credentials.

Jim

      <<< Note 629.450 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    Hank, I have a friend who lost a job because he was a white male. 
>    Does that count?
 
	I'm sure that this is the entire story. Boss walks in and says
	"We just noticed that you, sir, are white. You're fired".

Jim

    Wow, I think everyone has overreacted on this one.

    
>    Yes, I believe the this was the same study.  It really showed the
>    problems facing people, particularly teens, today.  These kids are
>    looking for solid leadership and rules, not feel-good stuff like is so
>    common by the liberal end of the spectrum.
    
>    I have had the opportunity to work with teens for several years and 
>    they are literally crying for boundries and the adult population is
>    abdicating it's responsibility by saying, "Oh, it's OK, just be
>    careful" to whatever the kid asks for.  What they are really asking for
>    is limits and rules.
 

     precisely.  Come with me some Wednesday night when I go to to a 
     family group session at the hospital where my son is an outpatient.
     See the results of all this "feel good" "no moral absolutes" garbage
     that is spewed at these kids from all angles.  I truly fear for this
     society over the next 10-20 years.  




     Jim






   
        

    
    
    Okay, Okay.....let's for one moment think about the "higher standards"
    and the conduct becoming we expect from the professions of teachers, 
    police officers, doctors, lawyers, etc.
    
    Let's even agree for a moment that this teacher's involvement in
    producing pornography, while not breaking any law, is reprehensible
    dishonerable, demonstrates lack of character and makes him a poor role
    model. Let's also link mob involvement and drugs into those activities.
    
    Now that we have done that, doesn't it follow that anyone who has ever
    watched, rented or purchased a porno flick, is supporting reprehensible
    and dishonerable activities, that they are of weak character and
    therefore are also poor role models and through their investment in
    such activities that indirectly or directly support the mobsters and sale
    of drugs. Let's extend that to looking at Playboy or Playgirl or maybe
    even slobbering over the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit issue.  How about
    the art teacher or photography teacher that paints or photographs adult
    nudes in their off hours; that's probably on the edge too. 
    
    If the answer is yes then I suggest that all of the other teachers and
    administrators sign an affidavit that they have not done so, and will
    not do so. The affidavit should also affirm that they have never, are
    not now and will not use illegal drugs. Random drug testing should be
    performed to make sure. I sure that some volunteers who feel strongly
    about this could be recruited to park outside adult video shops to
    photograph staff members renting such material. Ditto topless bars, red
    light districts, etc. Oh! and let's not forget adultery if we happen to
    catch a teacher being immoral with someone not their spouse. Since the
    passage of time doesn't seem to afford any protection lets go research
    their activities back in college by interviewing people they went to
    school with. Maybe we can even get the Feds to suopena mail order
    records to see if these individuals ever ordered any of this stuff in
    plain wrappers. 
    
    I wonder how many teachers, police officers, doctors, etc. would pass 
    muster if we did that? After all with an undefined set of rules that
    represent conduct unbecoming where would it end?  Shouldn't parents who
    have the responsibility for rasing children be held to the same
    standards of conduct unbecoming a parent. Aren't parents role models
    too? 
    
    JB
     

    It's all tripe if you ask me. Too much self righteousness going on.
    
    Now, if this guy had influenced any of his students in that area, that
    would be a different story.

    >> After all with an undefined set of rules that
    >> represent conduct unbecoming where would it end?  
    
    At the whim of the government, which is exactly how they want it.
    
    Those of you who are happy with this might want to consider that
    next time the government wrecks someone's career in such a capricious
    manner, you might not agree with the reasons next time.  But that'll
    be too bad, the ponderous paw of the government will have swept the
    person away.
    
    Chris

    
               -< ..."ponderous paw"?  Where'd that come from? >-
    
    Lorne Greene?
    
    No.  He was the Ponderosa paw.   Sorry.
    

    How old was the girl that was asked to be in the movie?
    What is the age of consent in Ma.?

    
    
    The "alleged" girl....
    
    tyvm...
    

    
      How can toe-sucking be "speech" anyways ?  You can't even say
     anything with them in there.
    
      bb

    
    %^}
    
    

    >  How can toe-sucking be "speech" anyways ?  
    
     It's no less speech than flag burning.

 >     How can toe-sucking be "speech" anyways ?  You can't even say
 >    anything with them in there.
 
 How do you know this :-)

The "age of consent" has nothing to do with appearing in porno films.

That comes under the "child pornography" laws -- the minimum age is 18.

/john

    
      By the way, according to the Oxford Companion, it is important to
     realize that while the US Constitution offers virtually no right
     to a job, and no constitutional basis for wrongful discharge suits,
     it DOES give the Congress broad powers to regulate interstate
     commerce, and under the "state action doctrine", even broader
     (although subsidiary) powers to the states.  These powers have been
     exercised heavily in the last 35 years, including the Civil Rights
     Acts of 1964 and 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
     and many others at the federal level, and states have passed many
     laws peculiar to them.  The "conduct unbecoming" law is Massachusetts
     state law, and is constitutional, as rules by the Massachusetts
     Supreme Judicial Court, and the Federal District Court.  But, of
     course, it could be repealed or modified by the legislature, or
     overruled by the Congress.
    
      I could give dozens of examples of such laws and their application.
     Consider the following quotation from The Right of Privacy, by Ellen
     Alderman and Caroline Kennedy (1995) :
    
      "In 1988, Congress passed the Employee Polygraph Protection Act
     (EPPA) of 1988, which essentially bans the use of polygraphs, voice
     stress analyzers, and other psychological tests as job-screening
     devices by private employers.  Exceptions were made for the
     pharmaceutical industry, security-guard companies, and government.
     Testing of employees suspected of specific incidents of theft is
     still permitted under the EPPA."
    
      or this, from the same source :
    
      "In 1990, a woman who worked for the Ford Meter Box Company in
     Wabash, Indiana, was fired for flunking a drug test.  But what she
     tested positive for was nicotine.  Ford Meter Box forbade its
     employees to smoke, even on their own time at home.  Although the
     woman did not get her job back, her case led the Indiana legislature
     to pass a law prohibiting companies from firing employees for
     smoking.  The legislation does, however, permit employers to charge
     additional health insurance premiums for employees who smoke.
     Bone v. Ford Meter Box, Indiana, 1991"
    
      bb

    .439 "...the woman is an alcoholic... would most likely lose her
         kids, and should"
     
         interesting, but i don't believe it or in it. if there is neglect
         or any form of abuse then i would agree.
    
         the statement, as it stands, is indefensible.

    
      And by the way, New York State passed a 1993 law which forbids
     employers in the state from firing an employee for off-the-job
     "recreational" activities, as defined by the statute.  It would
     not have protected Bubba, since his toe-sucking was for cash, but
     it WOULD protect non-profit public toe-sucking.  Or at least I think
     so.  The cases under that statute are confusing so far, with regards
     to whether sexuality is "recreational" if performed for no money,
     about which more later perhaps.
    
      There is currently no state which forbids a company from having an
     "absolutely no moonlighting" policy, or including such a provision
     in an employment contract.  This is routinely done.  Also, many
     companies which DO allow moonlighting, place restrictions on it.
     In fact, I think Digital does so, with regards to competitors, for
     exempt employees (I was told this - is it true) ?
    
      bb
    

	Maybe its already mention in here.

in WRKO AM 680 a couple of day back, they played the audio from one of his
porn movies, "UHhh... OHhhhh.. Uhhhh.. Ohhh" and in the back ground kids
shouting.. "W e   W a n t   B u b b a... W e   W a n t   B u b b a..."

-): -): I am wondering if these kids know clearly what the issue here is -):

    
    	I wouldn't doubt that Digital has a "no moonlighting for compet-
    	itors policy"* ... when I was working for Big D Supermarkets I
    	was going to try and get a job nights at another supermarket in
    	town and they said I'd have to quit The Big D 1st.
    
    	* - there's probably a corollary in there making MacIntosh an
    	exception, since I'm sure we don't consider them competition of
    	any kind.
    

    There is a no moon lighting policy in place with competitors but
    nothing to stop you from doing a diiferent job at than what you do here
    but your milage may vary depending on mgmt. 
    
    

Does Digital consider toe-sucking to be in competition with its business?

    
    <------ yes, Gerald, it's right up there with *** kissing as a core
    competency. 

    .471
    
    A former Digit, back in the days when the company was DEC, was in his
    other life a professional photographer.  (His DEC job was VMS system
    administration, and he was damn good at it.)
    
    The marketing group in the facility where he worked commissioned him,
    as a professional photographer, to do a shoot for them.  On his own
    time.  All went well until he billed the company.  He was then told
    that because he was an employee, all his work was the property of DEC
    anyway per his employee contract.  Therefore, because he was WC4, he
    was on salary and would receive no extra pay of any kind for the
    photography.  He proceeded to demonstrate to them, with his attorney
    present, that what he did as a photographer was no part of his job
    description and that they could pay him now or pay him later.  They
    pissed and moaned about it for quite a while, but eventually they
    ponied up.

    Isn't that terrible.  

    
    <----- yeah, they should have given him a full grown horse.

    there is policy with respect to Digital employees and second jobs. they
    are supposed to be officially approved. i had two engineers that were
    do consulting work and when the Corp. found out i had to deliver the
    "cease and desistimmediately" message.
    
    as mentioned earlier, that little agreement you signed upon being
    employed gives Digital just about the same rights with you as you'd have
    entering military service.

    
    <------ wrong Chip, the military gives you 3 squares a day, and free 
    uniforms to boot.

    
    	No, that looked like the right Chip to me.  How many are there?
    
    	And "free uniforms to boot" doesn't parse well.  Try this:
    
    	"And free uniforms ... hat to boot".
    

    .477
    
    The policy is based on conflict of interest.  If you do anything in
    your other job that falls within the range of products or services that
    could be considered competition with Digital, that's a conflict of
    interest.
    
    I have specifically gotten permission to do Macintosh consulting and
    programming.
    
    The Digit I described in an earlier reply had a second job that was
    TOTALLY unrelated to his DEC job.  No conflict of interest.

>    <------ wrong Chip, the military gives you 3 squares a day, and free 
>    uniforms to boot.

    I vaguely remember my brother saying he had to buy his uniform.  Maybe
    only the first n number of them are free.

    -- Dave

    In boot camp you receive an allocation of uniforms, varying with the
    service.  The Navy gives you your first undress whites and undress
    blues (undress == bell-bottoms and jumper), two of each.  The Army
    probably gives you BDUs and dress greens.
    
    After that you're on your own, which is why so many servicepeople learn
    how to make small repairs in their clothes.

    Porn - who needs it anyway?

    
    	"Need" isn't he correct word, it's "want".
    
    	It's in demand, so people will continue to supply it.
    
    	Reminds me of the old quote, "If you come, they will buy it".
    

    BWAHAHAHAHA  8)

    
    Is Playboy porn or is the porn label reserved for something like
    hustler or skin flicks?  
    
    
    

	Playboy I think is soft porn.... I know Playgirl is..... ;-)    
    

    Depends upon which side of the pulpit you are on.  

    
    	RE: Brian
    
    	8^)
    
    
    	Playboy/Penthouse are very soft porn.  "Playboy" TV is soft porn,
    	and the rentals you can get in stores are hard-core porn.
    
    	Soft-core - naughty bits exposed, "simulated sex"
    
    	Hard-core - penetration [oral/genital], "money shots"
    

    Playboy rental are hardcore?  I though they just had Playmate
    vidtorials.  Then again, I've never rented a Playboy production so I
    wouldn't know. 

    Just rentals, not "Playboy".
    
    hth.
    
    Shawn, you sure know a lot about this. 8)

    
    
    Let's just say that Shawn's love life is self sufficient.

    
    	You're all a bunch of comedians.  8^)
    
    	This isn't rocket science.
    
    	And yes, "rentals" is generic "rentals" and not Playboy rentals.
    

    ...my mistake. i forgot the military fed you. actually, once stationed
       it's usually an option (like on-base housing - when available).

    I`ve never seen an x-rated Playboy video even though I have seen a lot
    of x-rated video and Playboy video`s. Playboy is too soft for me.

| <<< Note 629.495 by MAIL1::CRANE >>>

| I`ve never seen an x-rated Playboy video even though I have seen a lot
| of x-rated video and Playboy video`s. Playboy is too soft for me.

	I like my video's hard, too

    8o

    This video's too hard!
    
    This video's too soft!
    
    This video's juuuust right!
    
    Whooops, `Ishtar' ?!? Pardon me, but do you have anything else that's
    just right?

    Ishatar was the greatest!

    
			  (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| SNARF! 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

That's discusting Steve!!   :) It's PORN I tell you, PORN!!!

    
    I can think of a small modification that would make that a true
    porn-cow, but I'd probably be deleted for posting disgusting ascii art.
    
    

    

    
	 	  (__)
	          (oo)
	 *    -----\/  (__)
	  \  /   _||   (oo)
           \/   /-------\/ 
	    | _/ |     || \ 
	    ||   ||W---|| OH, YOU ARE UDDERLY SUPERB!!
	    ~~   ~~    ~~  

    re: .502
    
    I thought of that, too, but then it wouldn't be a cow any more.  8^)

    Hard-core porno filth can get to be rather monotonous after a while.
    
    It sort of goes in steps.
    
    step 1) Woman goes down on bloke
    step 2) vice versa
    step 3) she jumps on top
    step 4) he then er,goes behind
    
    then a couple of variations on the above and then er,the obligatory
    ending and bob`s your uncle it`s all over.
    
    Once you`ve seen one,you`ve seen the lot. I wonder what the blokes
    think about for them to carry on so long. "ah,I must pay the
    electricity bill....oooh,I think i`ll have a take-away chinese for
    dinner tonight..eeeh,I wonder if Newcastle Utd will win the league this
    year?" etc,etc.
    
    

    
    
    aSTUte observations as always Mr. Cook.......

> bob`s your uncle

I haven't a clue on this one.

    Aren't colloquialisms grand? :-)

    re: .508
    
    Yep.  It's news to me.

    what's the latest on our favorite actor?
    
    everybody was jumping his case (as it were) awhile ago.. and now..
    
    nothing.
    
    typical 'boxer behavior. A big windup, and no followthrough...
    
    (honest honey, it's.... the beer. I had a little too much. sorry!
    try me in the morning when I'm sober...)
    
    

Don't know, but on the way home this evening, Howie Carr was entertaining
a guest by the name of Tiffany Million from the porn movie trade. She claims
to have a web site at -

	http://www.tiffany.com

if I properly understood.

Bubba's concerns were under discussion.

  .512  she said her name was spelled "Ty...", not "Ti...".

    re: .511
    
    I read a few days ago, in the Boston Globe, that he intends to sue to
    get his job back...
    
     Not much else in the short article..
    

Virginia teacher accused of making gay porn videos

LEESBURG, Va.  -- A physical education teacher who coached three high 
school boys' teams is under investigation and could lose his teaching 
license for allegedly starring in gay pornographic videos.

Word about the videos surfaced when Jeffrey Dion Bruton's wife of two years 
filed for divorce June 19.

Melanie Bruton said in divorce papers that she discovered a photo of her 
husband in a pornographic magazine advertisement for the video "Hot Day in 
L.A." The video showed her husband in sex acts with other men, acts she 
cited as grounds for divorce, the court papers said.

Bruton, described as about 30, taught health and physical education at 
Farmwell Station Middle School in Ashburn and was an assistant coach for 
boys football, baseball and wrestling teams at Park View High School in 
Sterling.

If the allegations about Bruton are confirmed, they would be grounds for 
his dismissal and school officials would ask the state to revoke his 
teaching license, Loudoun County School Superintendent Edgar Hatrick III 
said.

"We believe that teachers, as people who are chosen to be instructors as 
well as leaders of our young people, should be exemplary in their 
professional as well as personal lives," Hatrick said.  "What we have here 
is an allegation of a lifestyle that is not in keeping with that.  If the 
allegations are true, that is not conduct befitting a teacher."

Efforts to reach Bruton were unsuccessful.  His attorney in the divorce 
case, Burke McCahill, did not return telephone calls.

But Steve Thompson, an agent for Bruton, confirmed Thursday that Bruton 
made videos and added that he has done catalog and calendar modeling for 
swimwear and athletic clothes.

Bruton, who was hired in 1993 by the school district in a suburb of 
Washington, plans to resign his teaching position, Thompson said.

"The last thing Dion wants to do is harm anybody," Thompson said.  "He is 
heartbroken.  ...  He's ruined.  He'll never teach again.  Whether it's 
fair or not -- and I don't think it is -- I don't think he has any choice."

School administrators have tried unsuccessfully to reach Bruton for about 
10 days.

 ZZ   "The last thing Dion wants to do is harm anybody,"
    
    Didn't you looovve...the things...that they stood for......
    Didn't they try to find some good...for you and me.....
    and we'll be free.....some day.....