Teacher (ex) deregistered for Playboy shoot

[Maki]

So the NZ teacher who took her kit off for Playboy has been deregistered by the NZTC. She's planning to appeal it on the grounds that no institution has the right to impose their Victorian standards on her lifestyle outside the classroom. Btw, she left teaching a year ago to pursue modeling.

So kb, what's the moral ground on who can or can't do "exotic" modeling (hey, if it's good enough to say "exotic dancer" then surely modeling can have the same title??)

Will there always be professions where certain "lifestyle choices" are incompatible according to public opinion?

Oh, and for anyone terrified that I'm thinking of following suit, you needn't worry. It's purely an academic question...

I think de-registering someone for no valid reason must be a criminal offense (depriving a person of the means to earn an income). The malicious hags who decided someone should not work as a teacher because she is more good looking than they are should spend some time behind bars to clean up their act and THEY should be de registered. People who are that immature and self centred should not teach anyone anything.

[jazfender]

holy FXX thats ugly
Waste of a wank that one

Stephen

i'm with this dude. she ain't anything special

[BoristheBiter]

i'm with this dude. she ain't anything special

Are you? does he know?
That will be why you thinks she's nothing special then.

[Laava]

So was there anything in the agreement she signed that would have led to her losing her registration? I am led to believe that there was. As far as the ED is concerned, it would be better to have her fighting to retain her registration, as opposed to the ED figting to have it removed? Just a thought.

[marie_speeds]

And if your doctor was doing drugs in his own time...? Or downloading porn of young girls/boys?

This woman is not fiddling with kids and is doing nothing illegal. Child pornography is illegal that is the difference. I don't need to know whether you and your wife use viagara and sex toys to get off or if you have a penchant for doing it in public places as that is none of my business....pictures would be nice though if you did

[Max Headroom]

I probably shouldn't bother responding to this thread, but here goes . . .

As has already been pointed out, there's nothing illegal about the activities Rachel has involved herself in. It's her choice, and hers alone. The arguments so far highlight a few things though; what exactly is in her employment contract, and where does the issue of "morals" enter the equation?

We don't know for certain what her employment contract requires, and I don't know enough about the education sector to comment. The issue of morals is more interesting though, because there are many examples of how this can play out. For example, there would be nothing illegal about employing an alcoholic as a bartender, nor would there be anything illegal about employing a heavy gambler to run a table at Sky City. Most would agree that although there wouldn't be anything illegal in either of those examples, it would probably be unwise. This would fall under the category of a moral judgement. It also used to be called "common sense", but that was long before the murky world of PC-Speak evolved.

There is a tendency these days to only observe Personality, and to ignore Character. With Personality, we only view and measure the superficial, and take the attitude that "as long as they do their job and are pleasant to work with, what they do in their private life is their business". Do we have the right to pry any deeper than that? Is someone else's private life any of our business? What gives us the right to "judge" other people?

These things become important when someone has a position of authority, or if they take a key role in our lives. For example, a High Court judge with an addiction to alcohol may well be able to perform his duties adequately most of the time, but his weakened values may well cause him to make bad calls periodically. His integrity has been weakened, even though he's not necessarily doing anything illegal.

Our friend Rachel hasn't done anything illegal, but she has compromised her integrity. Although her teaching ability is unchanged, how people perceive her professionally will have changed and no doubt that's the concern behind her teaching suspension. Even though her photos were only published in an R18 magazine, they are readily available to any kid with access to Google. Those photos, for all intents and purposes are public, and it would be very difficult for her to be taken seriously in the teaching profession.

We are all given choices in life; but as we soon discover, just because we can doesn't mean we should. For every choice we make, there is an inevitable consequence. Rachel's choice will have consequences she will probably have anticipated, and some that she didn't . . .

So, do we have the right to judge what some else does in private? Where's the line? Personally I wouldn't like to take my chances in front of an alcoholic judge, in case I encountered him with a completely legal hangover. My view is that Rachel's suspension is probably justified, due to her compromised integrity. I would be unhappy to have Rachel teach my children, because in my view she has demonstrated poor values. That may be an unmeasurable intangible and others will probably disagree, but that's my view.

As you were . . .

[imdying]

Odd, you would think we were past this long ago.

If she wants to be a whore in her spare time, then that's her own business.

[Laava]

Odd, you would think we were past this long ago.

If she wants to be a whore in her spare time, then that's her own business.

Correct, it is her business, but as she has chosen to bare herself almost publicly then the ramifications are; If she has signed a docoment saying "that as a condition of her registration, she will not flash her bits in a certain way" and she then flashes certain bits, the issuer of the registration has the option of cancelling her registration.
IMO fair enough!

[onearmedbandit]

With all the fuss you'd almost be excused for thinking she has something that no other female has.

[oneofsix]

With all the fuss you'd almost be excused for thinking she has something that no other female has.

must be the tattoo then

[Ronin]

And if your doctor was doing drugs in his own time...? Or downloading porn of young girls/boys?

Drugs and child porn are illegal and someone somewhere along the line gets hurts. She made the choice to do what she did, it's not illegal and aside from some knob chaffing, no one got hurt.

[Ronin]

Funny about standards isn't it? My sister is a self serving alcoholic and part time mental patient (no really she is) and yet her registration has yet to be cancelled...

[oneofsix]

Funny about standards isn't it? My sister is a self serving alcoholic and part time mental patient (no really she is) and yet her registration has yet to be cancelled...

you would be forgiven for thinking that the adult naked human body used in a heterosexual context was the worst thing ever. I wonder if this goes a long way back to the idea that sex was the original sin?

[avgas]

And if your doctor was doing drugs in his own time...? Or downloading porn of young girls/boys?

Or heaven forbid rides a motorbike

[onearmedbandit]

you would be forgiven for thinking that the adult naked human body used in a heterosexual context was the worst thing ever. I wonder if this goes a long way back to the idea that sex was the original sin?

Ooo we're not specifically referring to our naughty bits, our dirty area now are we...