Mrs. Pettit's Right to Privacy

The Board of Education and Mrs. Pettit's Right to Privacy

The Board of Education did not violate Mrs. Pettit’s right to privacy. Mrs. Pettit would have the right to privacy only if she chose to keep her sexual lifestyle a secret. In such a case, Mrs. Pettit would have an absolute right to privacy such that everyone would have to respect her decisions.

Mrs. Pettit's Loss of Privacy

Therefore, anybody who tried to expose Mrs. Pettit’s sexual lifestyle would be infringing her privacy. However, Mrs. Pettit lost this privilege the moment she agreed to discuss her sexual lifestyle on the television shows (Shah, 2014). Anybody, including the Board of Education members, could watch and expose what Mrs. Pettit was doing.

No Commitment of Crime

Mrs. Pettit’s fellow teacher did not commit any crime for telling their colleagues about her sexual orientation. In public places, there is no right to privacy because the people who are watching can take photos and videos and share with friends elsewhere. Even if Mrs. Pettit had requested the colleague not to share her story, she could not blame that teacher for exposing her to the Board of Education. Whatever that is done in public gives the audience the right to share on any platform. Having exposed herself to the public, Mrs. Pettit no longer had any rights to privacy. Therefore, the Board of Education did not violate any of her rights because nothing existed in the first place.

Unjustified Firing of Mrs. Pettit

As much as the Board of Education had not violated Mrs. Pettit’s rights to privacy, it was not justified to fire her. Firstly, teachers and any other professionals have their rights to personal lives. Such individuals do not commit any crime by choosing their lifestyles as long as they are not imposing those values on others forcefully. Mrs. Pettit’s nonconventional sexual lifestyle had no connection with her work because the values did not reflect in her students, neither was she trying to influence the students. As a result, Mrs. Pettit did not deserve to be relieved of her duties as a teacher.

No Impact on Teaching Ability

Secondly, Mrs. Pettit’s sexual life had not affected her ability to teach students. Mrs. Pettit knew how to separate social and personal life from professional work. Therefore, the Board of Education had no legal grounds for firing Mrs. Pettit. Her work in the class had no fault. Nobody questioned Mrs. Pettit’s competence in class. Mrs. Pettit used to receive positive remarks and recommendation after the teachers’ appraisal. Therefore, the fact that her sexual life was brought to the attention of the Board members does not make Mrs. Pettit anything less than whom she was before. Also, the Board of Education was unfair for firing Mrs. Pettit yet there was no evidence that she was not fit to teach. Some of the allegations that Mrs. Pettit had acted in an unprofessional manner were based on mere assumptions. Mrs. Pettit fulfilled her duties as a teacher. The Board of Education did not find any reason to challenge her integrity at work (Shah, 2014). A teacher can only be dismissed if his or her actions threaten the future of the children. Mrs. Pettit had not exposed her sexual lifestyle to the students hence there was nothing to worry that she would impact the children negatively. If it were not for her fellow teacher who recognized Mrs. Pettit at the club and later discussed her issues with others, no one would have known about such a story. Many other teachers have secrets that have not been revealed to the public. As long as one’s actions have not made them incapable of fulfilling their duties, there are no legal grounds for terminating their service.

Mrs. Pettit's Professional Conduct

Mrs. Pettit did not conduct herself in an unprofessional manner. Firstly, Mrs. Pettit’s actions did not take place before the students’ eyes or in the school setting. Mrs. Pettit practiced her private sexual lifestyle in a secluded place where only willing adults attended. The minors were not allowed to attend such gatherings hence there was no way the students got into contact with Mrs. Pettit’s actions. More so, the adults were not forced to attend the show, unless for those who were willing. Mrs. Pettit would have been unprofessional if her actions took place where her students were watching. Secondly, the teachers’ attires matters in professionalism. Sufficient evidence indicates that Mrs. Pettit distinguished between attires for class and club settings. Mrs. Pettit only dressed in disguised manner whenever she was attending the club parties. The Board of Education did not present any evidence or argument suggesting that Mrs. Pettit’s dressing mode violated the teachers’ codes of ethics. Mrs. Pettit would have been unprofessional if she went to the classroom with the same outfits that she uses in the club. Since Mrs. Pettit had the right attire for the right occasion, she did not act unprofessionally in any manner. Lastly, Mrs. Pettit’s sexual orientation did not affect her relationship with the students. Mrs. Pettit was not involved in any misconduct between her and the learners. As a result, there was no treatment of future problems as some head teachers had indicated. Most likely, Mrs. Pettit had set boundaries between her profession and private life. When she attended school, Mrs. Pettit was committed to her duties as a teacher. She did not mix her career with private life.

Moral and Ethical Standards for Teachers

Similarly, Mrs. Pettit’s action was not immoral as long as the teaching profession is concerned. According to the teaching profession, morality is defined by the ability to fulfill your obligations through the provision of excellent instructions. The moral purpose of a teacher is to help students to learn. The fact that the state Board failed to establish any reason to question Mrs. Pettit’s service has several implications. Firstly, Mrs. Pettit was coming to school regularly which means that attending club parties did not affect her teaching program. Also, positive compliments from the head teacher mean that Mrs. Pettit was well informed about her students. She understood the children’s needs and fulfilled them accordingly. More so, the state Board of Education must have been satisfied with Mrs. Pettit’s service because of planning and conducted classes with great care. Furthermore, Mrs. Pettit was recommended because probably she had observed the school’s policy which enabled her to deliver satisfying work.

Mrs. Pettit's Fitness to Teach

Since Mrs. Pettit neither acted unprofessionally nor immorally, she was fit to teach. Her private life including sexual lifestyle did not affect her conduct at school (Shah, 2014). Mrs. Pettit maintained a healthy relationship between her and the students. She also delivered the content accordingly. The evaluation report indicated that Mrs. Pettit’s work satisfied the Board of Education. All other fears are mere assumptions that have no facts (Shah, 2014). Therefore, Mrs. Pettit cannot be disqualified because she is fit to teach.

Implications of Unprofessional and Immoral Behaviors for Teachers

Teachers are expected to maintain high standards inside and outside the classrooms. Excellent performance in class should be reflected in the moral standards outside the school to protect the teachers’ reputation and trust. Many parents feel insecure to leave their children with teachers whose behaviors are questionable. For instance, the administrators presented their fears that teachers are capable of influencing the students with their actions. As a result, if teachers are not careful about their behaviors, they will lose the community’s trust.

Examples of Unprofessional and Immoral Behaviors for Teachers

A teacher may be unprofessional if he/she enters the classroom while being under the influence of drugs. In most cases, children tend to lose trust or fail to concentrate in class because of a drunk teacher. Other students may keep on joking with teachers or even attempt to take those drugs. The attires for teachers also reflect their level of professionalism. Teachers who dress as though they are attending a nightclub are unprofessional. Instructors are students’ role models. Therefore, the dressing code must be decent and respectful. Every occasion has its way of dressing. Teachers who cannot distinguish between social life and career are unprofessional. More so, stealing the school property is being unprofessional. Some teachers tend to snatch away school items. Some of the teachers take school books to their children who study elsewhere. Other immoral behaviors of teachers include treating some children with favoritism. Sometimes, students from well-off families tend to receive privileges that poor children are denied. Every child is important. Each deserves to be treated with respect. Tutors who show partiality when dealing with learners due to social status, race, tribe or for whatever reason are immoral and unprofessional. Lastly, sexual harassment is also being unethical. In most cases, male teachers tend to molest their female pupils sexually. The children may fail to speak up due to stigmatization or threat from the instructor. Teachers must protect the rights of the students and not violate them.

Ethical Implications

The private sex life of a teacher may not affect his or her ability to teach. However, some actions that are not accepted by the public may ruin the teaching profession regardless of where it took place. Everybody will point out your career causing people to lose trust and confidence. Parents can never trust individuals with questionable behaviors in the society to take care of their children. Therefore, the teacher must seek to maintain the high profile of moral standards to reflect the excellent performance in class.

Reference

Shah, W. H. (2015). Business Ethics. Boston MA: Wadsworth, cengage Learning. (8th ed.).