I wonder how well this tactic would work in reverse -- pictures of hostile abortion protestors being taken and sent back to their own workplaces.

Zed: I doubt that would work. In my experience, most are retirees, students, stay-at-home moms, and members of the clergy.

Would it be right, though? Should employees be penalized for lawful activities they do in their own time, provided that they do not claim to representing their employer in doing so? I don't think so. People have the right to maintain private lives and pursue their own interests outside of work, including both escorting and protesting.

This is wrong on so many levels. Aside from the freedom to be yourself and support things you like or approve of, and fight things you disapprove of, outside of your job, there's also the matter of the timing; i.e. she volunteered *before* she was hired, not *while* she was hired; aren't pro-lifers usually all big on people who've "seen the light" or "turned away from sin?"

In addition, has it occurred to anyone (the people in the news story or us commenting on it) about the potential for abuse when photographic evidence is apparently all that's required? Someone could get rid of a teacher they don't like by simply PhotoShopping something incriminating.

Let's see: we have a private Catholic school. We know that the Catholics are opposed to abortion.

What should be done in the following situations:

1.) A caseworker, someone who actually advocates on behalf of clients, at a Human Rights Council of some sort is photographed marching with the Neo-Nazis last weekend in Ohio, also on their free time. The march was legal and the caseworker's personal beliefs need not interfere with their duties at work.

2.) A lawyer at the ACLU has been doing a lot of work on gay rights because the lawyer believes in equal rights and gay people have been discriminated against. However, on their free time they are seen lobbying with Church leaders against gay marriage, for this lawyer makes the distinction that equal treatment before the law doesn't necessarily include equal treatment in the institution of marriage which the lawyer believes in defined by a union of a man and a woman.

How consistently do you support the right of the individual to pursue their own ideological activities on their free time even though their ideologies seem to conflict with the institutional ideology of the private organization that has hired them?

Would you support the Neo-Nazi and the Anti-Gay Marriage protestors in their fight to keep doing their jobs?

Wow, Sorry about those multiple posts. I was getting a server error 500 message every time I clicked on POST, and the comment never showed up, but it is now apparent that the comment was going into a sort of cache.

Please delete the multiple comments.

tangoman,

short answer: yes

the first case is a little unbelievable... i mean, human rights work seems kind of antithetical to neo-naziism... but, well, since a lot of neo-nazis don't actually believe that the nazis committed war crimes (and that it's a fabrication of the international jewish banker conspiracy), well, i guess it's possible.

the second case seems a lot more believable.

in either case, though, firing the worker for his/her stated beliefs is tyrannical and fascistic. i mean, naziism is terrible in part because of its fascism... to fight that fascism with more fascism is stupid. that's why, in the 1970s, the aclu defended a nazi march in skokie, ill... this stuff's pretty old hat.

on top of it all, community is strengthened by discourse. cutting off that discourse through uneven hiring and firing patterns is harmful to everyone... i mean, shoot, if these folks really think they're right, what harm can divergent opinions be? all they'll do is illustrate the truth of their own point of view, right?

i mean, dang, what do you expect, tangoman?

I'm sure that the same group of people who argued recently that it was an unconscionable violation of religious liberty for pharmacists to be required to dispense all properly-prescribed, legal medications -- i.e., to actually do their work, at work -- will now do the necessary contortions required to defend firing a person for activities performed outside of work, unrelated to that work, and that predated taking the job.

I'm sure that the same group of people who argued recently that it was an unconscionable violation of religious liberty for pharmacists to be required to dispense all properly-prescribed, legal medications -- i.e., to actually do their work, at work -- will now do the necessary contortions required to defend firing a person for activities performed outside of work, unrelated to that work, and that predated taking the job.

puckalish,

Didn't you hear about the half-black guy who kept showing up at KKK rallies as a true believer? He really was anti-black. Cognitive dissonance is not a unique state.

You asked what I expected. Quite frankly I expected a double standard, which isn't unique to the Left at all, as Phil notes above, that would call for these people to lose their jobs. I frequently see such Leftist demands play out on campuses where people call for others to be fired or tossed out of programs.

For the record, I believe the grounds for firing this teacher are pretty weak. However, this case is unique because it references her past deeds and we don't know what her present beliefs are. If she is still a pro-choice advocate and she knowingly accepted a position with an institution that has a pro-life position then there is a bit of a problem, for if the insitution expects its staff to propogate the institutional belief then the teacher is a hypocrite, but not a closeted hypocrite, rather a public hypocrite, who would be standing in front of her class advocating a pro-life position when her students knew full well she didn't believe a word she was saying. That would certainly undercut the institutional goals, don't you think?

Here's another scenario, a senior high school teacher is found with child porn on her home computer but there are no complaints about her classroom conduct with the young adults under her supervision. What should be done? Now keep lowering the age of the students. Does anything change?

How about Kate Moss and her private cocaine hoovering? Did the companies who hired her to be their representative act ethically by firing her?

The pharmacists that Phil mentions above are required to provide a service. They can provide that service and be hypocrites at the same time without jeopardizing the quality of the service they provide. As a consumer I don't care whether my waitress at a restaurant is a vegitarian or not as long as she brings me my steak dinner and doesn't look cross at me. I don't care whether my car mechanic believes in ufo's and frictionless physics as long as he replaces my brake pads properly.

I do start to care if my kid is taking a science class from a raving creationist who is out every weekend knocking on doors trying to convince the neighborhood of god's devine role. Simply mouthing the evolutionary prinicples to his class, and all they while they're aware that be doesn't believe a word of what he's saying, does have an impact on the kids. I'll also start to care if I see my physician on TV advocating astral healing, and herbal enemies for cancer for I think their personal belief may start to infiltrate into their diagnostic skills when they're treating me.

There is not much room for philosophy in dispensing drugs, serving food, or fixing cars. There is room for personal beliefs to impact on job performance when teaching, healing, and advocating.

i'll do you one better, tango... i know someone who's associated with a black lesbian skinhead neo-nazi... yeah, so you're absolutely right... there's plenty of room for cognitive dissonance...

as far as the hypocrite thing, i think you're totally off base. she's a drama teacher. it's not like she's teaching health or sex ed or something. further, there's plenty of catholics who are pro-choice... my grandpa's dating one of 'em. you think she's a hypocrite? i'll beat you up (just joking... chill out).

point is, she can still function as an amazing drama teacher even if she's pro-choice. further, she may be catholic (or she may have gone to catholic school herself), in which case there's nothing too "dissonant" about her choice to teach drama in a catholic school.

as far as "room for philosophy," i don't think choice is really going to come up in a drama class all that much (i studied theatre for seven years and, though perhaps it's a shame, i never talked about choice in class) and, if it does, like in any profession, it can be made clear that her point of view does not belong in the catholic school's classroom.

geez... you're great at arguing, but it really seems like you're arguing just to argue... this case is not that complicated.

puckalish,

i think you're totally off base. she's a drama teacher. it's not like she's teaching health or sex ed or something.

That's why I wrote "For the record, I believe the grounds for firing this teacher are pretty weak."

I realize that there are plenty of Catholics who are pro-choice and there's no reason that they need to adhere to their church's teachings, but if they believe that the pope talks to god then they're really putting their opinion above gods. Whatever, the a la carte type of religion seems to be very popular - I don't see any sense in it, picking and choosing what you want to believe. However, if some of these catholics are working for a catholic school, thus representing the institution's principles then I think that the institution has a right to seek alignment of philosophy. Even if she's a drama teacher she should live by the catholic prinicples.

The reason I thought it was weak was because she was fired for a past action. If she still affirmed her pro-choice belief then I think the school was within their rights. If she recanted then they should have kept her on. She could have counselled the students on the church's position and why she came to adopt a pro-life belief.

For the record, I'm a pro-choice athiest who voted for Kerry.

did you vote for kerry because he's a catholic? just kidding...

alright... i disagree. i don't think that they have a right to fire people because they're looking for an alignment of philosophy.

to take your creationist argument... while it would surely undermine my faith in the school if my child were being taught biology by a prostletyzing creationist, as long as s/he were teaching the curriculum and the students were passing the standardized tests, i don't think the school would have any right to dismiss him/her. otherwise would be forcing people to adhere to an ideology through punitive measures rather than through convincing them it's right.

further, a reason i think it's wrong is that catholicism, like anything, is not monolithic and, while the pope may have an intimate connection with god, many real, tried-and-true catholics disagree with the pope about some earthly matters - and that's good... not only for the world, but for catholicism.

finally, i have several other arguments up above... she has every right to continue living her life as long as she serves the students and does not interfere with the schools philosophy while on the clock.

Just to be clear, the teacher was fired by the Bishop of Sacramento, not by the school. The school tried everything they could to have her keep her job.