Workplace Ethics: Managing Multiple Generations in the Workplace

Was Mrs. Pettit’s Right to Privacy Violated by Board of Education? 

People are entitled to the right to privacy and choice. It is the role of every employer to protect the rights of employee privacy at the workplace. Violation of the right to privacy is considered as an infringement to an individual’s rights entitlement and can be charged in a court of law ( Ferrell, 2016) . For the case of Mrs. Pettit’s claim, the Board of Education did not directly infringe her right to privacy. The board did not in any way directly take part in establishing and publicizing Mrs. Pettit’s private immoral practices. The Board act of revoking her teaching license was informed by existing evidence that she engaged in activities that portray unprofessionalism in education and training. 

With the fact that Mrs. Pettit had been charged for an immoral action, it was prudent for the board to declare her as unprofessional and unfit to teach. Teachers are supposed to be role models in society by practicing and supporting what is morally right ( Clark, 2017) . Mrs. Pettit however supported and practiced sexual practices that are considered unethical hence could not be a role model to students. The Board of education thus acted under policies of professionalism and information available in the public domain to revoke her license for the best of school and the students. 

Was the Firing Justified? Give Reasons 

The Board of education was justified in firing Mrs. Pettit since the board is mandated to ensuring education policies and practice comply with the community moral obligation to bread best moral values in the students. As a professional teacher, one is supposed to uphold common ethical traditions the society ascribes. Participation in activities that are morally right to the general community is unprofessional in the teaching practice as teachers are supposed to be role examples at school and in the society. 

One of the primary reason for firing Mrs. Pettit is her support and practice of immoral behavior that is outlawed by the California state. Despite being excellent in class, she practiced an indecent and unethical behavior that the amounted to moral turpitude. Her action and behavior violated the California state acceptable community standards, and since she practiced teaching in the same state, she was unfit to continue educating students. 

Secondly, the board is mandated by the state and federal government education department to ensure education professional policies are maintained in all school districts. Mrs. Pettit's conduct had been exposed to public domains as she has a court case charged with an oral corporation which was against the California penal codes. Mrs. Pettis was aware that her private conduct was morally wrong and made her unfit for teaching and that is the reason why she disguised herself in the interview she did in two television interviews. Thus, she was aware that her practice made her unfit for teaching. 

Was Pettit’s behavior Immoral or Unprofessional? 

Mrs. Pettit’s behavior was both unprofessional and immoral since in education, at a teacher’s level of professionalism is viewed by how he/she dress, talk, teach, walk, attitude, guidance and the way of life or behavior ( Ferrell, 2016) . Any negative aspect of these elements of professionalism amounts to unprofessionalism. Inappropriate dressing as if attending a club or a swimming session is unprofessional. Indecent talking, walking, and association both at school and outside of school is unprofessional. Private association with a gang of criminals outside the classroom amounts to unprofessionalism. Similar is personal support and practicing immoral, offensive sexual behaviors which became noted by the public. 

Mrs. Pettit’s behavior is also very immoral since it contradicts the morally acceptable conducts in society. Unethical behaviors including all practices that the general public or community abhors. Participation in non-conventional sexual habits is not acceptable in California and is punishable according to the California penal codes. With the existing evidence presented in court leading to the payment of fines, Mrs. Pettit behavior is immoral. 

Was Mrs. Pettit unfit to teach? 

Mrs. Pettit was unfit for teaching as well as being part of the California teachers and trainers fraternity. Her behavior and conduct did not reflect the required teachers' conduct. It contradicts what is required of a teacher in terms of moral behavior. Teachers are required by law and society to be role models in terms of behavioral conduct to teach and infuse the best behaviors to the growing students. A teacher’s private life may not be of great focus to the teaching fraternity but if it remains private. With the existence of information in public domains of a teacher who participates in unlawful and community outlawed activities, it is a disgrace to the teaching fraternity. Thus, the teacher has to be dismissed to avoid either hasty generalization that teachers are involved in immoral activities or privately infusing her way of life to the students through coping her way of life. A teacher is also supposed to be a law abiding citizen to the state laws. Mrs. Pettit was convicted of a serious immoral act in the state; she teaches an indication that she apart from going against the community norms. Mrs. Pettit is not a law-abiding citizen hence unfit to teach. 

Should High Moral Standards be Held in Classroom and outside? 

Teachers are role examples to the students and society. They are supposed to exhibit exceptional moral and behavioral conducts inside and outside the classroom. It is expected that despite their performance in the classroom, their behavioral conduct both inside and outside the school should be unquestionable. It is appreciated that teachers have their private life; however, private life should be strictly moral and remain private and never be exposed in public ( Clark, 2017) . As role models, parents and the community have a high expectation that teachers are supposed to shape the moral behavior of the students who are the future of the community and the nation. By indulging in practices that are immoral, the community may lose trust in the teachers who are the shapers of the next generation. Children tend to believe and trust their teachers in learning. Since students often copy their teachers’ behavior, teachers conduct should always be moral and professional. 

Five behaviors that show immoral and unprofessional conduct in a teacher 

Tattoo on the neck : having body tattoos on the body is a personal decision one can make, however, for teachers it is not professional to have tattoos in parts that are visible to the students and community. For example, having a marijuana leaf tattoo on the neck is very unprofessional for a teacher. 

Wearing Short Dress : wearing very short and exposing dresses for female teaches is unprofessional. The teachers’ code of conduct strictly prohibits wearing sexually suggestive clothing. Short dresses constrain teachers during regular class as the teacher cannot freely bend and assist students during learning. 

Use of Inappropriate Words : The use of slang language in and outside the classroom is not professional to teachers. America commonly used slang words like “what the fuck ….. , this not my fucking business…, ehh bitch….” And many other slang words are inappropriate in other societies hence should not be used by teachers in class. 

Distance with Opposite-Sex Students : teachers are supposed to keep a professional distance with students both at school and outside of school. It is unprofessional and immoral to have no clear limits and limes with students from the opposite sex. A male teacher should never invite a female student for a dinner date for it is unprofessional. 

Supporting Controversial Positions : it is unprofessional for teachers to support something that is controversial to the societal norm strongly. If the society is against female genital mutilation, it is unethical for a teacher to actively recommend it in public since it may influence the students negatively. 

Reference 

Clark, K. R. (2017). Managing multiple generations in the workplace. Radiologic technology , 88 (4), 379-396. 

Ferrell, O. C. (2016). A framework for understanding organizational ethics . London: Routledge Press, pp. 15-29.