The Boa,rd of Education violated Mrs. Pettit's right to privacy by trying to get involved in matters concerning her sexuality and sexual life which have nothing to do with her ability to teach the student as well as her other roles and responsibilities as a teacher. Additionally, Mrs. Pettit and her husband were within their rights as two grown adults to attend a private in Los Angeles. There was a considerable violation of Mrs. Pettit's right to privacy by the undercover police officer, Sergeant Berk who went to the extent of spying on the things that she was doing as well as the kind of parties that she was attending at a private residence. The fact that the residence in which Mrs. Petit and others ware having parties was a private residence meant that it would not be appropriate for any other outside to intrude such a private space without an invitation (Anand, 2011).
The role played by the Board of Education in sending an undercover police officer to observe Mrs. Petit while she performed fellatio on three different men at a private residence is something that amounts to a violation of her rights to privacy. The Board of Education was not justified in firing Mrs. Petit because of some reasons. Firstly, no law or regulation in the teaching profession was violated by Mrs. Pettit upon her involvement in acts of oral copulation and other diverse sexual activities. The only code that she contravened was the one associated with a misdemeanor of public decency, and she paid a fine upon conviction. Secondly, the court concluded that the acts committed by Mrs. Pettit were not sufficient to constitute any unprofessional or immoral act that could interfere with her ability to discharge her teaching roles and responsibilities. Thirdly, the State Board of Education in California was not able to present clear evidence to show that Mrs. Pettit was unfit to carry on with her teaching profession following her conviction and to fine based on oral copulation offense, she committed (MacLean, Coombs & Breda, 2016).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The behavior displayed by Mrs. Pettit was not unprofessional but immoral. Nothing was unprofessional about the behavior and acts committed by Mrs. Pettit since such acts did not result in any way amount to the violation of any of her teaching, roles, responsibilities, and regulations. At the time she was attending the party at a private club in Los Angeles, Mrs. Pettit was not scheduled to teach thus were professional responsibilities did not suffer any prejudice owing to her acts and behaviors described by California's State Board of Education as nonconventional sexual lifestyles. Not teaching time was lost or misappropriated following her conduct and behavior. Indeed, Mrs. Pettit attempted to observe some level of concern for her profession by attending and performing such acts as a private club where there was a considerable reduction of the public glare and exposure. As such, it would it be easy for her to be seen by any of her students in a manner that would affect their respect for her as one of their teachers (Kanter, 2010).
There was not incidence or previous performance records to suggest that Mrs. Pettit was a poor performer in her teaching roles and responsibilities following her tendency to embrace nonconventional sexual lifestyles. It may be argued that the nature of her behavior and the acts she committed could amount to some levels of immorality based on the set and acceptable standards of morality that are embraced and popularly practiced in the State of California. To that extent, it is believed that Mrs. Pettit was not unfit to teach. Thus it was not necessary to the Board of Education to in the state of California to fire her. The rationale for holding the position that Mrs. Pettit's behavior was immoral rather than unprofessional was based on the examination and evaluation of her conduct about the available regulations and whether any of the professional regulations and requirements were violated. Further, the rationale involved examining the extent to which Mrs. Pettit violated the moral expectation in State of California (Derbyshire, 2014).
Teachers who can display good performance inside the classroom should be expected to display a considerable level morality. However, it is worth pointing out that a higher moral standard outside the classroom may not be regarded as important if it not associated with enhanced performance in the classroom. It is often argued that the professionalism demonstrated by teachers in the course of discharging the roles and responsibilities is not necessarily influenced or determined by issues such private lifestyles o acts committed by teachers at private clubs or residence. As long as it clear that the private actions and behaviors of teachers do not affect the teaching capability of teachers, it remains unfair to demand that they are held to a moral higher standard outside the classroom. The professional level of teaching often displayed by teachers is often not influenced by the occurrence of things that take place outside the classroom environment (Kanter, 2010).
For instance, Mrs. Pettit was always able to discharge her teaching role and duty effectively despite the accusations that were leveled against her about her lifestyle and morality. Moral uprightness may not necessarily translate into good performance in the classroom but is always advisable to ensure that teachers can meet the minimum required levels of morality while going about their teaching roles. Such a requirement would be critical in ensuring that teachers do not just teach their students issues related to academics by they also act as role models to the students they are teaching when it comes to issues and matters of morality. It is worth indicating that, it is not mandatory to demand that teachers be in a position to demonstrate high levels of moral uprightness as long as they can demonstrate good performance in relation to their teaching roles and responsibilities in a manner that meets the acceptable standards set by the Board of Education (Derbyshire, 2014).
Some behaviors and conduct would be associated with immoral or unprofessional conduct for a teacher. One of such behaviors would be the involvement in nonconventional sexual lifestyles by a teacher which is contrary to the moral expectations and requirements. The second one which would show unprofessional conduct for a teacher is getting in missing classroom teaching sessions to attend to private matters such as attending parties. This would adversely affect the performance of students in a classroom. The third behavior that would show unprofessional conduct for a teacher would be failing to ensure that his or her students are taught and get the opportunity to learn the right content as provided in the course outline. This would imply that students would end up acquiring unnecessary knowledge and skills at the expense of the ones approved by the Board of Education. The fourth behavior would show immoral conduct, and it would involve demonstrating of unethical conduct which includes exposing students to unacceptable teachings and ideologies. The fifth behavior would also show the immoral conduct of a teacher when he or she fails to offer appropriate moral guidance to the students on the manner in which they are expected to behave (MacLean, Coombs & Breda, 2016).
References
Anand, A. (2011). Professional Conferences, Unprofessional Conduct. Medical Journal
Armed Forces India , 67 (1), 2-6. doi: 10.1016/s0377-1237(11)80002-x
Derbyshire, R. (2014). What Is Unprofessional Conduct?. Teaching Practice , 19 (4), 88C
88N. doi: 10.1080/21548331.1984.11702793
Kanter, S. (2010). Toward a Philosophy of Dealing with Unprofessional Conduct. Academic
Medicine , 85 (6), 927-928. doi: 10.1097/acm.0b013e3181e316cf
MacLean, L., Coombs, C., & Breda, K. (2016). Unprofessional workplace conduct...defining
and defusing it. Nursing Management (Springhouse) , 47 (9), 30-34. doi:
10.1097/01.numa.0000491126.68354.be
