Workplace Ethics: What You Need to Know

Question One: Privacy and Fairness of Termination 

The Board of Education did not violate Pettit’s right to privacy but they were wrong to have fired her under the circumstances. The Board of Education did not undertake any surveillance on Pettit, neither were they involved in her arrest, prosecution, and eventual conviction under a plea bargain. Indeed, the Board of Education is clearly seen to ignore the issue of Pettit’s arrest when it happened as it proceeded to renew her license to teach. It is, however, worthy of notice that if the Board of Education had anything to do with the investigation and arrest of the teacher, then the board would have been in breach of her privacy. From an ethical perspective, the Board of Education can only be interested in what happens to their employees as and when they are actively engaged in their duties. On issues as personal as sexual affiliation and preferences, the choices that a teacher makes in her private time is not any of the concern of the employer unless it expressly interferes with job performance. When Pettit was arrested, her sexuality became a matter of public record because criminal cases are public records unless otherwise ordered by a court of law. 

On the subject of firing, the Board of Education acted unfairly, unethically and indeed hypocritically when it fired Pettit. As indicated above, Pettit’s sexuality was no business of the employer unless it affected her work. The case study reveals that there is no evidence it affected her work. Secondly, the board was hypocritical as it ignored Pettit’s sexual issues for an entire two years when it was already public record. Firing her was an afterthought and, therefore, ethically wrong. Finally, the Board of Education may have had a moral authority and a legal mandate to fire Pettit when the matter is looked at under the Kantian theory. Utilitarianism on the other hand is all about proper application of available resources (Jack, Greenwood & Schapper, 2012). Under utilitarianism, firing Pettit as a waste of human resources. A good teacher in the highly specialized field of teaching children with intellectual disabilities is being fired for reasons outside her teaching abilities which is unethical from a utilitarian approach. 

Question Two: Reflection on Pettit’s Behavior 

Pettit’s behavior was definitively illegal but definitely not immoral. The seemingly paradoxical opinion is premised on the notion that the law is not always moral and can, therefore, be ethically wrong in itself. Pettit breached a law against oral copulation that was in existence in California and has since been amended. It is easy to see that the law was amended because it was ethically wrong. Any law that seeks to control what two consenting adults do in privacy from a sexual perspective must be ethically wrong, even if it may not per se be morally wrong. Ethics are based purely on what is essentially right or wrong while morals are based inter alia on believes and cultural presuppositions. For example, it is morally wrong for a practicing Muslim to eat port, yet there is nothing unethical about anyone eating pork in spite of their religious affiliation. Pettit was a married woman who preferred sexual experimentation alongside her husband. She cannot be accused of cheating on her husband as her sexual promiscuity and experimentation comes with the express consent and even participation of her husband. Secondly, Pettit was careful to ensure that her sexual preferences were kept away from her workplace. She wore a mask when sharing her sexuality on TV, never spoke about it in class or in school and always practiced her sexuality in private. The teachers who claim to have noticed her on TV and discussing her sexual preferences were overreaching as they intentionally sought to see through her mask. For this reason, Pettit was neither immoral nor unprofessional, making her very much qualified to teach. Finally, even if Pettit’s behavior was immoral, she would still have been qualified to teach unless and until her immorality affected her capacity and effectiveness as a teacher. 

Question 3: Moral Standards Outside the Classroom for Teachers 

Under virtue ethics, teachers must also have an upright character even outside their work areas but under deontology, character only matters when it affects the obligations of the teacher (Jack, Greenwood & Schapper, 2012). In the instant scenario, I find the deontological approach to be the most fitting. Teachers are human beings that teach and not teachers who also happen to be human. Indeed, a teacher can change professions and still thrive while a non-human cannot become a teacher which makes humanity more important than professional affiliations. In modern human resource management, work-life balance is considered as paramount. Work-life balance relates to a scenario where the employer needs to take cognizance of the fact that the employee is a human being with a social life that is independent of work life (Schieman & Glavin, 2016). Any professional rules and regulations that inordinately affects the private social, political or family life of an employee must be considered as unethical. For example, an employer who seeks to influence how employees vote is an unethical employer. On the other hand, the life that an employee leads outside the workplace should not have an inordinate effect on employment. Therefore, when an employee enjoys personal freedom during personal time, a balance must be kept to ensure that the effectiveness of the worker is not affected. For example, nudism is a moral issue and in some cities, people are allowed to move around in the nude. However, a teacher who walks in the nude around students away from school might have a problem teaching the same students in class. Based on the analysis above, teachers who are effective in class should not have to behave morally outside class so as to be considered professional. The said teachers, however, must be careful to ensure that their morality outside class does not affect their ability to teach. 

Question 4: Five Unprofessional or Immoral Conduct for a Teacher. 

Breaking the law is, in my opinion, both immoral and unprofessional for a teacher based purely on the nature of the teaching profession. Breaking the law leads to criminal cases which amount to the airing of a lot of dirty linen in public as happened to Pettit in the case study. The publicity itself affect the perception of the students to the teacher and may also affect the effectiveness of the teacher in teaching. Laws may not necessarily be morally right but teachers should endeavor to live lawfully. 

Having a sexual relationship with a student is also, in my opinion, unprofessional and immoral even if the student has attained the age of majority. Sexual relationships should be based on mutual consent without either coercion or undue influence. The teacher-student relationship makes coercion and/or undue influence from a sexual perspective become amorphous. 

Intentionally misleading students should also be considered as unprofessional and immoral for a teacher. The relationship between a teacher and student is premised mainly on trust and it is not incumbent upon students to second guess their teachers or need to confirm the veracity of statements made by teachers. Normally, students expressly and unequivocally believe what teachers say and that trust should be sacred to the teacher. 

Absconding duty without a valid reason is also unprofessional when done by a teacher and also immoral. A teacher who calls in sick because of an alcohol hangover or to enable a social event robs students of a crucial learning opportunity that the students may not be able to recover. 

Finally, any manifestation of violent conduct or inordinate physical aggression in the presence of students is also both unprofessional and immoral. Students are more often than not bound to follow the lead of their teachers whom they hold as role models. Even if the teacher may be reasonably provoked, allowing children to believe that provoked violence is acceptable sends the wrong message morally and professionally. 

References 

Jack, G., Greenwood, M., & Schapper, J. (2012). Frontiers, intersections and engagements of ethics and HRM.  Journal of Business Ethics ,  111 (1), 1-12 

Schieman, S., & Glavin, P. (2016). The pressure-status nexus and blurred work–family boundaries.  Work and Occupations ,  43 (1), 3-37