Mrs. Pettit was one of many dedicated teachers licensed to teach in California to work with mentally challenged children. She had been working with mentally challenged children for over thirteen years. “Throughout that career, her competence was never questioned, and the evaluations of her school principal were always positive (Shaw).” Her career ended abruptly after other teachers took wind of her private lifestyle, after she had done a disguised, televised, interview about her lifestyle, then later, police found her in the act of oral copulation with multiple men, at a private swinger’s lifestyle event and arrested her. Oral copulation, in 1968 when the case took place, contravened the California Penal Code. Even though the school district offered to renew her teaching contract for the next upcoming school year, two years after this incident occurred, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Pettit. It resulted in her being fired and her elementary school life diploma was revoked. The Board took away her license to teach, “because by engaging in immoral and unprofessional conduct at the party, she had demonstrated that she was unfit to teach (Shaw).” Even though she had been teaching for over thirteen years, no one ever knew of her private lifestyle outside of teaching. Although she partook in an event with other consented adults, her thoughts or interest in wife swapping and swinger’s parties was never known to had been brought into her classroom. How can what someone do outside of their career affect a decision to end a career that was never tainted by someone’s private lifestyle choices?
In concerning itself with Pettit’s off-the-job conduct, the Board of Education violated her right to privacy. Their concern with her lifestyle legitimate and employment were completely unrelated. Who gave them the right to investigate her private lifestyle if she had not been suspected of harming any student, encouraged such behaviors to the children in her classroom, or even referred to her sexual preferences at her place of employment period, to children or her colleagues. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath.” If no one knew of her private lifestyle at her place of employment then obviously she wasn’t going around encouraging others to partake in such activities. There was no probable cause to investigate her sexual practices. At what point does the school board makes authority over someone’s sexual preference that doesn’t violate or include children? She had every right to privately enjoy and engage in consensual sex that she and her husband agreed upon. Her sexual preference outside of her profession she kept in its own lane. That demonstrates that she had enough moral judgement to know to keep those two things separate. Requirements for moral judgement, according to Shaw, suggests that “moral judgments should be (1) logical, (2) based on facts, and (3) based on sound or defensible moral principles. Amoral judgment that is weak on any of these grounds is open to criticism (Shaw).” She logically chose to disguise herself to not blatantly encourage others to do as she did. Based on the facts of the case she never harmed any children or encouraged such behaviors within the classroom. Her moral principles kept her from engaging in conversations about her lifestyle directly with her colleagues and students. On top of all else she wasn’t charged with oral copulation. According to the case outline “Evidently a plea bargain was arranged and plaintiff pleaded guilty to Penal Code section 650 1/2 (outraging public decency), a misdemeanor (Justia).” So where did she go wrong? Does exploring a heightened sense of sexuality show a “lack of fitness” to teach? No, it does not.
“By engaging in sexual activity in the presence of other “swingers,” plaintiff, the majority assert, demonstrated “a serious defect of moral character, normal prudence and good common sense.” (Majority opn., ante, p. 35.) fn. 5”, Yet plaintiff took reasonable precautions to assure that she was viewed only by persons who would not be offended by her conduct;” (Justia). How professional of Mrs. Pettit to keep her acts out of the public eye! From a utilitarian perspective, which states; “Utilitarianism holds that the maximization of happiness ultimately determines what is just and unjust (Shaw),” she did what made her happy outside of work. Because of the act she engaged in overall made her and others engaged in the same lifestyle happy, it was not agreed upon, as a whole, in the eyes of Judicial system and the Board of Education, they deemed what she did immoral and unethical. However, the rest of society did not agree with their decision and would agree that it was just for her to promote the well-being of her personal sexual desires, as long as it was set apart from her job. It would have been unprofessional to have brought those acts to her place of work, yet she did not. Consensual sex with other adults is not wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, or unconscionable. Pettit was not dishonest about her private sexual behaviors, therefore her behavior, when it came to how she engaged in sex, that doesn’t involve children, should not have been considered immoral. Had she involved children then she could have been considered unfit to teach. She made all the right decisions on her behalf and I see no justification as to why the Board of Education felt justified in their decision to revoke her teaching license.
Pettit was working with Mentally Challenged children. “Historically, individuals with MR (Mental Retardation) have not enjoyed the sexual freedom afforded to individuals without disabilities. Adolescent years are important period of human life that is accompanied with prominent changes and developments in individuals. Thus, adolescence and puberty is not a physiological and sexual occurrence and it is not limited to physical changes. The occurrence of these changes in individuals with MR is accompanied with greater problems and challenges (Abbas, Taher and Esapoor, 2012). Because of these reasons many families chose to protect the sexual lives of family members with MR by sterilizing them. If Pettit had a heightened sense of sexual desire then this group of individuals could not have been her target to satisfy her sexual needs. Therefore no one in her classroom was threatened by her private sexual activities, nor would they have been accepted into the private group because they simply could not perform the duties required to be in the group. The Board of Education was not justified in firing her. As with an earlier case when “the court had reversed the firing of a public-school teacher for unspecified homosexual conduct, concluding that a teacher’s actions could not constitute “immoral or unprofessional conduct” or “moral turpitude” unless there was clear evidence of unfitness to teach (Shaw),” this case was quite similar enough to have had the same outcome. Her employment should not have been affected based upon people’s personal belief.
Employers can have a legitimate interest in their employees’ off-the-job conduct when their off-the-job conduct interferes with their work. If teachers perform competently in the classroom then their private lives outside of work shouldn’t matter, unless it interferes with their work. We would expect teachers to have a higher moral standard inside and outside the classroom, however we cannot dictate the type of private affairs they choose to engage in, that doesn’t conflict with their job. I’m sure there are plenty of single teachers who engage in the same acts outside of work with multiple men. Just because they may be on separate occasions it really doesn’t make a difference, when it’s the same type of activity. Just because the judges and prosecutors choose to only engage in such acts with only their wives/husbands doesn’t mean they can tell people how to act within their own marriage. Everyone has a choice. Disorderly conduct and assaulting a police officer, being discovered in a compromising position with a student, propositioning a student, would show unprofessional conduct, immorality, or lack of fitness to teach, not someone’s sexual preference. For a teacher, dressing inappropriately, engaging in sexual acts with students, persuading students to change their sexuality, child abuse, or pedophilia would show unprofessional or immoral conduct. Pettit did none of these things, yet the Board of Education placed her in the same category. Their decision was unfair and they went above and beyond to violate her right to privacy because nothing that she did took away from her ability to teach. She was treated unfairly and was categorized amongst those with much higher offenses and less moral judgement. There was simply no unprofessional conduct on her behalf.
The Board of Education and the Judicial system has no business in the private affairs of teachers sexual preference, unless it affects or threatens the students or co-workers!
References
Justia US Law. Pettit v. State Board of Education. Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/10/29.html
Shaw, William H. Business Ethics: A Textbook with Cases, 8th Edition. Cengage Learning, 20130101. VitalBook file.
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh*, Mahboobe Taher and Mehdi Esapoor. (2012). Attitudes to sexuality in individuals with mental retardation from perspectives of their parents and teachers. Retrieved from: http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJSA/article-full-text-pdf/0B9DD013830
Invite The Truth 