Theatre teacher fired for appearing in erotic films 40 years ago

164 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Theatre teacher fired for appearing in erotic films 40 years ago

I had no idea which forum to post this to...

Maysie Maysie's picture

Appalling. For fuck's sake!

Since babble doesn't have a "Stupid Things Uptight Pricks Do" forum, it could have gone in either media or sex workers rights.

sherpa-finn

Maysie wrote:  'Since babble doesn't have a "Stupid Things Uptight Pricks Do" forum....'

Now there's a suggestion!

NDPP

How outrageous and ridiculous.

Additionally, the dismal state of the theatre, and arts in general here, means that any of her students aspiring to an acting career will very likely be forced to take similar kinds of work (or worse) just to pay their rent...

Unionist

... and I'm so sorry I can't find an English-language report on this. It happened at Collège Brébeuf, a private school where Québec's elite is trained.

[url=http://www.ledevoir.com/culture/actualites-culturelles/421471/une-prof-d... prof fired for past erotic scenes[/url]

Quote:

Jacqueline Laurent-Auger, 73 years old, was to have resumed teaching extra-curricular dramatic arts workshops, as she has done every autumn for the past 15 years, while continuing to play minor roles in Québec television [...]

She was fired at the end of the last school year [...] after students discovered what the artist had never hidden, namely that she starred in numerous films involving erotic scenes from the end of the 1960s to the mid-1970s, mainly in Europe.

"There were nude scenes. I didn't see her entire filmography, but when a student sees one of their teachers performing acts on other women or men, it's not good for education. We don't promote that in our college," said Brébeuf director general Michel April [...].

"It was a joy working with these 16-17 year old youth. It seems we are back in the Québec of the 1950s, and not in 2014," said the actress, star of such films as Un couple parmi tant d’autres… mais si pervers, Le journal intime d’une nymphomane, Entre toutes les femmes and Les possédées du diable."

[My translation.]

I have no words.

 

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

How outrageous and ridiculous.

Additionally, the dismal state of the theatre, and arts in general here, means that any of her students aspiring to an acting career will very likely be forced to take similar kinds of work (or worse) just to pay their rent...

It's a Catholic school so they hire teachers who live up to their moral code, usually nuns but there is a growing shortage of those. From the sound of the titles the films were pornographic as opposed to containing a few faked sex scenes. The school certainly doesn't want their students to think they have to do porn, or the equivalent of, to have an acting career.

I have a problem with denominational schools (we definitely shouldn't be funding them) but even non-denominational schools dismiss teachers with a porn background. It seems more ridiculous this time because of her age and how long ago she did the films but from the school's perspective it doesn't matter if it was 10 years ago or 40 years ago. It is against their moral code and undermines the dignity of teachers and of the school. It's kind of like nuns being virgins; it's part of the job.

P,S. What is that saying about not blaming a lion for roaring or something to that effect?

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

It's a Catholic school ...

No it isn't. My advice would be: If you don't know something, don't make it up. Look it up.

Quote:
...so they hire teachers who live up to their moral code, usually nuns but there is a growing shortage of those.

All false.

Quote:
From the sound of the titles the films were pornographic as opposed to containing a few faked sex scenes.

More nonsense. You obviously have no clue about these films. Even the idiot who fired her didn't claim they were pornographic.

Quote:
The school certainly doesn't want their students to think they have to do porn, or the equivalent of, to have an acting career.

Oh well, now I understand - yes, that certainly justifies firing her. All these poor moronic students now believe they have to do porn. I'm not sure firing her is enough to dispel that illusion. They'll probably have to expel the students too. Otherwise, who knows, their delusionary belief about "acting = porn" may spread to other students, or even some of the non-existent nun teachers.

Thanks for weighing in on a sensitive topic!

jjuares

Many school districts have a morals clause in the contract which allows them to dismiss employees. These clauses are very often enforced quixotically usually based on some complaints.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
Oh well, now I understand - yes, that certainly justifies firing her. All these poor moronic students now believe they have to do porn. I'm not sure firing her is enough to dispel that illusion. They'll probably have to expel the students too. Otherwise, who knows, their delusionary belief about "acting = porn" may spread to other students, or even some of the non-existent nun teachers.

Sorry, it's a Jesuit school and my comment was in response to NDPP saying "any of her students aspiring to an acting career will very likely be forced to take similar kinds of work (or worse)".

I agree with you that students are unlikely to be forced to take that kind of work or think that they would be.

"when a student sees one of their teachers performing acts on other women or men, it's not good for education. We don't promote that in our college,"

Should schools be permitted to have morals clauses? Should businesses?

 

swallow

Jiminy. I had to goole to make sure it wasn't a parody site news report. 

[url=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Laurent_(actrice)]Her wikipedia (fr) page)[/url]

But hey, we can't have the alma mater of Peladeau, Robert Bourassa, William Johnson, the Trudeaus and others in Quebec's elite expose its studens to qualified drama teachers if they've been seen naked on screen. It would corrupt their morals and make every remaining Jesuit cry.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Sorry, it's a Jesuit school ...

No, it isn't. It is not a Jesuit school. It used to be a Jesuit school. It is now a non-denominational school. It is not Catholic. It is not Jesuit. It is a private school which grooms the elite.

Quote:

Should schools be permitted to have morals clauses? Should businesses?

 

Who said Brébeuf has a "morals clause"? Where does this come from?? Please provide a reference. This sounds like some back-handed insinuation that Laurent-Auger breached some clause in her contract. Even the idiot who fired her didn't come up with that accusation. But I see he's getting lots of help from posters in this thread.

Let me tell you that the response to date in Québec, at least from what I have seen, is unanimous condemnation of the reactionary dinosaurs who did this deed. I guess I came to that conclusion too quickly.

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Who said Brébeuf has a "morals clause"? Where does this come from?? Please provide a reference. This sounds like some back-handed insinuation that Laurent-Auger breached some clause in her contract. Even the idiot who fired her didn't come up with that accusation. But I see he's getting lots of help from posters in this thread.

Let me tell you that the response to date in Québec, at least from what I have seen, is unanimous condemnation of the reactionary dinosaurs who did this deed. I guess I came to that conclusion too quickly.

I was responding to Jjuares comment, "Many school districts have a morals clause in the contract which allows them to dismiss employees." which you apparently missed.

I don't think the school needs any justification at all for not continuing to hire someone for extra-curricular workshops. I doubt she had a multi-year contract.

I am in Quebec so I am aware of the response here. Is that how you form your opinions? Whatever most people think is what you think?

I don't have to agree with something in order to respect the rights of others to set standards as long as they don't contravene human rights. Educationally I think it would have been a great opening to teaching them about the 60's and 70's, The Pill, the sexual revolution as well as the massive entry of women into the workforce, but that isn't how they see it. 

"Thanks for weighing in on a sensitive topic!"

Why do you think this is a sensitive topic?

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I was responding to Jjuares comment, "Many school districts have a morals clause in the contract which allows them to dismiss employees." which you apparently missed.

I didn't miss it. She wasn't fired for breach of contract. His comment was irrelevant to this thread. And I don't believe school districts have "morals clauses" anyway, not without proof.

Quote:
I don't think the school needs any justification at all for not continuing to hire someone for extra-curricular workshops. I doubt she had a multi-year contract.

Perhaps you missed the fact that the school publicly stated its reason for terminating her. Whether they needed one or not kind of becomes academic once they declare it publicly, don't ya think?

Quote:
I am in Quebec so I am aware of the response here. Is that how you form your opinions? Whatever most people think is what you think?

Absolutely. I just follow the crowd. But when it comes to facts, I try to look them up. Try it sometime. Perhaps you missed the fact that you called Brébeuf a "Catholic school", then you called it a "Jesuit school", and you said they might have a hard time hiring nuns.

Quote:

"Thanks for weighing in on a sensitive topic!"

Why do you think this is a sensitive topic?

I don't. I was ridiculing your post, which was chock full of misinformation. I'm still encouraging you to try to get the facts before giving your opinion. Oh, and I was also ridiculing your opinion.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Thanks for dealing with the nonsense, Unionist. Sheesh.

Some fun to bring some humour to the discussion. I shared this with my teacher/professor friends at the start of the school year.

6079_Smith_W

Nothing there about not writing with your left hand. They must have been progressives.

 

sherpa-finn

Which in turn brings to mind the famous Canadian painting "The Meeting of the School Trustees" (1885):

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
Perhaps you missed the fact that the school publicly stated its reason for terminating her. Whether they needed one or not kind of becomes academic once they declare it publicly, don't ya think?

They didn't terminate her. Her contract ended at the end of the school year. The next year they didn't hire her again because the students had found her videos on an XXX site. I think it's more likely that she made a public statement and the school was invited to respond. It makes no sense that they would make an announcement of their reasons for not re-engaging her.

Unionist wrote:
I don't. I was ridiculing your post, which was chock full of misinformation. I'm still encouraging you to try to get the facts before giving your opinion. Oh, and I was also ridiculing your opinion.

You are right, I posted wrong information and I should be more careful.

I don't think sex is a sensitive topic but in most cultures sex is a private adult activity and pornography is a controversial topic not a potential career. It is unfortunate the students discovered it but having done so I have no doubt that it became a topic of gossip and would have been every single year as each fresh flock of 7th graders entered the school. Not something any school would want happening and definitely not an elite private school. 

She wasn't fired. Her contract came to an end and they didn't call her back for the fall.

Unionist

I'm so happy that someone is speaking out for the Brébeuf dinosaurs. That's what democracy is all about.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Those guys would probably fire Mary Magdalene.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

I'm so happy that someone is speaking out for the Brébeuf dinosaurs. That's what democracy is all about.

It is what democracy is all about. As long as people are not contravening anyone's human rights or breaking any laws people are free to set their own standards even if others don't agree with them.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Maysie wrote:

Thanks for dealing with the nonsense, Unionist. Sheesh.

Some fun to bring some humour to the discussion. I shared this with my teacher/professor friends at the start of the school year.

Slight thread drift....1914 rules for teachers?

Sounds very much like the current work rules for flight attendants at Qatar Airways

 

 

lagatta

Writing with the left hand was severely repressed, among pupils as well as staff, and boys and men as well as girls and women. My father got the ruler for that enough to "switch" him. Wrote terribly as a result. (I'm left-handed). Even when I started school, some of the older teachers looked askance at left-handers.

Oh, those ice-cream parlours. And not even uncles or cousins.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. Those 1960s "racy Québec films" would be on prime time TV nowadays. And cripes, look how many decades ago this happened.

All the talk shows I've listened to, whether in French or in English, think that this is absurd.

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

All the talk shows I've listened to, whether in French or in English, think that this is absurd.

Same here - and all the bloggers, all the editorialists, it's unanimous. Today on CBC Radio Noon, the host tried hard to provoke callers into seeing the "other side". Everyone - including his invited guest - condemned and ridiculed Brébeuf.

To find anyone trying to justify Brébeuf's feudal misogyny, you have to actually go to... babble. Because, we cherish democracy - which means the inalienable right of individuals to hold, and trumpet, medieval anti-human opinions!

 

Bacchus

Yup just like that trinity issue about not hiring someone who is christian

 

Oh wait that was ok right?

jjuares

This thread is inaccurately titled. She wasn't fired but her contract was not renewed. The difference has legal implications.

Unionist

jjuares wrote:
This thread is inaccurately titled. She wasn't fired but her contract was not renewed. The difference has legal implications.

The thread was titled on the basis of this Le Devoir story, which was cited in the OP:

Quote:
Une prof de théâtre congédiée pour des scènes érotiques passées

Congédiée. Fired.

Perhaps contact Le Devoir and make them aware of your concerns about their false reporting?

 

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

Yup just like that trinity issue about not hiring someone who is christian

Yeah, I subliminally hate Christians. That's what this story is really about. I'm taking revenge against Brébeuf for having been founded by Jesuits.

Thanks for your vigilance, Bacchus. I now see my profound hypocrisy. Without you, it might have taken many more years.

Do you do private sessions?

 

 

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:
This thread is inaccurately titled. She wasn't fired but her contract was not renewed. The difference has legal implications.

The thread was titled on the basis of this Le Devoir story, which was cited in the OP:

Quote:
Une prof de théâtre congédiée pour des scènes érotiques passées

Congédiée. Fired.

Perhaps contact Le Devoir and make them aware of your concerns about their false reporting?

 


I also believe in the article it said the contract was not renewed. My French is less than stellar so I may be wrong about that.

jjuares

jjuares wrote:
Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:
This thread is inaccurately titled. She wasn't fired but her contract was not renewed. The difference has legal implications.

The thread was titled on the basis of this Le Devoir story, which was cited in the OP:

Quote:
Une prof de théâtre congédiée pour des scènes érotiques passées

Congédiée. Fired.

Perhaps contact Le Devoir and make them aware of your concerns about their false reporting?

 


I also believe in the article it said the contract was not renewed. My French is less than stellar so I may be wrong about that.

I also might add the legal implications are for her. If her contract was not renewed she may not have any legal recourse.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

Who said she had legal recourse? I've heard her interviewed - she hasn't even said she is seeking legal recourse. Why is that an issue here?

 


Unionist, I did not say she was seeking legal action. I am an educator. I am interested in all aspects of these issues. You seem determined to pick a fight. I do not want to fight with you. In fact upon reflection I was overly harsh with you and made some very negative comments about you.

Unionist

Who said she had legal recourse? I've heard her interviewed - she hasn't even said she is seeking legal recourse. Why is that an issue here?

ETA: Make sure to correct the Globe's loose legal terminology as well:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/montreal-teacher-73-loses-j... teacher, 73, loses job over film nudity more than 40 years ago[/url]

Quote:
In a sign of how the Internet can turn even one’s distant past into grounds for dismissal, the prestigious Brébeuf College has terminated the contract of teacher Jacqueline Laurent-Auger after some male high-school students found some of her early acting repertoire online. [...]

Her story has elicited widespread sympathy in Quebec since it first surfaced late last week. Meanwhile, the school – a Jesuit-founded institution that groomed leaders such as Pierre Trudeau and his son, Justin – has come under attack for a decision characterized as prudish and shortsighted. One blogger called it a case of “retroactive slut-shaming.”

School director Michel April declined a request for an interview on Monday. However, in a statement released Sunday to quell the growing storm over the controversy, Brébeuf said it was acting in the students’ best interests by ending Ms. Laurent-Auger’s contract after 15 years.

Ms. Laurent-Auger said when she was brought in to school offices to be told of her sacking in July, she asked if there was any problem with her teaching performance. She was told there was not.

Glad to see the national media is picking this up. The outrage in Québec is unanimous. The best thing that could happen is if some of the wealthy sponsors of Brébeuf threatened to pull some funding.

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I heard Laurent-Auger interviewed on As It Happens earlier this evening and she was a delightful person. What a loss to her students who enjoyed her classes. Her being fired or not renewed - whichever - on these grounds is ridiculous. The erotic films she acted in during the 60s are no more explicit in nudity and sexuality than what you can watch on HBO and other speciality channels according to Laurent-Auger. And I concur. If there were any students who seriously wanted to pursue acting, having someone who could help them navigate what may or may not be asked of them by producers and directors would be a bonus.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:
I do not want to fight with you. In fact upon reflection I was overly harsh with you and made some very negative comments about you.

Nor do I want to fight with you - and I've been guilty of some harsh mockery as well.

In my opinion, the best way to continue in this thread would be to hear your opinion about the fairness and justice of what happened here, based of course on the facts as we know them. I'd be glad to try to answer some questions of detail that I may have gleaned from the French-language media. And I think I've expressed my opinion quite clearly so far.

In fact, this termination of Mme Laurent-Auger is a horrendous throwback to pre-Quiet Revolution morals, which simply have zero currency in Québec today. It is disturbing not only because of the gratuitous attack on this woman of principle and integrity, but also because of other trends that are brewing below the surface. The PQ's "charter of values" was soundly rejected, to their surprise and chagrin, by many sections of society, including those they counted as allies (independentists of various stripes). And the Saguenay mayor's insistence on chanting prayers before city council meetings is now heading to the Supreme Court. Québec went from being one of the most backward to one of the more open and progressive societies (relatively speaking). It's crucial that the positive be defended.

 


IThe contracts I have signed have all had some morals clause, although they don't call it that. In fact in our school act they have a decertification process for anyone convicted of an indictable offense.
The teachers unions have justifiable concerns about the subjective nature and the general idiocy of how these clauses are enforced. Unfortunately in the 90s the SCC ruled in favour of one of these clauses in a teachers contract. Public Nudity will always upset some and usually the admin. would rather not take the heat and go the easy route and get rid of the problem (the teacher)regardless of how effective he or she is. Is this a religious or a public school?

Unionist

jjuares wrote:
I do not want to fight with you. In fact upon reflection I was overly harsh with you and made some very negative comments about you.

Nor do I want to fight with you - and I've been guilty of some harsh mockery as well.

In my opinion, the best way to continue in this thread would be to hear your opinion about the fairness and justice of what happened here, based of course on the facts as we know them. I'd be glad to try to answer some questions of detail that I may have gleaned from the French-language media. And I think I've expressed my opinion quite clearly so far.

In fact, this termination of Mme Laurent-Auger is a horrendous throwback to pre-Quiet Revolution morals, which simply have zero currency in Québec today. It is disturbing not only because of the gratuitous attack on this woman of principle and integrity, but also because of other trends that are brewing below the surface. The PQ's "charter of values" was soundly rejected, to their surprise and chagrin, by many sections of society, including those they counted as allies (independentists of various stripes). And the Saguenay mayor's insistence on chanting prayers before city council meetings is now heading to the Supreme Court. Québec went from being one of the most backward to one of the more open and progressive societies (relatively speaking). It's crucial that the positive be defended.

 

Unionist

jjuares wrote:
The contracts I have signed have all had some morals clause, although they don't call it that.

It's not relevant here. She was not terminated for "cause". She has not been accused of violating anything in her contract. She has not even been accused of concealing her 1/2 century old film appearances either. They are public knowledge (except to the pampered bureaucrats of Brébeuf, perhaps).

Quote:
Is this a religious or a public school?

Neither. It's a non-denominational private school. It was once a Jesuit-run school, but not any more. And (to anticipate) nothing involving religion was cited in the school's public statements so far, as described here:

Globe and Mail wrote:

School director Michel April declined a request for an interview on Monday. However, in a statement released Sunday to quell the growing storm over the controversy, Brébeuf said it was acting in the students’ best interests by ending Ms. Laurent-Auger’s contract after 15 years.

“The fact that these films were shot 40 years ago doesn’t change their bold and suggestive – even explicit – character,” said the college. The Internet had brought the “erotic portion of [Ms. Laurent-Auger’s] career into the present,” and the students’ discovery of their teacher’s films affected the atmosphere in class, the school said.

“The availability on the Internet of erotic films in which she acted created an entirely new context that was not ideal for our students,” the school said. “After discussion and reflection, we concluded that adult films must remain just that, a product for adults. That’s why we decided not to renew Mrs. Laurent-Auger’s contract.”

Did you have an opinion based on what you've seen so far?

 

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:
The contracts I have signed have all had some morals clause, although they don't call it that.

It's not relevant here. She was not terminated for "cause". She has not been accused of violating anything in her contract. She has not even been accused of concealing her 1/2 century old film appearances either. They are public knowledge (except to the pampered bureaucrats of Brébeuf, perhaps).

Quote:
Is this a religious or a public school?

Neither. It's a non-denominational private school. It was once a Jesuit-run school, but not any more. And (to anticipate) nothing involving religion was cited in the school's public statements so far, as described here:

Globe and Mail wrote:

School director Michel April declined a request for an interview on Monday. However, in a statement released Sunday to quell the growing storm over the controversy, Brébeuf said it was acting in the students’ best interests by ending Ms. Laurent-Auger’s contract after 15 years.

“The fact that these films were shot 40 years ago doesn’t change their bold and suggestive – even explicit – character,” said the college. The Internet had brought the “erotic portion of [Ms. Laurent-Auger’s] career into the present,” and the students’ discovery of their teacher’s films affected the atmosphere in class, the school said.

“The availability on the Internet of erotic films in which she acted created an entirely new context that was not ideal for our students,” the school said. “After discussion and reflection, we concluded that adult films must remain just that, a product for adults. That’s why we decided not to renew Mrs. Laurent-Auger’s contract.”

Did you have an opinion based on what you've seen so far?

 


It's absolute idiocy. I mentioned the morals clause only to put things in context. Even teachers who have a continuing contract may be subjected to this silliness. The fifteen years is also an important part. Where I live private school staff work on yearly contracts and the exact same thing could happen to them. For public school teachers they would need cause. I would be interested to find out if private schools in Quebec operate the same way. The fifteen years also makes this more egrigious. This college felt no loyalty to their employee after 15 years? I wonder what this does to the morale of the staff remaining.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
To find anyone trying to justify Brébeuf's feudal misogyny, you have to actually go to... babble. Because, we cherish democracy - which means the inalienable right of individuals to hold, and trumpet, medieval anti-human opinions!

No misogyny here unless a man would be treated differently, and I don't think he would be.

lagatta wrote:
Seriously, this is ridiculous. Those 1960s "racy Québec films" would be on prime time TV nowadays. And cripes, look how many decades ago this happened.

Don't think so, they are sexually eplicit and they are not Quebec films. 

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2014/10/20/montreal-teacher-fired...

The two films that the school has a problem with include Le Journal intime d'une nymphomane (1973) and Dany la ravageuse (1972). In a statement, school officials maintain that"We're not talking about paintings or sculptures of naked bodies produced with artistry and aesthetics in mind. There are erotic scenes destined for an adult audience."

If they were done five years ago versus forty (same content) would that make a difference?

If you were a seventh grade student and found out your teacher, or even just a teacher at the school, did explicit sex scenes in a movie and the scenes were available on the net what would you do?

I would guess that a pretty high percentage, male and female, would go looking for the sex clips. Seventh graders are 12 years old. There are a lot of parent who would prefer their 12 year olds don't access explicit erotica and hope they can at least delay their introduction to it a couple of more years. Giving their 12 year olds motivation to go looking and to discuss the topic with their friends at school is not terribly welcome. I know I wouldn't have wanted my daughter to have to deal with it in such a personalized manner when she was 12. With it going around the school that would have forced me into a discussion that I would not have wanted to have with her at that age. Tackling the distinction between porn and erotica would be difficult but I would not like for it to be normalized for her, as though it is no different than having worked at a ski resort.

The school didn't decline to renew her contract because the films existed. They declined because the students had discovered them and were passing it around.

In one article they pointed out that she could not have known how readily available it would become because that was long before the internet. That is true, but she is not being punished. Her presence is problamatic because it motivates the students to go check her out.

In the early 70s she was an adult and she knew that sex scenes including a menage a trois would stick and would certainly prevent her from teaching in a high school. There is no statute of limitations on how students react to explicit images of teachers having sex. Being 40 years older doesn't change the material 12 year olds would be accessing, material which is still designated 18+ even now. 40 years did not turn them into 13+ movies.

She didn't just do a couple of artsy films.

Here is a good synopsis of one of them:

http://cinezilla.blogspot.se/2012/07/sinner-secret-diary-of-nymphomaniac...

Definitely not a movie I would have wanted my daughter to see, and it is out on DVD.

Mr Ortiz claims his innocence and his wife Mrs Ortiz [Jacqueline Laurent, who later ended up in several Torgny Wickman skin flicks!]

And about the director:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_Franco

Franco moved from Spain to France in 1970 so that he could make more violent and erotic films, and it was at this point that his career began to go downhill commercially, as he turned to low-budget filmmaking with a move to more adult films. Although he produced a number of well-received, low budget horror films in the early 70's (Dracula vs Frankenstein, Vampyros Lesbos, A Virgin Among the Living Dead), many people in the industry considered him a porn director due to the huge number of X-rated adult films he began churning out. Franco returned to low-budget horror in a brief comeback period from 1980-1983 (Bloody Moon, Oasis of the Zombies, Revenge in the House of Usher), but after 1983, his career took a second downturn as he returned to pornographic films.

 

Gonzaga

I thought I could add, from the Brébeuf website, that the school/college describes itself as founded by Jesuits and as carrying forward a mission "handed down from the father-founders (pères fondateurs)." It has two Jesuits on the board of directors, described as "representatives of the Society of Jesus." The opening line of its mission statement begins "D'inspiration chrétienne, fondé par les jésuites. . . " So it hasn't entirely closed the door on Christianity. I'm not suggesting that ditching a long-term employee and citing as "sole factor" in the decision that someone found her 40-year-old "erotic" films online (Le Devoir) is particularly Christian, though some might say so. (Personally I think it's wrong and shameful.) (translations mine)

cco

Pondering wrote:

I would guess that a pretty high percentage, male and female, would go looking for the sex clips. Seventh graders are 12 years old. There are a lot of parent who would prefer their 12 year olds don't access explicit erotica and hope they can at least delay their introduction to it a couple of more years.

Why, yes. It's so obvious to me, now. I never would have been interested in porn at age 12 if none of my teachers (especially the ones in their 70s) had ever starred in any.

6079_Smith_W

Something similar did happen not too long ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/fired-quebec-school-secretary-sta...

I get the temptation to see this as a "throwback", Unionist, but even though both cases happened in Quebec, this could have taken place anywhere (well, anywhere in North America anyway, where we think we have to wear clothes to have a steam bath). 

Really it is just utterly dumb, though no surprise at all. Kids can find porn everywhere, but we can't be interfering with its imaginary and generally messed up version of the world by letting them realize it actually involves real people.They might get distracted. I am sure the administration in both cases felt they had to do this because their little heads would explode otherwise, even though there is warped sexualized imagery everywhere (especially at Halloween).

All these firings do is reinforce the message in so much porn that women involved in it are dirty, and not real people. Not exactly a mature first step in dealing with the problem, especially since the concern is over what lesson is being taught in school.

and @ lagatta

Yeah, they tried to beat it into my dad too. My grandma put a stop to that. Never noticed anything about it when I went to school, and I had some real dinosaurs as teachers.

 

 

 

 

lagatta

It is redolent of a certain type of Christianity, fortunately largely discredited around here. Christianity (and other religions) can also bear a message of forgiveness and acceptance, in particular for something that happened a long time ago and whose life has taken a different path.

6079_Smith_W

I agree about the boneheaded religion, but I also think any notion of forgiveness (though for what?) is in this case overridden by their brains being squicked at the thought of someone who worked in porn (or even has naked pictures out there) being interacted with as a real person.

What I find even more upsetting is that this shame-driven immaturity and denial is the same kind of thinking they will bring to the growing problem of kids who wind up being victimized by having naked pictures spread all over the internet.

This sends a terrible message to kids who we don't want to hate themselves - or worse - when they wind up in a situation like this.

 

Slumberjack

Jeez.  Helen Mirren starred in Caligula and they gave her a Damehood and the Order of the British Empire.

Unionist

Smith - there was no "porn" involved here, nor any allegation of such by anyone, including the school authorities. Just want to make sure things don't get escalated based on misinformation.

DaveW

 

keep in mind Brebeuf is a top-drawer elite school for the Outremont set, and they wore uniforms till fairly recently;

 pretty tight laced, but as it is private they have a lot more discretionary power over teachers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/montreal-teacher-73-loses-job-over-film-nudity-more-than-40-years-ago/article21183669/#dashboard/follows/

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Smith - there was no "porn" involved here, nor any allegation of such by anyone, including the school authorities. Just want to make sure things don't get escalated based on misinformation.

Fair enough. I could have said "naked pictures".It didn't occur to me that it would be an escalation.

On the other hand, that tangent (and the similar example I posted) kind of begs the question of what the difference actually is, at least with respect to this situation.

No one wants to call it porn, because that means "dirty". Wheras in the real world, the line is at best, very blurry.

 

Unionist

DaveW wrote:

 

 pretty tight laced, but as it is private they have a lot more discretionary power over teachers:

 

Private isn't the issue. Unionized or not is the issue. In a non-unionized setting, as you must be aware, even a full-time employee can be dismissed without cause, as long as the employer gives the requisite number of weeks of notice. In the case of someone on contract, they can just not renew the contract - no consequences there. The only exception would be if some law is being violated (like, discrimination on a prohibited ground), or if there's something "abusive" about the termination, which could lead to longer notice requirements or more money in lieu.

In a unionized environment, you can't be dismissed without "just cause" - and you have recourse to third-party arbitration to determine whether there was just cause. And if you win, the arbitrator can order reinstatement. Those protections doesn't exist in non-union environments (except, as I mentioned, for human rights cases).

The more important question than the legal one, I think, is to assess the basis on which a person is declared undesirable as a teacher.

DaveW

I took as a given that a toney private school was non-union, they hire and fire as they want

swallow

Unionist wrote:
To find anyone trying to justify Brébeuf's feudal misogyny, you have to actually go to... babble. Because, we cherish democracy - which means the inalienable right of individuals to hold, and trumpet, medieval anti-human opinions!

No kidding. We'll need another forum: discuss bone-headed idiocy from a pro-Brebeuf point of view. 

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I would guess that a pretty high percentage, male and female, would go looking for the sex clips. Seventh graders are 12 years old. There are a lot of parent who would prefer their 12 year olds don't access explicit erotica and hope they can at least delay their introduction to it a couple of more years.

Why, yes. It's so obvious to me, now. I never would have been interested in porn at age 12 if none of my teachers (especially the ones in their 70s) had ever starred in any.

Of course they are interested but I don't think all 12 year olds have watched erotic films. Because schools deal with minors they have a different criteria for employees in general. Teachers are role models not just workers. Parents have expectations about what their children will be exposed by their school. The school doesn't want students to be able to access explicit erotica involving their teachers. Once the school became aware that the material was circulating they had to deal with the topic. They couldn't just ignore it once it was brought to their attention.

How would you have them deal with it? Have a general assembly to tell the students they shouldn't be watching it? Tell the parents to just accept that the students will be passing erotica involving a teacher around? Or tell them to be on the look out and tell their kids not to watch it? They couldn't just pretend it wasn't happening and they would have to deal with it every single September when a fresh batch of kids arrived.

How would you suggest they do that?

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Unionist wrote:
To find anyone trying to justify Brébeuf's feudal misogyny, you have to actually go to... babble. Because, we cherish democracy - which means the inalienable right of individuals to hold, and trumpet, medieval anti-human opinions!

No kidding. We'll need another forum: discuss bone-headed idiocy from a pro-Brebeuf point of view. 

Apparently, this forum is serving that purpose quite well!

 

Pages