Theatre teacher fired for appearing in erotic films 40 years ago

164 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

@ Pondering

How about do nothing, since it isn't any of their business?

Is that sort of public airing and shaming the norm when it comes to employees' past work, or potentially embarrassing habits? Or is something reserved for alleged fallen women?

I presume I'm not the only person who had a violent control freak, racist, drunk or ogler as a teacher. I don't think I have ever heard of calling an assembly to warn the kids about that.

Though as I said, it would be an effective demonstration to the boys and girls about terrorising people to keep them in line.

 

 

Unionist

^^^^^^^ What Smith said. And then some. ^^^^^^^

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Pondering

How about do nothing, since it isn't any of their business?

Is that sort of public airing and shaming the norm when it comes to employees' past work, or potentially embarrassing habits? Or is something reserved for alleged fallen women?

I presume I'm not the only person who had a violent control freak, racist, drunk or ogler as a teacher. I don't think I have ever heard of calling an assembly to warn the kids about that.

Though as I said, it would be an effective demonstration to the boys and girls about terrorising people to keep them in line.

I don't think college Brebeuf hires violent control freaks, racists, drunks or oglers as teachers or staff of any sort.

The school did not publically air anything about her. They dealt with it privately by not renewing her contract.

The school could not ignore it once it was brought to their attention (probably by a parent) that the students were watching 18+ erotica of a teacher.

It wasn't a moral judgement, it was a practical response. The school could not become the reason why their 12 year old students were accessing illegal (for them) material. Parents are paying thousands of dollars to place their kids into a sheltered environment.

The school is a business and they will not lose a single student based on this decision whereas they could lose students if they became the school that has teacher erotica passed around the 7th graders every September.

onlinediscountanvils

Pondering wrote:
I don't think college Brebeuf hires violent control freaks, racists, drunks or oglers as teachers or staff of any sort.

LOL. Then who do you think they hire? And how do they manage such a feat?

sherpa-finn

Pondering wrote: 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.

So like discipline the students, if you are so driven.  

Sheesh, if there isn't a 'statue of limitations' for judgement of things one did 50 years ago that were legal if a little edgy, I would like to think that we are all pretty well f%#*ed.  And if those photos of me at that En Lutte rally ever get shown to my current employer ....

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Ah, the precious (and apparently terminally innocent) children... I can see how it is so damn important to save them from erotic images more than a generation old... because of course it would corrupt their little minds to discover that there are, you know, images of naked people on the internet - it could scar them for life. One can but hope that the parents who were mistakenly sending their offspring to what they thought was such a secure, sheltered environment sue for damages, or at least a big reduction in the costs of tuition for the coming year.

 

 

Bacchus

In a way bagkitty, thats kind of how it happened. The parents pay to send their kids to a certain type of school that they want their kids molded into so when something against their rules (in this case christian values since with jesuits on the board, its a christian school regardless of what they say) then the school has to take action since thats why they are in business anyway. And the parents call the tunes since they pay the piper

lagatta

I think it is statistically impossible that there are no violent control freaks, racists, drunks or oglers on staff at Brébeuf. Not to mention when it was mostly priests teaching! Some of each category hide it better than others.

I also think that nowadays, few pupils haven't seen at least some pornography by the time they are 12. Hell, I've seen Hassidic boys looking at racy stuff at the Outremont library (which is contrary to library policy). And no, I didn't say anything, and it isn't because I like often misogynistic porno. I was just minding my own business.

Are any private schools in Québec unionized?

Unionist

Why exactly are you people talking about 12-year-olds? Sounds more puritanically shocking that way, huh? Laurent-Auger taught 16 and 17 year olds.

And no, Bacchus, it's not a Christian school, no matter what you say. Amazing to say that when a Jesuit sits on a board, that makes the school "Christian".

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

The school did not publically air anything about her.

But you are the one who mentioned a general assembly. Yes, they could have ignored it, and yes, it was a moral judgment.

And sorry, there are no sheltered environments. You think students are no longer going to be viewing that movie now that the ex-teacher has been fired, and the whole story has been splashed all over the news? If anything, it is a bigger deal now.

The only difference is that the students have lost a good teacher, and learned what happens to people who cross others' imaginary lines.

 

6079_Smith_W

And funny... one of the violent control freaks I remember was the principal at the school my dad taught at. Later became superintendent Took it upon himself to lift me up by my collar, scream at me and shake me because he (falsely)  thought I had done something to his kid. I heard even more interesting stories from my dad.

No slight to teachers generally, because I know it is a difficult profession, and one in which (as this case shows) you have to watch your back, but don't tell me freaks don't work their way in there just like they do in every other profession.

sherpa-finn

Be it 12 or 17, it seems a little late by Jesuit standards, given their famous (if sexist) line about the formative powers of education: "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man"

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Bacchus.... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the reason parents send their children to Brébeuf is much the same reason they send their children to Loyola or UCC or LCC or Marianopolis or Strathcona Tweedsmuir or St. George's... it has nothing to with sheltering their children and everything to do with solidifying their class privileges. If they were so terribly concerned about sheltering their children and ensuring the ongoing indoctrination along religious lines, they would either homeschool or select a denominationally compatible bible school/college. Regardless of what denominational affiliation elite private schools may have had when they were founded (although most have primarily Catholic or Anglican roots), the actual draw is the the veneer of class privilege these schools polish to a high sheen.

Bacchus

Yes and class priviledge (as with religious) means judging those 'beneath' you and ensuring role models the way you want the role models to be.

 

And I believe there are 2 jesuits on the board (mentioned upthread) as well as a motto of devotion to the basic jesuit principals in the school

 

 

6079_Smith_W

The biggest block (10 members) on the board of regents at the U of WInnipeg is appointed by the United Church, and there are two reps on its senate from the Mennonite college on campus. It is still a secular school.

Bacchus

Well the United Church is a bunch of blasphemers anyway Cool

Unionist

And even if it were a Christian school (whatever that means) - women who dressed like Eve before the serpent got to her aren't allowed to teach?

Amazing that this "debate" simply isn't happening - anywhere - in Québec.

Bacchus

Apparently not according to them, no

Pondering

Plot points

Linda was molested by Mr. Ortiz as a minor causing her to hate men and turn into a lesbian.

Eventually her lesbian relationship with a Countess isn't enough so she starts seducing everyone especially married men.

 Linda gets into pornographic shoots which cause her to do drugs.

http://cinezilla.blogspot.se/2012/07/sinner-secret-diary-of-nymphomaniac... "..her life changes as she encounters men who only want to use her as a sexual plaything, and also of how she narrowly escapes a jail sentence for drug offences due to a kind-hearted doctor who takes her in, in an attempt to cure her and set her back on the right track. This Doctor is played by Franco backbone, Howard Vernon. Despite Linda basically begging the good Doctor to shag her, he resists, and instead of looking at her as a piece of meat, he treats her with respect and gives back her value as a woman. But old habits die hard, and after a late night out, smoking dope, making out with men and women, Linda is confronted by the good Doctor who screams out that she’s betrayed his trust, and there for he will treat her as the nymphomaniac she is."

She comes across Mr. Ortiz gets him drunk, seduces him, then commits suicide leaving him to take the blame for "murdering" her.

The teacher in question plays Rosa Ortiz who is the wife of Mr. Ortiz and sets out to prove his innocence. I don't know how she ends up in sex scenes with men and women.

Do you also think the school should ignore that the kids are learning that molestation turns women into lesbians? Or how about that kind doctor who tried to "cure" her deciding as long as she was giving it to everyone else he might as well take his share?

Unionist

Maurice Duplessis would be damn proud. His legacy lives on.

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

And even if it were a Christian school (whatever that means) - women who dressed like Eve before the serpent got to her aren't allowed to teach?

Amazing that this "debate" simply isn't happening - anywhere - in Québec.

It's not at all amazing. It's not cool to be concerned about how kids are exposed to and taught about sexuality. Explicit erotica is described as nothing more than artsy pictures of naked women.

...then another girl commits suicide because she didn't think it was a big deal sharing a picture of her breasts when she was 13.

It's bait and switch.

Bärlüer

Unionist wrote:

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).

You're right to say that with respect to employment legal issues, private vs. public has little (if any) relevance and the existence of an unionized environment is of particular relevance. (BTW, high school Brébeuf teachers appear to be unionized [with CSN] according to a quick search I did.)

However, I'd just like to point out that while it is true that unionized employees usually benefit from greater protection (although it's not the case that all unionized employees benefit from just-cause protection from dismissal — cf. most probationary period clauses for example), non-unionized employees have stronger protections than what is described above.

Most importantly, Quebec labour standards legislation affords to all employees who have two years of uninterrupted service in the same enterprise the right not to be dismissed with good and sufficient cause.

Unionist wrote:

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.

I must say I'm dumbfounded by the (laborious) attempts in this thread to defend Brébeuf's utterly irrational and unfair action towards Ms. Laurent-Auger.

Anyway: Brébeuf has released a press release today saying that it "opens the door to Ms. Laurent-Auger's return" in "new functions in the Brébeuf community" according to terms to be discussed with her. So... we'll see.

(I've seen on Facebook that a number of former students had actually indicated that they would stop giving money to the institution or otherwise participate in its activities. So in addition to the media storm [both in the MSM and on its own Facebook page] that Brébeuf provoked with its ill-advised decision, apparently, it was beginning to suffer in direct contributions because of it.)

Unionist

Bärlüer wrote:

 

Most importantly, Quebec labour standards legislation affords to all employees who have two years of uninterrupted service in the same enterprise the right not to be dismissed with good and sufficient cause.

I got it wrong? Wow, not the first time. I've been telling workers for years that one big benefit of unionization is the right not to be dismissed just with notice and the right to third-party arbitration. If an employer says, "sorry, nothing wrong with your work, but we're letting you go, here's your statutory pay in lieu of notice" - the non-unionized employee has recourse and can get reinstated (as long as there was no human rights or similar issue)? Please show me the section of the law that says that. I'm going to have to eat some crow...

Quote:

Anyway: Brébeuf has released a press release today saying that it "opens the door to Ms. Laurent-Auger's return" in "new functions in the Brébeuf community" according to terms to be discussed with her. So... we'll see.

(I've seen on Facebook that a number of former students had actually indicated that they would stop giving money to the institution or otherwise participate in its activities. So in addition to the media storm [both in the MSM and on its own Facebook page] that Brébeuf provoked with its ill-advised decision, apparently, it was beginning to suffer in direct contributions because of it.)

Amazing. That was fast! I hope they don't read this thread. It might strengthen their resolve to keep her out.

 

Bärlüer

Unionist wrote:

Bärlüer wrote:

Most importantly, Quebec labour standards legislation affords to all employees who have two years of uninterrupted service in the same enterprise the right not to be dismissed with good and sufficient cause.

I got it wrong? Wow, not the first time. I've been telling workers for years that one big benefit of unionization is the right not to be dismissed just with notice and the right to third-party arbitration. If an employer says, "sorry, nothing wrong with your work, but we're letting you go, here's your statutory pay in lieu of notice" - the non-unionized employee has recourse and can get reinstated (as long as there was no human rights or similar issue)? Please show me the section of the law that says that. I'm going to have to eat some crow...

Section 124 of the Act respecting labour standards.

Unionist

Bärlüer wrote:

Section 124 of the Act respecting labour standards.

Thanks. That's what I get for hanging around federally-regulated Canada Labour Code jurisdictions for too long. I know this is thread drift... but is Québec the only jurisdiction that has such (potentially) powerful protections for non-union workers? And is it ever used??

Oh yeah:

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Well Unionist, you can rest assured Alberta doesn't....

Bärlüer

Well, the Canada Labour Code in fact has a similar provision... (section 240).

Can't say about other provinces off the top of my head.

And yes, s. 124 complaints are very frequent.

In fact, a huge advantage in Quebec is that if the Commission des normes du travail takes your case, you have free legal representation before the Commission des relations du travail.

Unionist

More crow, please!

 

cco

And to think I was ridiculed and worse for suggesting C-36 might be part of some broader socially conservative anti-sex agenda.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!

sherpa-finn

WTF was that????

[Insert cartoon of double-take, here]

A Babbler just pubicly acknowledged an error of fact and actually thanked the contributor who corrected him. (Rather than doubling down on the snark and personal abuse!)

Nicely done, Unionist.  There may be hope for this board yet.

sherpa-finn

no animated GIF

lagatta

Brébeuf is ready to welcome Mme Laurent-Auger back! http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/education/421671/scenes-erotiques-la-pro...

As others have said, one can suspect pressure from alumni.

This might also get Mme Laurent-Auger some acting work, in roles counter to the at once sexist and sexless stereotyping of older women. Her personality and humour just shone in interviews, even those in English despite her somewha limited fluency.

Gonzaga

Brébeuf is only offering to consider "new duties."

En passant, I answer that it is a highly salutary thing for students to see their 73-year-old teacher's old erotic films (I reference a female friend).

First, because it may serve as a lesson to young males on the past and inner lives of older people, enhancing these young men's appreciation and understanding of their elders.

Second, because it may serve as a lesson to young males on the core humanity of those they might today take for for sex objects, that these individuals are real human beings who age and become, for example, drama teachers.

Third, that older people may, uncomfortable as it might seem to a young male, be sexual beings.

Pondering

Gonzaga wrote:

Brébeuf is only offering to consider "new duties."

En passant, I answer that it is a highly salutary thing for students to see their 73-year-old teacher's old erotic films (I reference a female friend).

First, because it may serve as a lesson to young males on the past and inner lives of older people, enhancing these young men's appreciation and understanding of their elders.

Second, because it may serve as a lesson to young males on the core humanity of those they might today take for for sex objects, that these individuals are real human beings who age and become, for example, drama teachers.

Third, that older people may, uncomfortable as it might seem to a young male, be sexual beings.

What message do you think the young women will take from it?

sherpa-finn

Pondering asked: What message do you think the young women will take from it?

1. Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.

2. Those naked selfies are forever.

voice of the damned

What message do you think the young women will take from it?

I personally don't care if a teacher who did a film called Diary Of A Nymphomaniac 40 years ago(or 40 days ago for that matter), complete with rape scenes on a Ferris Wheel(see the IMDB account), is teaching drama in a posh private school. I've always thought there was a pretty critical distinction between fantasy and reality to be made in such matters.

However, I am also old enough to remember the days when "Porn is the theory, rape is the practice" was a pretty a widely held tenet on the left(and don't kid yourself, this film was made for the purposes of audience sexual arousal). And I'm also aware that that line of reasoning still commands some sway in certain feminist circles(eg. the babble-allied blog Feminist Currents.)

So, I'm just kinda wondering: Suppose it was found that the actor who played the rapist in the Ferris Wheel scene was teaching drama at a school in Quebec. Or if the screenwriter were found to be teaching creative-writing somewhere. Would the babble consensus be "Oh, come on, it was just a nudie flick forty years ago, what's with all this Duplesiss-style prudery?

[EDIT: Added a "who" in the first sentence, so as to make grammatical sense.]

 

Pondering

sherpa-finn wrote:

Pondering asked: What message do you think the young women will take from it?

1. Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.

2. Those naked selfies are forever.

Yes, a lesson they would not have learned if the school ignored the situation. Instead they would have been watching it with their boyfriends and pressured to share.

voice of the damned

Just saw this from Smith on the last page...

I presume I'm not the only person who had a violent control freak, racist, drunk or ogler as a teacher. I don't think I have ever heard of calling an assembly to warn the kids about that.

No, but in 1996. the SCOC upheld a New Brunswick HRC's order for a school district to terminate the emploment of a holocaust-denying teacher, Malcolm Ross, even though Ross's racist activism had taken place outside the classroom.

Like I said, I don't consider pornography, even the violent sort, to be the quivalent of hate propaganda. However, it seems to me that influential sections of the Canadian left do regard it that way, and on babble anyway have always been given a welcome reception.

http://tinyurl.com/ncuk8s

Bacchus

They didnt terminate him, though, just removed him from a classroom position. He became the school librarian and was allowed to continue his activities off site without fear of termination

voice of the damned

Bacchus wrote:

They didnt terminate him, though, just removed him from a classroom position. He became the school librarian and was allowed to continue his activities off site without fear of termination

Well, that does represent a bit of a difference between the two cases, in terms of financial security for the reprimanded teacher. But is that really the issue that people are concerned about here?

It seems to me that in both cases, the implied message to the teachers was the same: "You are NOT the kind of person we want teaching our children." In the case of Ms. Laurent, it has been suggested that this sentiment resulted from prudery on the part of school administrators, a factor which would likely have still been in play even if they had just relegated her to the library.

Bacchus

Totally agree. And in both cases there was no evidence either had brought their outside activities into the classroom

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

They didnt terminate him, though, just removed him from a classroom position. He became the school librarian and was allowed to continue his activities off site without fear of termination

Well, that does represent a bit of a difference between the two cases, in terms of financial security for the reprimanded teacher. But is that really the issue that people are concerned about here?

It seems to me that in both cases, the implied message to the teachers was the same: "You are NOT the kind of person we want teaching our children." In the case of Ms. Laurent, it has been suggested that this sentiment resulted from prudery on the part of school administrators, a factor which would likely have still been in play even if they had just relegated her to the library.

The school hasn't said anything to suggest their decision had anything to do with prudery. In fact the teacher said they were aware of it all along. It wasn't a surprise to the school that she was in those films.

voice of the damned

The school hasn't said anything to suggest their decision had anything to do with prudery.

No, but people here have suggested that that was the underlying motivation for the dismissal. "Uptight pricks", "Duplessis", etc.

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

The school hasn't said anything to suggest their decision had anything to do with prudery.

No, but people here have suggested that that was the underlying motivation for the dismissal. "Uptight pricks", "Duplessis", etc.

Yes, which is the accusation thrown at feminists who have a problem with the commodification of women's bodies. The label is intended to discredit not inform. The purpose is to avoid serious discussion.

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

The school hasn't said anything to suggest their decision had anything to do with prudery.

No, but people here have suggested that that was the underlying motivation for the dismissal. "Uptight pricks", "Duplessis", etc.

You know what - I neither know nor care what the motivation of some upper-class snooty administrators might be. I look at their actions on their own merit.

So, "uptight pricks" - who knows, I doubt it, they're probably dissolute wretches in their private lives, irrelevant. "Duplessis" - yes, right on. That's not a statement of motivation. It's a reminder of an era where powerful men, in league with money and the Church, treated women like baby machines and humble servants.

Whatever their motives are, their actions display contempt for and incomprehension of women, youth, teachers, and individual rights and freedoms.

And have you ever seen any bunch of cowards retreat and run as fast as they did? I'm proud of the popular backlash.

 

6079_Smith_W

voice of the damned wrote:

Like I said, I don't consider pornography, even the violent sort, to be the quivalent of hate propaganda. However, it seems to me that influential sections of the Canadian left do regard it that way, and on babble anyway have always been given a welcome reception.

But she did bring her work into the classroom; she's an actor. I resisted the temptation to respond to a previous comment taking issue with the roles she played; it kind of begs the question of whether one understands what acting is.

I know you say you aren't equating the two, so why make the comparison? As for the circumstances of Ross's removal from the classroom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Ross_%28school_teacher%29

 

 

Bacchus

"However, in 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ross's removal from the classroom was justifiable, on the grounds that, although it did constitute a violation of his freedoms, this was a reasonable limit, as schoolteachers must be held to a higher standard of behaviour.[2] The Court further ruled that the District's "gag order" (that Ross be dismissed from his non-teaching position should he continue to publish and distribute antisemitic material) was invalid."

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

And have you ever seen any bunch of cowards retreat and run as fast as they did? I'm proud of the popular backlash.

Retreat? They are hiring her in some other capacity, not as a teacher to shut down the controversy. I doubt they will hire her again next year.

6079_Smith_W

Bacchus wrote:

a higher standard of behaviour.

Indeed, though let's remember that Ross's case involved an order from a Human Rights tribunal, and a hate crime.

Again, something quite different than acting.

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

a higher standard of behaviour.

Indeed, though let's remember that Ross's case involved an order from a Human Rights tribunal, and a hate crime.

Again, something quite different than acting.

I don't see where in the wiki article it says that Ross was convicted of a hate-crime. If you mean hate-crime in some figurative sense, then fair enough, but I think you'll find that there are many on the left who would apply the same label to porn films featuring rape on a ferris wheel.

As for the argument that it's all acting, well, sure. Birth Of A Nation was all acting as well.

 

Pages