Bikini-clad teacher turns to porn after being fired

[snopes]

A Florida biology teacher fired after posing for racy pictures has landed a new career – in pornography.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ng_fired_.html

[JoeBentley]

As often happens I'm occasionally struck hard in the face by how far away my thumb is from the pulse of the masses. I find it disgusting that simply posing for "racy" photos is enough to cost one their job. Hell I don't think doing porn would be enough to lose your job over. It's not illegal. What business is it of anyone's what she does in her off time?

[musicgeek]

Gosh, good thing her friend the captain can provide such great career counseling advice:

Shepherd got into the business after the captain of the fishing charter that got her into trouble in the first place recommended it as a way to make good money. Captain Gil Coombes, of the boat ‘Smokin ‘Em,' owns a porn Web cam studio with his wife, Kat, called KLC productions.

"We sat down with her and told her she'd never get a teaching job again," Coombes told Page2live.com.

She says she "hate[s] it." Is it just me, or does this Coombes character sound like a grade-A creep? She does something (arguably) stupid, loses her job, and while she's most likely feeling lost and vulnerable this guy tells her she'll never teach again, and to go into porn?

[MidgardDragon]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I find it disgusting that simply posing for "racy" photos is enough to cost one their job. Hell I don't think doing porn would be enough to lose your job over. It's not illegal. What business is it of anyone's what she does in her off time?

Ditto. Sadly, people are idiots.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

As often happens I'm occasionally struck hard in the face by how far away my thumb is from the pulse of the masses. I find it disgusting that simply posing for "racy" photos is enough to cost one their job. Hell I don't think doing porn would be enough to lose your job over. It's not illegal. What business is it of anyone's what she does in her off time?

Thirded, but people are so uptight about it, especially in the US.

[LizzyBean]

I'm not sure what's sadder: the fact that she can't get a job, and lost 2 of her kids over pictures, or that she thinks this is the only thing she has left to do with her life.

A really NFBSKed up situation all the way around.

[fitz1980]

I googled her name and found some other stories about her. According to her school district she wasn't fired because of the bikini pictures, or for having a side job on a fishing charter that used bikini girls and topless women. They say that she was fired for having 30 unexcused absences in one school year. Seems that such a thing would be pretty easy to prove one way or the other. If she missed 30 days in one school year I wouldn't blame them for replacing her.

http://www.bittenandbound.com/2008/0...teacher-fired/
The district indicates that Shepherd missed 30 days of school this year and received two written reprimands prior to being fired.

If that's what happened she sounds like Carrie Prejean; the Miss California who was given a pass for topless pics and than started missing scheduled appearances, in violation of her contract with the Miss California organization. After she lost her crown she started claiming that she was unfairly persecuted for her anti-gay Christian views, rather than not doing her job.

As for loosing her kids.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,4678440.story
According to a Fort Pierce Police Department report, Shepherd was arrested Sunday on a warrant claiming that in late November, she left several text and voice mail messages on the cell phone of a 22-year-old woman now dating and living with the father of one of Shepherd's children.

Shepherd reportedly challenged the woman to a fight. According to the report, Shepherd has a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend.

Shepherd, who was listed as unemployed and living in Okeechobee on the arrest report,

If she's unemployed and threatening physical violence against people her kids would probably be better with Dad.

[Illuminatus]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

As often happens I'm occasionally struck hard in the face by how far away my thumb is from the pulse of the masses. I find it disgusting that simply posing for "racy" photos is enough to cost one their job. Hell I don't think doing porn would be enough to lose your job over. It's not illegal. What business is it of anyone's what she does in her off time?

The rule of thumb for teachers (I'm told) is never be seen or be photographed doing anything too old for your students to be doing. It's the most asinine thing I've ever heard, but it seems to hold true. This isn't even the worst example I can think of off the top of my head.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sec...eacher_in.html

[Auntie Witch]

I was told that administrators in Missouri are now strongly advised to discourage all their staff members from any sort of social networking page. In other words, they're trying to make it so teachers can't even facebook.

[Joostik]

Originally Posted by fitz1980

If she's unemployed and threatening physical violence against people her kids would probably be better with Dad.

Dad doesn't seem to do much better:

Shepherd has a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend

Besides, he's the father of only one of the three children.

[PatYoung]

Someone with her bad judgement shouldn't be teaching kids. Sorry sexworker/teachers who miss a lot of work.

[Friends of Alfred]

Originally Posted by Auntie Witch

I was told that administrators in Missouri are now strongly advised to discourage all their staff members from any sort of social networking page. In other words, they're trying to make it so teachers can't even facebook.

My other half is a teacher, and she does not use facebook at all. Almost all of her teacher friends similarly have no online presence with social networking sites, as it is deemed to be too risky.

Mind you, I dont have an online presence either (snopes is the only place I post, or even have an account) and I don't seem to miss much.

Friends of (showing my age here eh? ) Alfred

[Mickey Blue]

Originally Posted by Auntie Witch

I was told that administrators in Missouri are now strongly advised to discourage all their staff members from any sort of social networking page. In other words, they're trying to make it so teachers can't even facebook.

I can't speak fully about it without details of course but could it be not so much that they don't think you should be on facebook but are recognizing that many people seem clueless that images you post on facebook can be (sometimes) seen by others and said images may get you in trouble? So in other words its more of a 'a lot of people are making foolish mistakes with these things, so maybe it would be wise to steer clear of them all together' then disallowing them?

Of course I maintain that teachers are treated unfairly in what they cannot do while being teachers of 'the children'. I mean I find it funny that a teacher will be fired for setting a bad example but there are no such rules or parents, and sports stars and actors (who IMO were seen as role models by kids far more then teachers were, at least at the middle/high school level) don't seem to have any such restrictions (heck, after the Michael Vick thing I said that they should make it so nobody with a felony can play for an professional sports organizations (NBA/NFL/etc) and was roundly shouted down, however many of these same people have no problems with limitations for teachers including for things they did before becoming teachers.

-MB

[Friends of Alfred]

Originally Posted by Mickey Blue

....... however many of these same people have no problems with limitations for teachers including for things they did before becoming teachers.

-MB

Indeed. We call those people "Idiots".

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Mickey Blue

I mean I find it funny that a teacher will be fired for setting a bad example but there are no such rules or parents, and sports stars and actors (who IMO were seen as role models by kids far more then teachers were, at least at the middle/high school level) don't seem to have any such restrictions

But of course, sports stars and actors don't interact with schoolchildren on a daily basis, nor are they in a position of authority over them.

[Friends of Alfred]

Originally Posted by snopes

But of course, sports stars and actors don't interact with schoolchildren on a daily basis, nor are they in a position of authority over them.

All true, but has no bearing over what a teacher does in their own private time. Why should a teacher be held to a different standard, once you exclude the knee-jerk "Somebody think of the children" reactions?

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Friends of Alfred

All true, but has no bearing over what a teacher does in their own private time. Why should a teacher be held to a different standard, once you exclude the knee-jerk "Somebody think of the children" reactions?

I would say that it is possible that some things a teacher does outside of work could seriously disrupt their ability to perform their job well. But there should be evidence of that before someone is fired.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Friends of Alfred

Why should a teacher be held to a different standard

Because they perform vastly different functions. It's like asking why I don't have the same obligations towards caring for my sister's child as my sister does.

[Friends of Alfred]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I would say that it is possible that some things a teacher does outside of work could seriously disrupt their ability to perform their job well. But there should be evidence of that before someone is fired.

Agreed, but by and large those things would affect most peoples' employment. It is when teachers are held to a standard not applied to everyone else that it becomes stupidity.

[Friends of Alfred]

Originally Posted by snopes

Because they perform vastly different functions. It's like asking why I don't have the same obligations towards caring for my sister's child as my sister does.

Which again has no bearing on what the teacher does during their private time. What a teacher does on a Friday night has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to deliver a solid lesson on a Monday morning.

I can get on board with "actions likely to bring the school into disrepute", even though those clauses are generally poorly defined and left to the subjective whims of the boss. Most professionals have a similar clause in their contracts, me included, but to apply more exacting standards to teachers without being able to demonstrate the express necessity for such is unfair, and in my experience, having lived with a teacher for many years, almost always rooted in stupidity.