Teachers and porn

I recently had news of someone I knew vaguely at high school and then at college. He was a few years older than me, but I knew who he was and we bumped shoulders at various times. Ten or so years ago he lost his position as a school principal because a district-wide IT update lead to the discovery of porn on his school computer. He claimed innocence, hired an investigator, found it was so, and received both compensation and an apology payment for the lack of due process and reputational damage. Now he is in the news again, this time for porn on his cellphone.

I confess I am at a loss as to how to respond; more reflection is needed. The first time porn was discovered

• the porn was on a school device
• he was terminated without due process
• his name and the school were widely publicized
• a specialist investigator found that the porn was linked to a virus
• his termination was reversed and he received compensation
• he had to leave the state to find another position, both of which he did

Around the same time, the media contained other stories of teachers and/or school computers and porn. I remember hearing of an older retired teacher who was working as a substitute and supervising a lesson which had been loaded onto a computer linked to a projector when suddenly the screen was taken over by porn. She was so computer-illiterate that she did not know how to "off" the machine and had to ask a student. This elderly teacher was also terminated, also contested it, and also received an apology and payout.

So I am open to accepting my former schoolmate's assertion of innocence. Yet, it happened twice. 

I don't know if I have ever mentioned my rat-trap philosophy - the presence of rat-traps suggests the presence of rats. (It's not dissimilar to my iceberg philosophy.) Being found twice doing the same thing does suggest quite strongly that he did indeed do the same thing twice. If not more.

It even calls into doubt the lack of original culpability.

The second incident is curious. Reportedly he was in a class where the students were to use their phones to research something. A group did not have a phone, so he lent them his, and they found the porn. This prompts many questions :

• Why did an activity require cellphones without first confirming that all students had access to one?
• Why did the teacher lend the students his personal phone?
• Why did the students do more than just the required activity? Why did they look at what else was on the phone?
• Are the students in trouble for a breach of privacy?
• Is the school district in trouble for a breach of privacy?
• Are the students / school district in trouble for reputational and career damage?
• Was there any suggestion the teacher had been accessing the porn during schooltime? If he had, and assuming that the porn was legal, why can a teacher not access it along with news, share prices and restaurant reviews?  
• Assuming that the porn was legal, why can a teacher not have it on his phone along with his puppy and rainbow pictures?
• Is there a suggestion that the teacher shared the porn? Assuming that he did not, is the issue here that the school district is anti-porn, and if so is that a public posture and is it so reflected in contracts and handbooks?

My general view is that he should not have shared his phone. Period. But in today's reality, is that any different from sharing a pencil or a dictionary or the teacher's own marked-up copy of The Great Gatsby?

My second contention is that activities which require specific tools should provide them. A chemistry lab does not expect students to carry their own bunsen burners and a lack thereof leads either to changing the activity, eg from an experiment to a demonstration, or to delaying it. In this case, if the activity requires students to have phones (should that ever be a requirement?), then the school should provide them like it provides the bunsen burners. 

As to the questions above, I don't know. We are really taking about objectionable materials, which is of course a slippery slope. Where does the district draw the line and is it clear? At the same time, a district is entitled to recruit and retain staff who are consistent with its Mission, Again, is this clear?

I suspect that neither the district nor the teacher will come out of this whole, but as I have asked before, what is a school to do?

**Please leave your comments and queries below.**

Related readings

https://nypost.com/2017/10/24/substitute-fired-after-showing-porn-to-sixth-graders/

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/porn-accidentally-plays-in-history-class-a-michigan-grade-school

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/porno-in-the-classroom-tape-mix-up-turns-treaty-of-versailles-titillating/ 

Who's your daddy?

Appropriate or controversial, what is a school to do?

A clash in values