(Former?) Gay porn actor permitted to return to teaching

[LSN80]

So Kate Gosselin being "lonely", Halle Berry's engagement, and Peyton Manning's free agency visits are good enough to make CNN, ABC, and MSNBC headlines, but this isn't?. Makes sense. Instead, we turn to the Huffington Post for this one.

Before we get to that, I put the word former into paranthesis with the question mark for a reason, as it's an important point I want to emphasize. Curious? Read on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/11/shawn-loftis-gay-porn-star-teaching_n_1337528.html

Sean Loftis is a 36 year substitute teacher in Florida who was fired from his position in August of 2011 after his "past" in the gay porn industry, both as actor and director, came to light. I'm guessing he didn't include it on his application form under past jobs, as he was fired when a principal in one of the schools he substituted in saw clips of him on the Internet, and reported him. Noteably, and common practice within the genre, Loftis went by the psydoneum Collin O'Neal instead. No word on whether the principal who outed him was watching on his own time, or discovered his work during school hours.

Regardless of how, the school district for whom Loftis worked fired him, citing a morality clause. Noteably, Loftis had given up his work in the porn industry upon receiving his teaching license and began teaching, but the Miami Dade school district fired him anyway. The district cited that Loftis had violated a district regulation that states the following:

"Teachers are expected to conduct themselves both in their employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system."

The problem with the morality clause, as stated by Loftis and the Board of Education, is that Loftis' film career was in the past. Loftis hadn't performed in a film in years, and after gaining a Bachelor's degree in Middle Eastern Studies and a Masters in Public Administration, he became qualified by the school system and started substitute teaching in schools around Miami Beach. After appealing to the Board of Education, the Florida Education Practices Commission's overruled his termination, allowing him to return to substituting immediately, and also granted him permission to apply for a full-time position. The catch?

Loftis will have to serve two years of probation, during which time he will be monitored closely to ensure he is no longer making adult films. Loftis raised no objection to this, and issued the following statement regarding the decision:

"This is my past and I left it behind. My work as a porn actor and director was not illegal. I can use my experiences in life to teach kids. The key point is that they said when you go back to the classroom and a student brings this up to you, you will be able to handle that. I thought that was highly progressive of them."

And we've made it to the part I want to emphasize. Although you won't find it in the article, multiple TV news sources have confirmed that Loftis returned to the porn industry over the 6 months when he was out of work from teaching. That doesn't sound like leaving behind the past, does it? The man has to make a living, I get that. Out of work from his chosen profession, I imagine it was easy for him to slip back into work he had previously done. But if this truly was his past, wanted to repair his image, and was serious about getting his job back, why return to the very thing that cost him his job in the first place? The differences between what's illegal(which porn is not) and what's moral(which the school district sees as being immoral) are two different things, and Loftis was fired for violating a morality clause.

Of course, it's important to note that Loftis wasn't teaching during this time period, so he once again violated no morality clause. I'm just not sure he made the smartest choice in careers in between teaching gigs.

Is a morality clause surrounding teachers not engaging in pornography a positive thing?

Should Loftis be on probation for two years, since it was deemed he violated no morality clause?

Since he returned to porn after being fired, should Loftis have been re-hired as a teacher?

All of the questions tie closely together, so use them as a springboard for discussion. All thoughts regarding the story are welcome and encouraged.

 

[klunderbunker]

Why shouldn't he be allowed to return?

He was told that he wasn't going to be able to teach, so he did something else to pay his bills. Loftis had no idea the school board would change its mind. Maybe he made more money making porn than he would have doing something else. As he and the article said, it's not illegal and he was told that he wouldn't be teaching anymore, so why not do it?

As for if the morality clause regarding making pornography is positive, I could see it either way. It's not something everyone does and while it's not illegal, it's a touchy subject. No one is accusing Loftis of inappropriate contact with a student so it's not like he's done anything wrong. I could see how parents would be worried though, and perhaps it's taking care of a matter before it becomes a larger issue. I could see either way on this, but if the clause didn't exist I'd be ok with it. However, if a rule is in place and he violated it, that's pretty open and shut.

Why should he be on probation if it was deemed that he didn't do anything wrong? That's like saying that someone may be acquitted of a bank robbery charge due to mistaken identity but they're put on probation because they were in court for a case they had nothing to do with. That makes no sense and it's practically saying that we don't care what you do now but rather what you did before.

As for him returning to porn and being rehired, this is a simple one to me: the guy had to make money somehow. He was fired from one job, so he went and got another job. This doesn't sound like a very complicated situation to me. If you got fired from your job and were told that there was no way you were getting back into that field, would you get a job in a different industry? Of course you would. This is something he knew he could make quick money doing and that he was familiar with, so he did it. As for now, I could understand him being on probation again because he did indeed violate the morality clause as I understand it. Let him teach, but on a zero tolerance policy. If he performs in another film, fire him on the spot. If not, let the man do the job he wants to do.

 

[Loveless]

Is a morality clause surrounding teachers not engaging in pornography a positive thing?

It shouldn't be necessary but it kind of makes sense, teachers are meant to be role models and anything that undermines that position is a problem.

Should Loftis be on probation for two years, since it was deemed he violated no morality clause?

There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start.
1. Since he violated no policy, any form of punishment is extremely questionable.
2. Calling it probation is positioning this as a crime, which it is not
3. The existence of this probationary period means his employment is extremely vulnerable for the next 2 years and if the school doesn't want him, they'll find a different reason to fire him.
4. It's ludicrous to impose a 2 year probation. Does that mean he can moonlight in gay porn after the 2 years is up? Legally he could argue the existence of this ban implies that once it's over, he can do what he wants without fear of termination and what's more, he'd win. The school has dug themselves into a hole with that.
5. Are all the other teachers allowed to do porn, seeing as they're not under this descriminatory probation?

Since he returned to porn after being fired, should Loftis have been re-hired as a teacher?

He was fired illegally, was no longer a teacher, he can do what he wants in that time off. His rehiring probably wasn't voluntary so the question is should he have been fired in the first place.
There's an argument here that failure to disclose employment history is grounds for dismissal, I'm not sure what US law says about that so I'll have to pass on that subject. Aside from that though, there's no real grounds to fire him as he hasn't broken the law, wasn't violating school rules while he was employed and you can't fire someone for their past when technically they've done nothing wrong.

 

[Mustang Sally]

As he and the article said, it's not illegal and he was told that he wouldn't be teaching anymore, so why not do it?

The only thing I can think of is that he had issued an appeal to the Board of Education after being fired. Obviously, he was hoping the appeal would result in his reinstatement, so wouldn't it behoove him to not engage in any behavior the authorities would deem inappropriate while the appeal process was taking place?

That said, if the man did nothing wrong, there should have been no probationary period once he was reinstated......but if they decided he had violated his morality clause, he should never have been reinstated. My guess is that counsel for the Board of Education and/or the Florida Education Practices Commission warned that the teacher might prevail in a lawsuit, so they decided to let him back in.

The fact is that he wasn't engaged in the porn industry while teaching, so he violated no clause......so, he gets reinstated.

Two questions come to mind:

1) When first applying for the teaching position, wasn't he required to list all his former occupations? If he did, and they hired him anyway, they shouldn't have fired him later......but if he omitted prior employment details, that might have been a valid reason to terminate, no? Really, what did he tell them he was doing for a living right before he became a teacher?

2) Now that he's back, if students taunt him about his porno past and make his position as an authority figure untenable......well, that's tough rocks on him, isn't it?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It never ceases to amaze me that people in this day and age are still trying to legislate morality through views on sex. If this man was a convicted pedophile, then there'd be a more than justified reason to not hire him back. Pornography, however, is legal in the United States and that includes gay porn as well. However, he was told that he couldn't teach, so he found another way to pay the bills.

Now if he were still pursuing his porn career while still trying to teach, I could understand the position opposed to permitting him to teach again to a certain degree. He's going to have a difficult task ahead of him as it is. It's hard enough getting students to behave, pay attention & do their assignments already, so factor in the difficulty they could present after having searched online and viewed some of his porn scenes.

Personally, I don't think it's the porn aspect that bothers some people so much as the fact that he's homosexual. He is living in Florida after all which, as a whole, is among the most vehement opposition for any and all things related to homosexuality. There's also a huge double standard when it comes to gay men and women. I have a feeling that if this teacher was an attractive woman that dabbled in lesbian porn, there wouldn't be all that much of a fussed raised. After all, we see it in the media all the time where lesbians are portrayed as cool and gay men are still portrayed as the weak, weird sissies.

To me, the idea of a morality clause is ludicrous in and of itself. Aside from subjects we can all agree on, such as people committing sex crimes, murder, acts of terrorism, habitual drug use, etc., who are a bunch of school board suits to determine what is and what isn't moral? Again, it all comes back to the demonization of sex that still plagues our country. Even before we became an independent nation, American was basically founded by prudes that saw damn near everything as evil and sinful.

 

[H33LTurn]

A lot of guys get involved in the gay porn industry because they're severely low on cash. If the guy is a teacher it shows he was doing something semi good for society and had moved up the ladder. Theres no correlation between the two jobs and the chance that a student would run into the videos is slim to none. I would love to see the kid who brags about watching gay porn in today's society. The issue was completely fine until they decided to make this public. Now theres and actual problem with students having more of an opportunity of finding out that their teacher did porn, watching the videos, and somehow being disrespectful to him over it in class.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The morality clause makes sense. Teachers are meant to be role models for their students and need to live up to standards set up by the school so that the students' families will feel comfortable sending their children to that school. I don't have a problem with Loftis having been involved with the adult film industry in the past. What he did before he started teaching is his own choice. However, he was on probation and had been told to NOT return to the porn industry. The man even stated that he had "left it in the past". How do we know that he was being honest in this statement, given his recent actions?

Loftis should not be hired as a teacher again. He agreed to not return to the porn industry, but as we see in the article he did in fact go back. I'm certain that there will be parents or guardians who would feel uncomfortable with someone involved on multiple occassions with adult films to teach their children. How is any school going to be able to trust him to not go back again if he already did it when he had agreed to leave it in the past? Loftis even said "it's in the past". It obviously isn't if he returned. I say he should not be re-hired as a teacher due to trust issues. Don't say you have left something in the past if you plan on doing it again, that's dishonest, and we need more honest trustworthy teachers these days.

 

[LSN80]

Why shouldn't he be allowed to return?

He was told that he wasn't going to be able to teach, so he did something else to pay his bills. Loftis had no idea the school board would change its mind. Maybe he made more money making porn than he would have doing something else. As he and the article said, it's not illegal and he was told that he wouldn't be teaching anymore, so why not do it?

Fair enough, he was told he wouldn't be teaching anymore....in that school district. What he did in his time off was his business, but wouldn't it have made more sense for him to pursue a job in teaching elsewhere? To me, this was a rogue school district making an absurd decision based on an irrelevant past. The Board of Education realized the injustice of his termination, and essentially, forced the Dade School District to take him back.

The point I'm trying to make is this. Loftis was pursuing this heavily, both through the ACLU and the Florida Board of Education. His argument, a valid one, was that what he did was in the past, and had no bearing on his current position. So why choose to go back to pornography, the life he "left behind", especially when he was trying to get his job back? Why possibly jeopardize the appeal by doing the thing he was fired for in the first place?

I have no moral issue with what he did, and he had the right to earn a living. It makes sense to go back to what you know and are comfortable with as well. What doesn't make sense is, while trying to get his job back, doing the very thing that got him fired, just or not. It's not his morality I'm questioning, it's his judgment.

As for him returning to porn and being rehired, this is a simple one to me: the guy had to make money somehow. He was fired from one job, so he went and got another job. This doesn't sound like a very complicated situation to me. If you got fired from your job and were told that there was no way you were getting back into that field, would you get a job in a different industry?

I see your point. But let's look at this from another angle.

I'm a psychologist, a job that requires me to put no pressure on my knees, feet, or back. But while I was in graduate school, I worked as a waiter. It was quick cash, and I was good at it. But one of the most common issues I saw crop up, and it happened alot, was co-workers in the food serving industry becoming addicted to painkillers as a result of the work. I even saw some go to rehab as a result.

Even though it's not, let's say it was me for a minute. Say I got hooked while waitering on legal painkillers, taking them as prescribed. But I couldn't work without them, realized it was a problem, and went to rehab to get off them. I'm my own boss, but let's pretend I'm not. The mental health industry is a zero-tolerance one, and let's say I work for the state as a therapist, rather then myself. My employer finds out about my past addiction problems, worries it will compromise my ability to do my job, and unjustly fires me. I go through the process of appeal, but....

Would it make sense for me to go back to waitering, which caused me problems in the first place? It wasn't the job, per se, but it was the effects of the job that cost me my job. Even though its easy money, why even risk jeopardizing being in the field I love by going back to the thing that started the cycle, just or not, in the first place? That's where I struggle to wrap my head around Loftis' decision to go back to porn.

The morality clause makes sense. Teachers are meant to be role models for their students and need to live up to standards set up by the school so that the students' families will feel comfortable sending their children to that school.

My problem with the morality clause is this: Where do you draw the line between what's moral, and what's not? In the case of the Miami Dade school district, their clause makes no sense whatsoever. Why? Because of the incredibly vague nature of it. Let's look at it again.

"Teachers are expected to conduct themselves both in their employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system."

What does this mean, exactly? It doesn't lay out specifics of what conduct is forbidden, it just makes a simple statement about "reflecting credit" upon themselves, and the school. So what exactly qualifies as things that don't "reflect credit?" Is it having a couple drinks, or is it getting sloppy drunk? Is it sleeping with another teacher, or sleeping with a married teacher? This "morality clause" comes across to me as entirely disingenuous, as if it's set up to say "gotcha" to a teacher based on an attempt to legislate disjointed morality.

As an employer myself, I have a simple morality clause. No drugs, no alcohol. Does that mean my employers can't drink alcohol at all? No. It means that while they're on my time, they can't have alcohol in their system. This discourages them from getting sloppy drunk the night before, as there could be alcohol still in their system the next day. They signed forms agreeing to this policy, and to random testing. But the only time I'd test them is if I saw erratic behavior, and in three years, other then initial screenings, I've yet to conduct a test. To me, that's a fair and balanced policy.

However, he was on probation and had been told to NOT return to the porn industry. The man even stated that he had "left it in the past". How do we know that he was being honest in this statement, given his recent actions?

Actually, he had been fired, and was appealing his firing. Noone told him not to return to the porn industry, it was simply the reason he was fired. However, I agree regarding the honesty of his statements. If the industry was something he truly had left behind, why did he head right back there upon being fired? Still, it was on his own time. I think his decision to return to porn, needing the money or not, was incredibly stupid considering he was appealing his firing for his past in that very field. It's dumb at best and arrogant at worst to return to porn when you have no idea if the Board of Education is going to side with you, especially since the porn industry was his present while he was in the process of appeals.

Loftis should not be hired as a teacher again. He agreed to not return to the porn industry, but as we see in the article he did in fact go back.

No he didn't. He was simply appealing the decision to fire him based on the fact that he was out of the porn industry during the time he was teaching. And upon being re-hired, he left the industry again. The school, the Board of Education, and those who are soveireign over his licensure have no grounds to prevent him from teaching again.

I'm certain that there will be parents or guardians who would feel uncomfortable with someone involved on multiple occassions with adult films to teach their children.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Technically, during his past and now his current time as a teacher, he wasn't and isn't involved in the pornography industry. Any uproar from parents is unfounded and incredibly biased based on outdated morality which demands a man not be able to teach based on his past, during which he did nothing illegal. If it isn't integrated into his curriculum, and he's an effective teacher, how does him having done porn in the past affect his ability to effectively teach children?

How is any school going to be able to trust him to not go back again if he already did it when he had agreed to leave it in the past?

Except he never agreed to leave it in the past. It's simply something he returned to after losing his job.

Loftis even said "it's in the past". It obviously isn't if he returned. I say he should not be re-hired as a teacher due to trust issues. Don't say you have left something in the past if you plan on doing it again, that's dishonest, and we need more honest trustworthy teachers these days.

I don't see the trust issues. I see a man being incredibly stupid in his decision making when he was trying to get his job back. Even though he did nothing illegal, what he did was the exact same thing that got him fired. Still, he violated no trust, because he made no promises. Further, since he was no longer employed by the school district, any promises he made couldn't be held against him, because he was no longer an employee. The statement he made about it "being in the past" was made after he was rehired. It was in the very recent past, but what he said was the truth.

 

[klunderbunker]

Fair enough, he was told he wouldn't be teaching anymore....in that school district. What he did in his time off was his business, but wouldn't it have made more sense for him to pursue a job in teaching elsewhere? To me, this was a rogue school district making an absurd decision based on an irrelevant past. The Board of Education realized the injustice of his termination, and essentially, forced the Dade School District to take him back.

The point I'm trying to make is this. Loftis was pursuing this heavily, both through the ACLU and the Florida Board of Education. His argument, a valid one, was that what he did was in the past, and had no bearing on his current position. So why choose to go back to pornography, the life he "left behind", especially when he was trying to get his job back? Why possibly jeopardize the appeal by doing the thing he was fired for in the first place?

I have no moral issue with what he did, and he had the right to earn a living. It makes sense to go back to what you know and are comfortable with as well. What doesn't make sense is, while trying to get his job back, doing the very thing that got him fired, just or not. It's not his morality I'm questioning, it's his judgment.



I see your point. But let's look at this from another angle.

I'm a psychologist, a job that requires me to put no pressure on my knees, feet, or back. But while I was in graduate school, I worked as a waiter. It was quick cash, and I was good at it. But one of the most common issues I saw crop up, and it happened alot, was co-workers in the food serving industry becoming addicted to painkillers as a result of the work. I even saw some go to rehab as a result.

Even though it's not, let's say it was me for a minute. Say I got hooked while waitering on legal painkillers, taking them as prescribed. But I couldn't work without them, realized it was a problem, and went to rehab to get off them. I'm my own boss, but let's pretend I'm not. The mental health industry is a zero-tolerance one, and let's say I work for the state as a therapist, rather then myself. My employer finds out about my past addiction problems, worries it will compromise my ability to do my job, and unjustly fires me. I go through the process of appeal, but....

Would it make sense for me to go back to waitering, which caused me problems in the first place? It wasn't the job, per se, but it was the effects of the job that cost me my job. Even though its easy money, why even risk jeopardizing being in the field I love by going back to the thing that started the cycle, just or not, in the first place? That's where I struggle to wrap my head around Loftis' decision to go back to porn.

My first guess, and I have no proof to back this up, but my assumption is that it was about the quick money. Being a substitute teacher doesn't sound like something that was going to pay the bills and leave a lot left over. With no other income, maybe he was in need of quick money to pay his rent and he knew he could make a quick paycheck by performing.

As for the example with being a waiter, I think the difference would be that (and I'm assuming this is true but I could very well be wrong) if you were fired by the state, you would be able to go into private practice? With teaching, it's not such an easy move. There really isn't a private sector to teach in. As for why he didn't teach elsewhere, maybe it wasn't financially possible?

 

[SavageTaker]

You're probably right KB. Gay porn stars, even if it's gay for pay, earn a lot more money just for shooting one scene than a straight porn star. So I can understand why he involved himself in the porn industry if he really had no other option and why he chose to do gay porn.

Is a morality clause surrounding teachers not engaging in pornography a positive thing?

Eh, like KB said, it could be good or bad. Even though he really hasn't done anything wrong or illegal, having been a porn could definitely be a big distraction. But we have to remember, he's a substitute teacher. Normally they are in different classes each day and sometimes not even in the same school. A lot of the time, they have to travel throughout the county they work just to get payed for a day. So ultimately, in this case it's not a huge issue from my point of view since he's just a sub but I guess it would be good if it was for a permanent, full time teacher.

Should Loftis be on probation for two years, since it was deemed he violated no morality clause?

Like everyone else said, no he should not be on probation. Just think of it like this, if someone was found not guilty of murder and any other charges filed against them then they are not guilty period. If you're not guilty then they aren't going to still put you in jail for 10 years or do another trial for the same thing since we don't allow double jeopardy. What's the point of having laws, policies, etc. if people are going to be punished whether they break them or not?

Since he returned to porn after being fired, should Loftis have been re-hired as a teacher?

Yes. He is participating in something that is lawful. There is no law in America that says just because you've been in porn you can't be a teacher. Now, if they don't rehire and can make a good case for it such as being a distraction for example, then I might agree. But just because he returned to porn doesn't mean he shouldn't be re-hired.

Some times I feel like people don't really realize how bad the economy is. People have to pay for mortgages, electricity and other bills. What else do you expect for the man to do if maybe he can't find another "regular," job? Just sit at home until the electricity is cut off and until he is starving because he can't afford food? Get out of here. The man did what he had to do to earn money and be able to survive, it may not be the ideal job but at least it's better than him just getting food stamps and living off the government.

 

[Gore Illa]

Lmfao why is this not clear.

If you were in middle/high school and your teacher used to be a gay pornstar, you're lying through your teeth if you tell me you'd respect his authority and take him seriously. It would be a constant distraction.

"Stop talking or I'll . . . "

"Take a fat one?!"

The endless jokes write themselves. Dude needs to become a telephone salesman or something. Something that doesn't involve him dealing with such an immature age group.

 

[LSN80]

I missed this before.

My first guess, and I have no proof to back this up, but my assumption is that it was about the quick money. Being a substitute teacher doesn't sound like something that was going to pay the bills and leave a lot left over. With no other income, maybe he was in need of quick money to pay his rent and he knew he could make a quick paycheck by performing.

I'd bet money on it. And from a strictly financial standpoint, it was a very smart move. Although he was heavy in appeals, there was no guarantee he would get his job back. If he lost his appeal, he likely would have been blacklisted from teaching in the state. I just wonder what thought he put into what should have been a really tough judgment call here.

I don't want to use the word morality here, because that's not what it's about. He was on his own time, not the school's. I just feel it was.....unwise. Obviously teaching was incredibly important to him, as he was fighting hard to get back. I don't see this as him solely "standing up fr his principles" type of thing.

Quick, easy money or not, and Im sure it was, it seems to me he took an incredible risk here. Returning to the thing that was the catalyst that got him fired, unjust or not, was a risky proposition. WOuld it have been fair for the Board of Education to say "It's not in his past, he went right back to dong this "immoral" job"? No.

But I don't see it as a stretch for them using it as the "out" they needed to deny his appeal.

As for the example with being a waiter, I think the difference would be that (and I'm assuming this is true but I could very well be wrong) if you were fired by the state, you would be able to go into private practice?

This would go back to the "easy money" argument. Setting up a private practice is incredibly expensive. When you work for the state or an agency, they cover you with their licensure, liability insurance, and their building. In private practice, you're responsible for all of those things yourself.

So yes, you can make the transition. As with teaching, unless they pull your license, you can practice as you please. But the start-up costs are enormous, and the easy way would be to go back to the job that provided easy money, at least initially, which would have been as a waiter.

With teaching, it's not such an easy move. There really isn't a private sector to teach in. As for why he didn't teach elsewhere, maybe it wasn't financially possible?

That's true, in his case. There are private schools, but it's not as if a Catholic or Christian school, which most private are, would be willing to take on a former gay porn star to their staff. And as for teaching elsewhere, you're right, it's easier said then done. Who's to say someoe else would have hired him, given his current situation?

He needed to do what was right for him in terms of making a living and paying his bills, no question. Without knowing his financial situation, he may very well have needed the quick payday in order to stay above water.

 

[Larry]

Is a morality clause surrounding teachers not engaging in pornography a positive thing?

I don't really see it as one way or the other(Bad/Good). It makes sense, obviously I don't think any school district would want their students seeing the same teacher they hand their homework in to engaging in explicit sexual acts in pornographic films for obvious reasons. That kind of "complicates" the student-teacher relationship at the least, and could really end up being very damaging to the school, the teacher, or even the students in a sense depending on what they actually saw, lol. I could easily see some parents getting in a big uproar about it too, but that's besides the point. I would maybe be a little concerned that on the off chance a student did see their teacher in a pornographic film, they may be enticed to pursue sexual acts with the teacher. That may not be likely, but Mary Kay Letourneau didn't seen like a likely candidate for her little scandal either.

Should Loftis be on probation for two years, since it was deemed he violated no morality clause?

No. Simple as that.

Since he returned to porn after being fired, should Loftis have been re-hired as a teacher?

Absolutely. He shouldn't have been fired in the first place. As was noted be previous respondents, this guy didn't know if he was getting his job back, so he went to make money where he knew he could.