Some time ago I wrote about the case of Anna Ciriani (What has sex got to do with it?) who lost her job as teacher in Italy because of her extra curricular activities as an internet porn star. I argued that provided that these activities didn’t interfere with her classroom professionalism and delivery, that she should not have been sacked. I really do believe that it is wrong to go down the road of judging teachers on the basis of what they do or don’t do outside of the classroom.
After I wrote that piece I was saddened to learn of the case of Kent Gramm (What has divorce got to do with it?) who felt he had to resign his position as a professor at an American evangelical college because he was unwilling to discuss his recent divorce with his employers.
In some ways I found Gramm’s case more disturbing than Ciriani’s. I didn’t expect much readership support for my stance on Ciriani. The public, after all, have to be seen to be condemning a intelligent woman who has made a free choice about taking her clothes off for money, despite the hypocrisy that exists in society about pornography (much moral outrage and public condemnation, much private support and usage). Gramm’s case was more disturbing because of the high divorce rate that exists in society. His employers seem to be condemning not an ‘obviously immoral act’, but what amounts to common behaviour amongst fallible human beings, and carrying that condemnation over to influence employment and career prospects.
I note, of course, that both cases took place against a backcloth of a religious culture which seems strange and oppressive to someone living in the relative freedom of the west - Ciriani in Roman Catholic dominated Italy, and Gramm in a Evangelical American College.
A similar case arose this week in Spain - in a country that some see as trying to struggle free its Roman Catholic domination. The Catholic News agency reports that in Madrid, the Supreme Court has stripped the Diocese of Canarias of the right to determine the qualifications of teachers hired to teach the Catholic faith.
The court ruled this week in favor of a woman who is living with another man outside of marriage, whom the Diocese said was incompetent to teach religion.
According to the court ruling, the diocese would have to give back pay totaling $12,888 to Maria del Carmen Galayo.
Galayo, who is still married but is separated and in new union outside the Church, was let go by the diocese, which said her situation of adultery was not compatible with the moral principles the Church publicly requires for teaching religion to minors.
With the support of the local media, Galayo filed a lawsuit claiming Church officials had “unduly interfered in her private life,” and demanded not only economic compensation but also that she be given back her teaching position.
The Court ruled against an appeal by the diocese of a lower court ruling, which means the diocese will have to pay Galayo for lost wages. The diocese could appeal to the Constitutional Court to retain the right to refuse to allow Galayo to return to her teaching post.
The absurdity behind the Church’s position is that it seems to be assuming two things:
- In order to teach religion, the teacher has to be a practising ‘insider’. This, of course, may be useful if the Church sees the job of the school as being that of proselytizing rather than of educating. However, if the role of the school is to educate, any competent teacher would be able to teach about religion. Some of the best RE teachers I have known when working in secondary schools in the UK had no faith (other than perhaps hedonism).
- I assume that the Church is assuming that Religious Education means teaching about the Roman Catholic faith and that it must have practising and obedient Catholics to teach that faith. There may be a case for including the study of religion on the curriculum, but I would want to argue that there shouldn’t be a case for teaching only Roman Catholicism, and then for demanding that it be taught by only obedient Catholics. That’s hardly education!
I am glad that the Diocese of Canarias has lost its case. I want to argue that those looking to employ teachers should be looking to employ good teachers - regardless of whether or not they are good Catholics.
At one time in my career I spent 15 years teaching teachers how to teach and assessing teaching performance. Good teachers need to have a good subject knowledge, need to be organised and to be able to plan well, need to know the learning styles and needs of their students, need to be very creative and imaginative in their use of resources and in their teaching methods, and they need a strong interpersonal style and classroom presence. In all my experience of assessing teaching performance it never once entered my head to inquire about what bed the teachers were ’sleeping’ in and with whom!
What has adultery got to do with it?
This has been a well argued blog. I like how you have tied in the other two cases. Feels those examples give this blog more bite, substance and power.
You will remember that I argued with great force against the first case, believing that there is a public image to uphold.
Since then I am brave and hopefully mature enough to say that, with time, and with more thinking and thought on this subject, I feel I was too hasty in making that first observation and decision
Opinions, in the light of new thinking, changes views and mine has.
Therefore, I now agree with what you are saying here and feel my earlier position in the first case was wrong.
This feeling actually does not have anything to do with my own questioning faith, merely a shift in thought and having looked more at the whole question of false assumptions and being to quick to jump at conclusions and believes without, perhaps, thinking through the whole argument.
The last paragraph is wonderfully put and the last two sentences the punch line.
I can see why I have the qualities, I hope, of being a good teacher and nope, who I choose to sleep with has nothing to do with my ability at all in any area of my work.
Let me judged on my competence to do the job in hand and little else.
I agree with you of course. My views on these issues mirror yours almost exactly - in all three cases including that of the porn star. What people choose to do in their private lives is fine (so long as they don’t rip off their clothes in the classroom or bring in videos for pupil viewing) as long as it is not against the law.
I don’t, of course, think that there should be state-funded religious schools even though I went to one myself and escaped unscathed with a good education.
In my limited personal experience, some of the best teachers I had, had rather colourful backgrounds and lifestyle experiences. They were often those who had the most power to captivate us - not because they talked about those experiences in particular but just because they were those who did not always tow the line and had ventured out of the safe zone. Those who stay safe within their subject don’t have the advantage of being able to see it from the outside as well as the inside.
I need to think about this a bit more. Perhaps I’ll post again with a clearer head later.
But, it occurs to me, since morality based on a fear of God is what the teacher of religion will be teaching. And, in the eyes of the church, such teacher will–hopefully–be convincing the pupils to abide by the rules, the least that could be expected is that the teacher will be convinced that following the rules is a good thing.
Or, would you hire a writing teacher who doesn’t truly believe that good grammar is that important?
Would you hire a driving instructor that speeds or drinks and drives?
The problem I see is that good behaviour needs to be modeled. Parents are often told that they should not lie to their kids, because the kids always know when something smells fishy.
I wouldn’t hire a piano teacher that slouches when she plays. Somehow, even if she tells me not to, I may end up being a sloucher.
My two cents.
onethoughtfulwoman
I am not surprised that you disagreed with my first posting on Anna. I think most people would have done, especially women. Pornography is a difficult subject. I think I was just annoyed by the hypocrisy in society about the subject and felt that she shouldn’t have lost her job over it. Changing minds is good, and something we are free to do if not governed by a Book.
Reluctant Blogger
I am pleased that you agree with me, though surprised in a way that that agreement includes my stance on Anna because I thought pornography was an especially touchy subject for women.
I agree with you about some good teachers having ‘interesting’ lives. Like psychotherapists, what teachers present to their pupils, apart from knowledge and skill, is nothing but themselves. If they are strong characters, they are bound to inspire curiosity, if nothing else.
Lorena
Thanks for your comments. If I have understood you correctly, I think I disagree with the basic premise behind your argument. To me, you seem to be assuming that the purpose of Religious Education is to impart some sort of morality or quasi-religous behaviour. In my view, that is the church’s job, not the school’s. If it were the school’s job, I would agree with you that RE teachers should be moral insiders who practise the morality they are trying to impart.
However, most educationalists (in the UK at least) would agree that the job of the RE teacher is not to impart morality or religious faith, but to teach information about religion so that pupils can understand the faiths of the culture around them. In that sense RE teachers are no different to History teachers of Biology teachers. Provided they have good subject knowledge and teaching skill, their out of school morality is of no concern to me.
I would not employ a driving instructor who speeds and drink-drives because those things impinge on his or her professional competence. You can’t be a driving instructor on the basis of book knowledge only (whereas in the UK you could be an RE teacher). I wouldn’t employ English teachers who didn’t believe in appropriate grammar in certain forms of communication, again because that is part of their professional competence. They have to be able to practice certain skills. However, there is no requirement for an RE teacher to practise any faith when teaching students about the beliefs of Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc. Indeed, it would be absurd to expect the teacher to be an inside practitioner of each faith, let alone of the multitude of sub-divisions in each faith.
I would rather have a skilled driving instructor than a bad one - regardless of who he or she was sleeping with. I would rather have a good dentist or surgeon rather than a bad one - regardless of who he or she was sleeping with. I would rather be taught by a good teacher than a bad one - regardless of who he or she was sleeping with.
Pornography? Well, I thought the issue was not whether we approved or did not approve of pornography itself or the legislation relating to it, but whether we felt a person’s choice of legal activity in their personal life should affect their ability to keep their job.
I don’t think you can judge a person’s ability to be a good teacher or even role model on such a simplistic and moralistic basis. I think I might possibly prefer someone who worked as a porn star to be a teacher of my children than someone dull who never left home except to go to work and who had never worked in any other job than that of teacher. But it would depend entirely on their abilities to teach.
I do clearly have views on pornography itself but that is a whole different topic.
Perhaps I did misunderstand you. In my homeland, only religious schools teach Religion. Parents send their kids to those schools with the exclusive purpose of having them learn good morals.
I was educated at a Baptist school where everything went around Jesus. We prayed before classes every day. It was like a never-ending Sunday school. That’s how I became such a prude.
Lorena
I agree. I think that our cultural different experiences of school and of education systems has naturally informed our different opinions.