[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Itse

"Moral character?" Sorry to say but I find that kind of moralism more than a little funny in the context of this thread.

Teachers have been banging students thoughout history, these were consenting adults, there is no proof (or even a case made it seems) that this somehow seriously affected her ability to do her job and frankly that's all there is to this. Young stupid people having wild sex, breaking social norms. Nothing really bad happened before a bunch of Murricans started getting their panties in a knot in moral outrage.

She, as the woman, the teacher and the oldest person involved gets heat for it, somewhat deservedly and to some extent not.

What she did created a serious image and credibility problem for her personally, and there's a good reason for the law protecting students being in place, but when people start getting into what a certain specific person, in this case her husband, should think about this or what he propably thinks about this, we are getting into the dark waters of unhealthy moralism.

What I find most sad is that once again you are seem to be assuming that he propably married her without knowing what she's like as a person. Maybe they share the same values, maybe they agree that the concept of "moral character" you seem to be rooting for is outdated, impractical and a misogynistic double-standard. Maybe they get a huge kick out of breaking moral standards. Maybe he's just not a "moral standards" kind of a guy.

Now, there's a good reason to try and protect young people from those who have authority over them, but the fact that they might actually put this woman in jail for 20 years to me only shows what a backwater country the US is in some ways.

Why should it matter if they were consenting adults (as you point out in your first line)? Because it's against the law, or do you honestly care about some arbitrary number (discussed ad nauseum in the other thread)? If it honestly matters to you because it's against the law, then it should also matter to you that what she did with her position as a teacher and their positions as students is also against the law. Otherwise, why only be concerned about one law and not others?

She didn't do what she did inside a vacuum (heh). It does more than harm her credibility and image -- what a simplistic way of looking at it -- it reflects poorly on the entire school and those who hire the teachers, and undermines the positions of authority other teachers at the school require to work (excusing this behaviour would do wonders for the respect hormone-dominated teenage boys have for other female teachers). In a nation that already possesses an unhealthy picture of their school system, instances like this can do nothing but harm it further.

Now, obviously, I believe upholding the professionalism of a position, especially in a position of authority, respecting the trust put into you by your employers and the trust of the families that may send their children and adolescents to your place of employment, and upholding the law even if you may disagree with it is morally right. You may call that "unhealthy moralism," but I would then call your position unhealthy moral nihilism.