Philosophically, there are intrinsic and extrinsic objections to Mrs. Pettit’s behavior. Intrinsic objections state that the behavior is morally wrong regardless of the consequences of it, while extrinsic objections propose the behavior is not wrong, but the outcome is morally unacceptable. In this case, the intrinsic objections involve the act of group oral sex while extrinsic objections are the potential impact on her students in the event of discovery. Classical theories of ethical behavior may assist in clarification. Utilitarians believe that benefits to society as a whole take precedence over individuals; in other words, the most good for the most people (Brannigan & Boss, 2001). Emmanuel Kant proposes that man is an intelligent animal, but may still act impulsively (Kant & Guyer, 2000). This is why society must have rules of conduct and laws; Kantian theory states that the morality of the act is more important than the result. The problem with the conduct of teachers in private is that people are not always either rational or irrational. If Mrs. Pettit thought her actions were to be made public, she probably would not have indulged them. Rationally, she must have considered that possibility. However, her irrationality may have convinced her there was small possibility of detection. Choices are rarely completely right or completely wrong; they usually lie in degrees. Therefore, Kant’s philosophy blends with utilitarianism as Mrs. Pettit had to decide if the risks outweighed the benefits. The School Board, on the other hand, appears to subscribe to virtue ethics. This belief states that there are ideals to which each person must adhere to allow full personal development (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1988); the allegation may have been that her lack of development would inhibit the personal growth of her students.
The discussion of the case employs a number of elements. First, the School Board was not justified in terminating her ability to teach for several reasons. The disciplinary action took place over two years after the offense and her competence was never brought into question. She did not openly practice her lifestyle in public places; her arrest took place in a situation where the behavior was acceptable. While Mrs. Pettit did appear on television, she attempted to cover her identity in order to avoid negative influence on her students. There was no definite way to determine the meaning of the terms “immoral” and “unfit” related to the behavior. It was not possible to state her behavior was “unprofessional” because it occurred outside the context of her job. As there were no allegations that at any time her unusual lifestyle became apparent in her workplace, stating her behavior was unprofessional would be in error. While many members of the general public feel authority figures such as police officers, church figures, and teachers should personify moral traits, what these people do out of the public eye should not be considered a violation of their ability to perform their jobs. Every American citizen has the right to behave as they wish as long if they are not breaking a law or intruding on the rights of others. It may even be argued that Mrs. Petitt was subjected to discrimination against her right to her lifestyle by the actions of the School Board. The only time when employers have a right to investigate the activities of their employees is if there is a suspicion that the behavior is illegal or if it reflects poorly on the company if made public.
In conclusion, Mrs. Pettit did not engage in behavior that she felt would impact her students; the behavior took place in a private location not accessible by children. Her prior teaching performance was not stated to be unacceptable. Previous Supreme Court rulings upheld the right of a teacher to perform sexual acts outside of those considered the norm while in private. Mrs. Pettit was charged with a misdemeanor and while this may have been grounds for dismissal, it generally is not used for such. In addition, her civil liberty of the right of privacy was violated by the officer arresting her since the location was not considered to be public. Therefore, Mrs. Pettit should not have been relieved of her teaching license and should have been allowed to continue to teach.
References
Baugh, D. (2011). The Consequences of Criminal Convictions for Misdemeanor or Felony
Offenses. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, 18(1), 55-71.
Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol18/iss1/7
Betweli, O. (2013). The Nature of Teacher Professional Misconduct in Tanzanian Public Primary
Schools: The Case of Sumbawanga Municipal and Rural Districts. IJE, 5(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ije.v5i1.3291
Brannigan, M. & Boss, J. (2001). Healthcare ethics in a diverse society. Mountain View, Calif.:
Mayfield Pub. Co.
Justia Law. (1969). Morrison v. State Board of Education. Justia Law. Retrieved 31 May 2016,
Kant, I. & Guyer, P. (2000). Critique of the power of judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Lep.utm.edu. (2016). Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 31 May 2016, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/.
Shaw, W. (2014). Business ethics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
