05.16.05
Posted in faith at 11:04 am by
I’ve continued my discussion of the Michigan teacher firing for becoming pregnant two months before her wedding with a commenter, and I felt that some of this conversation was worthy of a blog entry. You can read this entry and it’s comments for a bit of context.
I don’t question the legality of firing this particular teacher on the basis of what she did. The school is likely well within their rights to so do. My question is whether or not it was right for the school to do according to the moral code they lay out for themselves.
For example, does a teacher get fired every time they’re found to fall short of the mark? Does that school give an administrator the axe each time she committs the sin of pride? Of course not, if they did, there wouldn’t be any employees!
So, then the question becomes: What makes what this teacher did worse than the grievances of others? Is it the undeniable publicness of the sin? Is it the fact that she actually got pregnant? After all, without the fertilization of her egg, she wouldn’t have been fired, likely no one would’ve ever found out. It does cause one to speculate how many other women haven’t quite made it to the marriage bed with their virginity intact and simply didn’t end up pregnant.
More importantly, isn’t this just another example of male priviliege? I can virtually guarrantee you that there are males in the same school system that have engaged in extra-marital sex that are happily employed at the school to this day. And, for that matter, according to the moral code in question, how many of those employees have engaged in some sort of sexual behavior–even if that behavior stopped somewhere short of the actual act of intercourse? Men, once again, escape without being scathed by the pious torch of Christianity, while women are left out to burn at the stake.
So, Brandon, if you believe all sin to be on an even plane, are there any sins that require the dismissal of an employee? Of course there are. Sins like murder, rape, etc. seriously compromise a school teacher’s ability to do their job. Aside from the fact that the purpetrator of such crimes would likely find themselves in a state prison, those crimes would raise doubts about the safety of the children in that employees classroom. Essentially, the employees ability to do their job would be compromised.
But is that really what happened in this situation? Was this teacher’s ability to do her job compromised? Certainly, many teachers have taught through their pregnancy. Many more teachers have taught while they were sexually active (not concurrently, you perverts) with their mates. So, the argument that the school administrators are trying to make must be that this instructor’s premarital sex was an act so grievous that it put her first-graders in danger, or otherwise compromised her ability to do her job. I mean, for crying out loud: she didn’t get an abortion. Had she gotten an abortion–she’d still have her job. I’m just shocked by the number of things that this teacher’s seemingly done right AFTER becoming pregnant that would’ve saved her her job if she’d simply been a little less virtuous. It’s almost like she loses her job for doing the right thing.
My biggest beef about the situation, though, would be that the school probably isn’t as diligently as it should be about tracking down the sexual habits of all it’s male employees. Seems to me like they’re able to get off the hook pretty easily. They can run around sticking their dicks wherever they so please without fear of any sort of reprocussion. Yet, a woman gets pregnant two months before her wedding, marries the father, keeps the child, etc. and she gets fired.
That makes me go hmmmm…
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/05/16/more_on_the_firing_of_the_teacher/trackback/
Posted in faith at 11:04 am by
I’ve continued my discussion of the Michigan teacher firing for becoming pregnant two months before her wedding with a commenter, and I felt that some of this conversation was worthy of a blog entry. You can read this entry and it’s comments for a bit of context.
I don’t question the legality of firing this particular teacher on the basis of what she did. The school is likely well within their rights to so do. My question is whether or not it was right for the school to do according to the moral code they lay out for themselves.
For example, does a teacher get fired every time they’re found to fall short of the mark? Does that school give an administrator the axe each time she committs the sin of pride? Of course not, if they did, there wouldn’t be any employees!
So, then the question becomes: What makes what this teacher did worse than the grievances of others? Is it the undeniable publicness of the sin? Is it the fact that she actually got pregnant? After all, without the fertilization of her egg, she wouldn’t have been fired, likely no one would’ve ever found out. It does cause one to speculate how many other women haven’t quite made it to the marriage bed with their virginity intact and simply didn’t end up pregnant.
More importantly, isn’t this just another example of male priviliege? I can virtually guarrantee you that there are males in the same school system that have engaged in extra-marital sex that are happily employed at the school to this day. And, for that matter, according to the moral code in question, how many of those employees have engaged in some sort of sexual behavior–even if that behavior stopped somewhere short of the actual act of intercourse? Men, once again, escape without being scathed by the pious torch of Christianity, while women are left out to burn at the stake.
So, Brandon, if you believe all sin to be on an even plane, are there any sins that require the dismissal of an employee? Of course there are. Sins like murder, rape, etc. seriously compromise a school teacher’s ability to do their job. Aside from the fact that the purpetrator of such crimes would likely find themselves in a state prison, those crimes would raise doubts about the safety of the children in that employees classroom. Essentially, the employees ability to do their job would be compromised.
But is that really what happened in this situation? Was this teacher’s ability to do her job compromised? Certainly, many teachers have taught through their pregnancy. Many more teachers have taught while they were sexually active (not concurrently, you perverts) with their mates. So, the argument that the school administrators are trying to make must be that this instructor’s premarital sex was an act so grievous that it put her first-graders in danger, or otherwise compromised her ability to do her job. I mean, for crying out loud: she didn’t get an abortion. Had she gotten an abortion–she’d still have her job. I’m just shocked by the number of things that this teacher’s seemingly done right AFTER becoming pregnant that would’ve saved her her job if she’d simply been a little less virtuous. It’s almost like she loses her job for doing the right thing.
My biggest beef about the situation, though, would be that the school probably isn’t as diligently as it should be about tracking down the sexual habits of all it’s male employees. Seems to me like they’re able to get off the hook pretty easily. They can run around sticking their dicks wherever they so please without fear of any sort of reprocussion. Yet, a woman gets pregnant two months before her wedding, marries the father, keeps the child, etc. and she gets fired.
That makes me go hmmmm…
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/05/16/more_on_the_firing_of_the_teacher/trackback/
Jason said,
May 16, 2005 at 11:33 am
I am sure that this was a wonderful conversation. The saddest part for me was that I could not get beyond the typos and misspelled words to enjoy it fully. To your credit, it looked as though most of them were in response to your arguments, but that is my problem.
Brandon, I think you have a point about male privilege in the “Christian” tradition. The church has always been a place where men have held power close to their chests. Witness the declarations of the Southern Baptist Church and other churches who deny women the right to be ordained, to think for themselves, or even teach “men” beyond a certain grade level. All the while, women tend to hold churches together despite the fact that men are basically spiritual idiots, “sticking their dicks” where ever they do not belong. I, for one, am sick and tired of men believing that they have a lock on spiritual discernment. Furthermore, this particular instance of gender bigotry does not surprise me.
I do agree with the basic premise that sins are on an even plane, that speeding is no worse a sin than murder in the context of a fallen humanity with little hope outside of the beneficent power of God. I also think that grace and forgiveness is about rehabilitation rather than punishment. I don’t think that God sets up a reward/punishment system for creation. If that was the case then grace would be superfluous because rewards and punishments would be handed out according to some cosmic logic. However, as fallen people we are prone to judge and dole out rewards or punishments based on arbitrary conclusions from ancient or current texts and contexts (If you want to be true to the “word” then stone your child next time they refuse to honor their parents, that is what it says in Leviticus).
The only thing left is surround this person, like we should any person who has been on the receiving end of injustice, with love and hope so that they might live their lives with wounds that have been healed rather than open sores that fester…
grace and peace
rsjm said,
May 16, 2005 at 12:04 pm
I’ll be honest with you Brandon. I’ve recently struggled with the line that we, who claim to be Christians, are to follow. On the one hand, this story ticks me off and I’m with you on every one of your points. In fact, a month ago, I would have been more angry than you. Recently, however, I’m finding myself convicted that the Church no longer asks for any kind of holy life, and Christ did. There are plenty of verses that speak of obedience, as a sign of knowing him. Verses I very much struggle with give my disdain for legalism and salvation through works.
I want nothing to do with Pharisetical living, etc… and that’s what I love about this new generation of Christian. This story reeks of that old school mentality. But, on the other hand, I find myself struggling with “is this school trying to be Holy”? Are they trying to live differently from the world and is that such a bad thing? Should I encourage them or be angry at them?
I don’t have an answer, honestly. I’d be interested to know your opinion though. How do you feel? Where is that line of living holy, but not making the “living holy” the “salvation by works” that we can’t stand? Is it better for this school to try to maintain a higher standard or is that just a new set of Pharisees acting as though they have it all together while no one else does?
Do you ever wonder if, as a friend of mine says, we’ve thrown out the baby (holiness) with the bathwater (legalism) and how this story fits in to that? Sorry for blabbing, this one is a tough one for me.
Danny said,
May 16, 2005 at 4:46 pm
To rsjm: Pursuing holiness is a good idea, but what’s more important - trying to look holy or trying to be forgiving, admitting that we all sin and can never be completely holy? I think the latter should be more important.
Summer said,
May 16, 2005 at 5:22 pm
“So, Brandon, if you believe all sin to be on an even plane, are there any sins that require the dismissal of an employee?”
As to the “all sins being equal” issue I figure it as “simple” and “compound” sin. Is pre-marital sex “equal” to adultery? Both are sins. However in the simplest cases, pre-marital sex involves only fornication while adultery involves fornication *and* the breaking of marriage vows. Two sins. Does that make sense?
Perhaps irrelevant to the conversation, but worth mentioning.
And it seems to me that they should be celebrating a teacher who committed a wrong then went ahead and did the best thing possible in the situation.
rsjm said,
May 16, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Danny: I’d agree trying to LOOK holy is not important. However, I would argue trying to BE holy is equally as important as admitting we all sin and can never be be completely holy. Does one have to be better than the other or can they both be equally important?
Jacob said,
May 17, 2005 at 8:26 am
I’ve only recently started reading this blog, but its is one of the more interesting I’ve found, and as long as no one minds the Jewish husband of a soon-to-graduate Presbyterian seminarian taking a peek, I’ll probably stick around.
That said, I think the argument about male privilege comes from the sexual nature of the sin. Sex is the one sin which has uniquely different consequences for women and more than a few minds brighter than my own have noted that many religious authorities have become unnaturally preoccupied with sexual sins. So, a teacher had premarital sex. As far as we know she is not having an abortion, which surely the school would oppose. She’ll carry the baby to term, and this school has just made that harder. We should only hope that her husband has adequate health insurance, although they may count pregnancy as a preexisting condition, who knows?
If they had found that this woman was pregnant before she was married, or if a teacher was pregnant was remained unmarried, what then? She would lose her benefits, forcing her to pay out-of-pocket for prenatal care. God forbid she have a difficult or lengthy delivery, which would saddle her with debt immediately upon the child birth. Then she has to find a job that either allows her to bring the baby to work (relatively few and far between) or pays enough to cover the cost of child care, in which case she would be spending less time with the child.
Again, I recognize that I’m speaking as something of an outsider, but the root of Christianity is not that sin is a public matter, but should be personally avoided. Once committed, there is no way to unring a bell, so sin must be addresses in ways other than mere punishment. By firing this woman, the school is incapable of doing anything to help her to stop sinning or to resolve her situation in a godly manner. What sort of lessons is this “Christian” school then teaching its students?
LAmom said,
May 18, 2005 at 1:00 pm
The issue should not be whether she sinned, because we all do. The issue should be whether she agrees that what she did was wrong and what her intentions are for the future. If she proclaimed that she thought there was nothing wrong with having had sexual relations before marriage, or if she decided to live with her baby’s father outside of matrimony, then there would be a conflict between her beliefs and the doctrines of the school, and that could be considered incompatible with her being a teacher there. If she believes that she made a mistake and wants to move forward and do better, then there shouldn’t be a conflict.
And I do wonder if they would have acted the same way if the teacher was a man whose wife gave birth six months after their wedding.
ls said,
May 18, 2005 at 10:28 pm
It seems to be an assumption that a male teacher wouldn’t get fired for the same thing. If the evidence was there, the school would probably do the same thing. The unfortunate thing for us women is that our sexual history has more physical evidence with protruding bellies–so maybe forget the assumtions, and stick to the facts, it’s more reliable.
Second–I would like to second what someone said earlier. All the time Christ was here on earth he was calling people to a higher standard–He himself never said it wasn’t important to follow the commandments, in fact, His life was an example for ours and He never sinned. On the flip side, with the woman in John 8 caught in the act of adultery, He did not condem her, but gave her the command to “go and sin no more”. Kind of a high calling for those of you who have been saying it’s impossible. I don’t think it’s wrong to do what’s right–Jesus said Himself, “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” Grace and compassion are essential, but lets not say to strive for a sinless life is being hypocritical, it is merely doing what Jesus asked.
Allison said,
May 19, 2005 at 12:24 am
Newbie here, and I think I’ll likely add you to my daily reads. Got here via megsoapbox.blogspot.com, via Sojourners’ email newsletter. (ah, for the love of surfing…)
As the single mother to a nearly-eight-month-old daughter, I wholeheartedly agree with your points, and I felt sad reading the article about her firing (I found it via Fark.com). When I discovered that I was pregnant, I pondered termination, even though I’ve always said I’m pro-life for myself (pro-choice in general). Yet, there I was, looking at the easy way out and seriously thinking about it. Considering that the focus of the past several years of my life has been living a life of authenticity, I realized that an abortion just wasn’t an option.
Unlike the teacher, I remain single, but choosing to have my daughter — despite all the grief I got about being single and pregnant — has been worth it. No regrets here.
My bout with depression a few years ago taught me a great about compassion for others. This experience has just made that deeper.
Thanks for a great post.
Jacob said,
May 19, 2005 at 11:55 am
A story on CNN’s website adds what may be more context to this discussion. Apparently, a senior at a Catholic high school in Alabama was told that she could not participate in her graduation ceremony because she was pregnant. To her credit, she showed up, announced her own name, and walked across the stage anyway. Her boyfriend and the father of the child, was also a senior. He was not barred from participating at any point. Apparently, for this particular school, premarital sex is only a problem is people can see the results.