[TunerSteve]

The Story

I tend to side with recent Supreme court decisions that a religious school views staff as ministers, but also wonder about the lack of grace this situation displays about the school in question.

Thoughts?

[Ax]

The precedent is pretty clear. She has no case. I think it's a dick move, but legally, the school is sound. Christian institutions seem to have a problem realizing that their employees are human. You can't expect a person to be perfect, yet apparently they do. All these types of things tend to do is alienate and make people more secretive about their private lives for fear of being fired.

[bobthecockroach]

From the local article:

"How's it going to look to a little fourth grade girl that sees she's pregnant and she's not married?"

It's going to look exactly how you tell them it looks. Kids see things the way we teach them to see them.

Which is precisely the problem for the school. If it teaches the kids that pregnancy without being married is no big deal, then they'll see it as no big deal. If, however, it teaches the kids that it is a big deal and the teacher did something wrong, then they'll see it like that, and it will undermine her authority as a teacher and put her in a very awkward position with her students. This can't be ignored.

But of course, firing her sends the message that one strike is all it takes to be out, which isn't what you want to teach the kids either.

So why not just remove her from her in-the-spotlight position for a year? Because then it looks like you're sweeping it under the rug and pretending it didn't happen.

But at the same time, you can't refuse to hire anyone who has ever done anything wrong, so how long do you wait? If she comes back in 5 years, married to the father, do you tell her you still can't employ her?

"The fired teacher and expectant mother said she did nothing wrong, and faces financial problems now, including giving birth without insurance."

Either way, I think the school should have paid for her insurance during the pregnancy. If you don't think she's fit as a role model anymore, fine, but you don't kick her and her kid to the curb.

[tlj009]

Either way, I think the school should have paid for her insurance during the pregnancy. If you don't think she's fit as a role model anymore, fine, but you don't kick her and her kid to the curb.

I believe that Texas probably has programs similar to Louisiana.

Department of Health & Hospitals | State of Louisiana

She will probably come out better not having insurance.

[TunerSteve]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

From the local article:

"How's it going to look to a little fourth grade girl that sees she's pregnant and she's not married?"

It's going to look exactly how you tell them it looks. Kids see things the way we teach them to see them.

Which is precisely the problem for the school. If it teaches the kids that pregnancy without being married is no big deal, then they'll see it as no big deal. If, however, it teaches the kids that it is a big deal and the teacher did something wrong, then they'll see it like that, and it will undermine her authority as a teacher and put her in a very awkward position with her students. This can't be ignored.

But of course, firing her sends the message that one strike is all it takes to be out, which isn't what you want to teach the kids either.

So why not just remove her from her in-the-spotlight position for a year? Because then it looks like you're sweeping it under the rug and pretending it didn't happen.

But at the same time, you can't refuse to hire anyone who has ever done anything wrong, so how long do you wait? If she comes back in 5 years, married to the father, do you tell her you still can't employ her?

"The fired teacher and expectant mother said she did nothing wrong, and faces financial problems now, including giving birth without insurance."

Either way, I think the school should have paid for her insurance during the pregnancy. If you don't think she's fit as a role model anymore, fine, but you don't kick her and her kid to the curb.

I tend to agree with everything here. Teaching kids about grace is a possibility as well. I certainly understand the school's situation as you so eloquently explained, but it seems there could be an alternative solution that might have worked out for everyone and still provided for the unwed mother to make amends.

[rock_show_host]

It's definitely not a black-and-white issue, and the school may be well within their legal rights to fire her. But I've heard of a number of incidents like this recently, and they bother me. Mostly because the deciding factor always seems to be that the woman is pregnant. In other words, the fact that she sinned in the first place isn't the issue -- it's the fact that her sin has visible consequences that she can't hide. If a male staff member had sex outside of marriage, a) the school probably wouldn't ever find out about it, and b) even if they did, I have a feeling the school would be more inclined to be lenient on him because there was no visible evidence of his sin, and therefore nothing to tarnish his "image."

All of bobthecockroach's points are valid, and I realize that the school is in a difficult spot as well. But I do wish that as Christians, our instinct in situations like this was to err on the side of grace and compassion as opposed to rigid discipline, and too often that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Mr. RM]

If it is a private Christian school and she signed any sort of "morality pledge" (and I am assuming she did) she does not have a legal argument.

I agree that there is a certain amount of grace to be given here...but I am not sure what the best course of action should be. Suspension? Probation? I don't know.

Would they fire a male teacher who got his girlfriend pregnant as well?

[doulos14]

Originally Posted by Role Modlin

If it is a private Christian school and she signed any sort of "morality pledge" (and I am assuming she did) she does not have a legal argument.

I agree that there is a certain amount of grace to be given here...but I am not sure what the best course of action should be. Suspension? Probation? I don't know.

Would they fire a male teacher who got his girlfriend pregnant as well?

First part is what I was thinking as well. And I would fire the male teacher as well, but like it was said that is much harder to catch

[rock_show_host]

The problem is that even the idea of a "morality pledge" can be shaky.

I personally know a woman who was in this situation -- she was fired from her job at a Christian organization because they discovered that she had gotten pregnant before she was married. All of the employees at this organization were required to sign a "Life Conduct" statement of some kind, but the ramifications weren't really clear. There was no language in the statement about discipline or any details about which offenses carried which consequences. For instance, in addition to sexual morality, the statement also mentioned things like observing the Sabbath, not uttering false statements, not using profane language, etc. So which of those items carried the threat of losing your job? Would an employee also be fired for working on Sunday, or if somebody overheard them saying something that wasn't true? This woman knew for a fact that she had heard employees curse in the workplace with no consequences other than a brief reprimand.

My point is that it's okay for a Christian organization to have behavioral standards and consequences for going against them, but not if it doesn't make those standards clear to its employees, and not if it arbitrarily chooses which ones to enforce and who to make an example of.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

The problem is that even the idea of a "morality pledge" can be shaky.

I personally know a woman who was in this situation -- she was fired from her job at a Christian organization because they discovered that she had gotten pregnant before she was married. All of the employees at this organization were required to sign a "Life Conduct" statement of some kind, but the ramifications weren't really clear. There was no language in the statement about discipline or any details about which offenses carried which consequences. For instance, in addition to sexual morality, the statement also mentioned things like observing the Sabbath, not uttering false statements, not using profane language, etc. So which of those items carried the threat of losing your job? Would an employee also be fired for working on Sunday, or if somebody overheard them saying something that wasn't true? This woman knew for a fact that she had heard employees curse in the workplace with no consequences other than a brief reprimand.

My point is that it's okay for a Christian organization to have behavioral standards and consequences for going against them, but not if it doesn't make those standards clear to its employees, and not if it arbitrarily chooses which ones to enforce and who to make an example of.

Again, legally, according to very recent Supreme Court Rulings, the woman in question has no case. According to SCOTUS, private Christian Institutions consider teachers to be ministers and thereby they have the right, under the ministerial exception clause, to fire her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/op...tion.html?_r=1

[tlj009]

Here is an interesting article that I think should be considered.

More Unmarried Couples Having Babies: CDC - Yahoo! News

[Mr. RM]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Here is an interesting article that I think should be considered.

More Unmarried Couples Having Babies: CDC - Yahoo! News

I'm not sure how it is relevant.

[tlj009]

I'm not sure how it is relevant.

Well, assuming Bob is right and the concern is about what the children are taught, I would think that a drastic increase in unmarried pregnancies would be relevant. Would it not be indicative of a change in social views toward pregnancy out of wedlock?

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Well, assuming Bob is right and the concern is about what the children are taught, I would think that a drastic increase in unmarried pregnancies would be relevant. Would it not be indicative of a change in social views toward pregnancy out of wedlock?

Social views may have changed, but how should that impact the way a Christian school operates?

[Mr. RM]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Well, assuming Bob is right and the concern is about what the children are taught, I would think that a drastic increase in unmarried pregnancies would be relevant. Would it not be indicative of a change in social views toward pregnancy out of wedlock?

Originally Posted by thesteve

Social views may have changed, but how should that impact the way a Christian school operates?

The current social view also says that homosexuality is normal and accepted. Would you want a Christian school to operate on that assumption as well?

Social acceptance does not indicate whether or not a behavior should be accepted by Christians.