CASE 9.1: UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT? 1 Case 9.1: Unprofessional Conduct? Christy Akpan BUS309 Case 9.1: Unprofessional Conduct? Question 1 While the Board of Education did not violate Mrs. Pettit’s right to privacy, it is evident that they were not justified in firing her. She was accused of public indecency and oral copulation that became a matter of public knowledge; in addition, there were criminal charges brought against her based on the penal code operating at that time. Thus, the Board of Education was merely using publicly available information as a basis for judging her when coming to a conclusion concerning Mrs. Pettit’s conduct. However, it is clear that the uncovered materials or facts were not just or sufficient enough for firing Mrs. Pettit. She was judged on her moral actions outside school – something that could not be proved to have any sort of interference with her professional behavior. In addition, the actions were undertaken privately and did not have anything to do with her school work or her profession as a teacher. The Board of Education did not take into account the
CASE STUDY 9.1 UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT2Case Study 9.1 Unprofessional ConductThe case of Elizabeth Pettit, during the late sixties could be discussed in many ways. During the late sixties many couples were starting to experiment different sexual practices behind closed doors. The term and the practice of “wife swapping” was starting to become popular amongst couples. In the case of Mrs. Pettit, who was an elementary school teacher, she had open sexual preferences with her husband. Even though she was a dedicated teacher during daytime, she and her husband were swingers after hours. There have been many discussions regarding the school board’s action against Mrs. Pettit. Some questions that arisen have been if her privacy rights were violated, was the board justified for firing her after two years of her conviction, if her actions moral or immoral and how important are ethics amongst teachers.In my opinion, Mrs. Pettit’s fellow coworkers and the Board of Education did not violate her rights. Mr. and Mrs. Pettit had the option of sharing their personal sexual views and practices on two local television talk shows. Although both her and her husband wore a disguise during theinterview, one of her coworkers recognized the couple and later on discussed and disclosed the names with their colleagues (Shaw, 2014). When Mrs. Pettit decided to appear on television she made the choice to be exposed to anaudience; thus her privacy was terminated once she spoke. After that exposure, during the late 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s her “lifestyle” became a taboo and was considered immoral by society standards. By discussing her beliefs on two T.V. shows, she gave up her privacy rights and made her lifestyle known to public knowledge. In order to protect our privacy rights, we must ensure that we keep our personal matters private in which Mrs. Pettit failed to do so. To add on, Mrs.