Violation Of Right To Privacy In Education: Analysis Of A Case Study

Background of the case

As per this given situation of the case study, it can be observed that the Board of Education violated Petit’s right to privacy. The State Board of Education found no issues or reasons to complain about her services as a teacher. Privacy of an employee should not be hampered or invaded by any organization. Right to privacy is considered as one of the fundamental rights of a citizen. The right to privacy is an ingredient of various legal traditions to constrain government and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. A professional license of an individual cannot be revoked due to private reasons of that individual (Crane & Matten, 2016). Therefore, in this given case study, Petit’s license to teach was revoked by the State Board of Education on the ground of being engaged in immoral and unprofessional conduct at a party. This matter was further taken up to the Supreme Court of California. The Court rejected the opinion of the Board of Education and held that no proper evidence was established stating that Petit was not fit to teach.

The State Board of Education was not justified in firing her. This is because they invaded the right to privacy of Petit. Petit was in the teaching profession for thirteen years and have been handling and teaching the elementary school children. Teaching children with intellectual disabilities require patience, skill and devotion. Mrs. Petit was known for her dedication while teaching the children. She had always received positive feedback from the principal and other colleagues. She was then fired from the school and her license was revoked based on her private life issues (Walter, 2018). It can be concluded stating that firing Mrs. Petit was not justified. The private life of Mrs. Petit should not have got affected her professional life of teaching (Garrow, 2015). This case was treated as n unprofessional conduct by the State Board of Education and by the Supreme Court of California. Therefore, in this regard, it is noteworthy to mention that Petit’s right to privacy has been violated and she was fired in an unjustified manner.

There are three major reasons, which state that the Mrs. Petit’s behavior was not professional in her teaching profession. Mrs. Petit was terminated professionally for her private issues which was unfair. The first reason is right to privacy as mentioned above. Every individual has a fundamental right of right to privacy. Mrs. Petit’s behavior was not immoral or unethical in her profession. She had been teaching for thirteen years and not a single complaint existed against her (Tucker et al., 2017). Private life of an individual should not affect the professional side as per law. Mrs. Petit’s private activities could not have affected her teaching ability. Mrs. Petit’s license also was revoked because of the clandestine surveillance of the party where she had gone and performed fellatio on three different men. However, these actions of Petit should not have caused her any trouble in her job since it is about her personal life and she did it outside the school premises. Secondly, Mrs. Petit did not have the reputation of being involved with drugs and alcohol inside the school premises. She was very good with her work and was in the good books of her colleagues and principal. Mrs. Petit maintained the ethical conduct at workplace and did not get  involved with any such drug or alcohol at the workplace (Zimmerman & Robertson, 2017). Thirdly, Mrs. Petit being a professional teacher for thirteen years did not fail to maintain currency of professional knowledge and competence. She was known for her brilliant teaching skills. 

Unjustified revocation of license to teach

As per the history of Mrs. Petit it can be stated that she had a good reputation in the profession of teaching. She has been teaching elementary school children with intellectual disorganization. Mrs. Petit was regarded as one of the most dedicated teachers. She was good with her work (Barth, Barth & Barth, 2017). She got the license to teach and work with mentally challenged children in California. The principal and her colleagues throughout her career never questioned her competence. When her license got revoked by the State Board of Education and she lost her license to practice she took the matter to the Supreme Court of California. Justice Tobringer rejected the opinion of the public stating that no such evidence was established which proved that Petit was unfit to teach. No form of misconduct with students or any staff was committed by Mrs. Petit during her course of teaching. Therefore, in this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that Mrs. Petit was fit to teach the students who she has been teaching for thirteen years. Petit was known for her great teaching and was always in the good books of everyone.

Teachers should not be held to a higher moral standard outside the classroom if she has a good performance inside the classroom. Relating to this, Mrs. Petit had a very good reputation and a higher moral inside the classroom with her students and her colleagues. A teacher must be known for her conduct with students. Moral and ethical conduct should be maintained even with all the co-workers at workplace. However, there are five kinds of behavior that reflects the immoral or unprofessional conduct of a teacher. Firstly, favoritism towards certain kids is considered to be an immoral conduct of a teacher. This is because every student must receive equal treatment no matter how much a kid sucks up to a teacher. A teacher must always behave properly and with care with the kids. Secondly, teachers must treat every child with care and not harm it in any way. No student must be neglected in the class. It has a negative psychological effect on the students who get neglected. Being a teacher, it is her responsibility and duty to ensure if her students have comprehended the activities happening inside the class (Taub et al., 2017). Thirdly, Mrs. Petit is associated with sexual activities outside the premises of the school. Therefore, such behavior or practices to the children will be considered as a matter of immoral conduct. Mentally challenged students should be treated be with gentle care and love. They should not be exposed to sexual knowledge or actions. The students should not know her private life activities. Fourthly, if the teacher fails to provide appropriate teaching material or guidelines to the mentally challenged students, it can be considered as a case of unprofessional behavior (Bailey & Ballard, 2015). Helping the students is the duty of the teachers. Therefore, mentally challenged students should be given all the materials that will help them in the process of understanding. If necessary guidelines are not distributed among the students equally, the teacher will be facing trouble with the facility of the organization. Lastly, segregating students based on race no matter where they belong from, class or sexual orientation will be treated as a form of immoral conduct of the teacher (Eren & Rak?c?o?lu-Söylemez, 2017). Such behavior is not acceptable in a school since it will reflect on the students and influence them. Virtue ethics is characterized by individual integrity of character. The purpose of moral theory is to resolve ethical issues. Utilitarianism is one of the most common approaches or tools for making ethical decisions with consequences that concern large group of people. Ethical reasoning is pillared by the criteria of utilitarianism and deontology (Grant, Arjoon & McGhee, 2017). According to Kant, the moral obligations are absolute and it does not allow for exceptional circumstances. In workplaces, there are implications and impact of various civil liberty laws. Business decisions are types of human and moral activities that are morally constrained in reality. Ethical reasoning in the process of decision making is significant for business professionals since they have discretion and deal with ethical charged issues. Every individual can exercise their liberty laws such as hiring, promotion, discharge and wage discrimination. However, it can be concluded stating that such behavior is considered to be unprofessional and immoral conduct of a teacher. 

References:

Bailey, K., & Ballard, J. D. (2015). Teaching Ethics to Criminal Justice Students: Focusing on Self Identify, Self Awareness, and Internal Accountability. Teaching Ethics, 15(1), 201-212.

Barth, R. P., Barth, R. P., & Barth, R. P. (2017). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. Routledge.

Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.

Eren, A., & Rak?c?o?lu-Söylemez, A. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ ethical stances on unethical professional behaviors: The roles of professional identity goals and efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 114-126.

Garrow, D. J. (2015). Liberty and sexuality: The right to privacy and the making of Roe v. Wade. Open Road Media.

Grant, P., Arjoon, S., & McGhee, P. (2017). Reconciling Ethical Theory and Practice: Toward Developing a Business Ethics Pedagogical Model. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 36(1), 41-65.

Taub, D., Foster, M. H., Orlando, A. M., & Ryndak, D. L. (2017). Ethical Considerations for Inclusive Practices for Students with Extensive Support Needs. In Ethics, Equity, and Inclusive Education (pp. 119-144). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Tucker, C., Choby, B., Moore, A., Parker, R. S., Zambetti, B. R., Naids, S., … & Hoffman, L. A. (2017). Teachers as Learners: Developing Professionalism Feedback Skills via Observed Structured Teaching Encounters. Teaching and learning in medicine, 29(4), 373-377.

Zimmerman, J., & Robertson, E. (2017). The case for contention: Teaching controversial issues in American schools. University of Chicago Press.