Skip to main content

View Diary: The Kings of Hypocrisy: Dinesh D'Souza's Downfall (35 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, he was an elected official. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, tikkun

    I think it takes an awful lot to pull an elected official out of office - like breaking the law.

    But I can see a college worrying about what prospective students might think if their president is caught in an extramarital affair.  Especially a religious institution.

    •  What about a teacher? (0+ / 0-)

      A school (public or private) might worry that a teacher's public affair (or other controversial activity) might hurt the recruitment of students. Should they be able to fire anyone for their public announcement of sexuality? What about firing openly gay professors because it might offend right-wing parents?

      The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason (

      by JohnKWilson on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 01:25:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe private organizations can do whatever (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        they want in regards to their employment agreements as long as they are legal.  If people pay to use their services then that is who they are accountable to.

        Public organizations or any institution that uses any public funding should be held to a different standard because of the use of taxpayer dollars.  So at a public university, no, I would not expect a teacher to be fired because of an affair - unless it became a public relations nightmare that negatively affected the school.  I think there would be plenty of grounds there, but typically teachers and professors are not so high profile that anybody would be interested in a witch hunt.  Also, public institutions should not have biblical criteria to adhere to, so employees should be much more free in their personal expression.

        I don't think anyone should be fired for their sexuality.  I wish we could get GLBT people protected status.

      •  Here in Canada the courts say (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Crabby Abbey, ancblu, GAS, tikkun

        professional teachers, (and others in positions of authority in education), must meet more than the minimum standards of off duty behavior because of social  expectations that educators are positive role models.

        Professionally Speaking

        In Ontario, this expectation is a statutory duty of teachers set out in Clause 264 (1) (c) of the Education Act: "It is the duty of a teacher and a temporary teacher ... to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues."

        Although critics of this clause argue, with considerable justification, that its language is archaic and that teachers cannot possibly fulfill the duty as written, it is nevertheless important to recognize its intent. Teachers are expected to maintain a high standard of conduct.

        Some critics of education systems believe that it is difficult to discipline or fire teachers. It is not.

        On the other hand, you example of firing a professor on the basis of homosexual orientation is prohibited here, primarily because our constitution and human rights clauses were written in the 1980's. Discrimination is prohibited on the basis of:  


            place of origin
            ethnic origin
            creed (religion)
            sex (includes pregnancy)
            sexual orientation
            age (between 18 and 65 years in employment; 16 and 17 years are included in the occupancy of accommodation; 18 years and over in the other areas)
            marital status (including common-law,divorced, separated)
            family status (being in a parent-child relationship)
            same-sex partnership status
            the receipt of public assistance (in accommodation only)
            record of offences (provincial offences, pardoned federal offences) - in employment only.
        I am not trying to take the thread off topic, but trying to provide some perspective.

        Clearly DD agreed contractually to abide by behavior rules while with TKC. There's no further chance for legal remedy.

        He's monumentally stupid in so many ways, but it was his arrogance, thinking that the rules didn't apply to him, that got him into trouble. Fundamental mistake woudn't you say?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (156)
  • Community (66)
  • Baltimore (48)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Culture (30)
  • Elections (24)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Law (22)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Texas (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Environment (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • 2016 (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site