“Carie? Your ex-husband is here to see you!”
Domestic violence victims advocates are outraged over an incident in which second-grade teacher Carie Charlesworth, a teacher at San Diego’s Holy Trinity School, lost her job because of threatening conduct by her ex-husband. After an incident where the school was placed on lock-down because Charlesworth’s ex, undeterred by a restraining order, came to the school to confront her, the school district decided that her continued employment was a risk to the safety of the school and its students.
In a termination letter, the district informed Charlesworth that her ex-husband’s “threatening and menacing behavior” made it impossible for her to continue teaching at the Holy Trinity School. Predictably, Charlesworth is angry, and suing. “They’ve taken away my ability to care for my kids,” she says. She has four. “It’s not like I can go out and find a teaching job anywhere.” Now she is publicizing her dilemma to dramatize the plight of domestic violence victims.
She is focusing her resources and anger on the wrong parties. The school is only acting responsibly. Its action may be unfair to Charlesworth, but the school system has a greater obligation to protect the safety of its students and other employees, as well as to be able to do the work of educating children, than it does to stand by Charlesworth. Is it being very cautious? Yes. Now the ex-husband is in jail, and the risk is greatly diminished. I could defend the decision to monitor his continued incarceration, request that the state alert the school immediately if he was released or escaped, and continue to employ Charlesworth in the meantime.
The school’s decision to fire Charlesworth is even more defensible, however. When the safety of the students are in genuine potential peril, and the existence of a violent man seeking vengeance against a teacher in the school creates such peril, the most responsible decision is to sever ties with the reason for the threat. The school can’t control the husband. It can banish Carie Charlesworth, which accomplishes the same objective.
This is the kind of ethical conflict involving competing interests and obligations that only a balancing approach, utilitarianism, can address properly. The husband is Carie’s problem. He is not the school’s problem. It is not the students’ problem. It is not the children’s parents’ problem. I know it’s not an easy problem for her to solve, but she has no right to insist or demand that her inability to solve her problem should be permitted to put others at unnecessary risk. All right: this makes it difficult for her to care for her children. That’s still not the school’s problem, or obligation.
The news story says that some parents would have pulled their children out of school if Carie was allowed to stay. I would have. It isn’t callous or unethical to conclude that while the school should do everything within its power to help Carie up to a point, it would be a breach of its duties to the children to allow her to remain employed.
Sometimes ethics is a zero sum game, and someone has to lose. This is one of those times, and tragically, Carie Charlesworth, harassed spouse, domestic abuse victim, has to solve her own problem.
________________________________________
Pointer: Alexander Cheezem
Facts: NBC
Graphic: Joshua Hoffine
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance, as well as photos and graphics, that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution or permission, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
She must belong to a weak teachers’ union. This is a case where the worker’s rights need to be protected. The union should have been able to have this poor teacher (temporarily) placed in a position where her danger would not endanger children, until the threat is resolved.
Something inherently unfair and unethical about her treatment.
It’s a situation where an advocate should try to protect her rights, but she has no right to endanger others. Not every misfortune has a remedy. If this is a guy who is dangerous, what working environment wouldn’t endanger someone?
If you moved her into an office, you’d be obligated to tell any coworkers about the ex. Then they will leave, or might. How is that fair? Why should the school protect her job at the sacrifice of others.
Her treatment is not unethical. If they kept her on and the husband came and did a Newtown, would you argue with the parents who said the school placed their children at risk?
Well Lay teachers teaching in Catholic schools is pretty much the bottom of the pile anyways… They usually just take that as a job of last resort.. Still have to question a church’s decision in light of their own ideology of charity, unity and modesty.
She was not endangering the school.
The appropriate remedy would have been for the school to hire a hitman to kill the actual threat, just as SEAL Team Six killed the threat of Osama bin Laden.
Are we to surrender to these kind of people?
I doubt there’s any union repping lay teachers in Catholic schools. Which, in my humble opinion, is just fine and dandy.
Couldn’t she get unemployment for quite a while? COBRA her health insurance? Move in with her family? I’m just not sure resorting to a professional advocate is ever the best or first alternative to resolving a tough situation. I think they tend to throw gasoline on the fire to draw attention to the single issue they advocate, the flames of which often seem consume all concerned. Except the advocate, who just collects her paycheck and merrily goes on to the next bar-b-que.
Eeyore Award material, Bill – well said.
Is that a general principle you’re advocating? That a person shouldn’t fight what she considers wrongful termination as long as she’s eligible for public assistance or can move in with family? That strikes me as kind of callous.
“Are there no workhouses for them? No jails?”
Is “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” never an acceptable approach to solving a problem or living one’s life? I think Jack’s point was “it wasn’t wrongful termination,” and therefore, “she shouldn’t fight it.” I think Jack was saying, “She’s WRONG!” I know saying something like that is forbidden in an enlightened society where everyone’s feelings are pre-eminent (see Eeyore), but I find it refreshing and all I was saying was that you don’t have to make everything such a Hobbes’s choice.
Do you mean Hobbes, or Hobson’s Choice, which is no choice at all?
It is time for mediation, what are some options for Carie? Change her identity? Move to a state with a 3 strikes you’re out system?
I can understand that the school wants her out of the picture but I find it to easy to just fire her and promise to pray. In other situations the Catholic church took ‘better’ ( although unethical) care of their own.
WHAT?????
Jack, I think Zanshin is employing sarcasm, i.e., the Catholic Church “took ‘better’ ( although unethical) care of their own” when they “protected” the predatory sexual offenders who happened to be priests.
The first four sentences are without sarcasm or what so ever. With the last sentence I tried to pack too much meaning in one sentence. The interpretation of Patrice is correct but it was not intended by me to be sarcastic.
i still think the school has to support her getting her life together. Not necessarily at the school but maybe a school in another state, financial support to move, etc. She has worked there for about 14 years. That has to count for some support.
This is an ugly, ugly situation. The yuck factor is so strong that I read the situation and my initial reaction was “Legal or not, it is absolutely unethical to fire someone because a third party acted badly, against the employees wishes and interests.” Then I tried to think of what they should have done instead… and I’m still thinking…
Hire a hitman to kill the threat.
If that is murder, then why was it not murder for Seal Team Six to kill Bin Laden?
Now you’re being silly. Well, you started earlier, actually…
The same analysis can apply to almost any situation where someone is threatened. Basically we are allowing criminals to ruin the lives of law-abiding citizens, and not only not looking the other way, but actively participating in the ruination. The ex-husband is not Charlesworth’s problem, but *society’s* problem. She deserves to be protected, and she has a right to work. Should any maniac be allowed to force someone into unemployment at any time? Why should that be allowed? And if so, wouldn’t that stop many people from seeking restraining orders at all, knowing that it would eventually come down to being protected from violence v. being able to work? How would that be in society’s best interest?
And your solution is what exactly? You’ve just said that it’s a problem. I agree. Now what? Just let her keep her job until he storms inb with a machete?
A family member or friend who disrupts the workplace WILL get the employee fired. I saw a woman fired because she couldn’t get her boyfriend from calling her every 5 minutes and disrupting her day. The order: get your boyfriend to stop, or you’re out. She tried. She couldn’t. She got fired. Her problem.
In this case her husband is in jail. He can’t come to the school and threaten anyone. He might one day get out, but it is easy enough to find out when that is. However most schools have (or should have) security officers in them precisely to prevent maniacs and others from strolling in at will with an intent to do harm. No extra effort really has to be done on the school’s part to protect the children apart from what they should already be doing.
But even from a zero-sum perspective, I think your analysis is too narrow. All the school’s decision (and other workplaces like the school) do is embolden those who wish to do others harm, and prevent people across society from reporting crimes for fear that that it would cause one to lose their jobs. That has to balanced against whether actual harm may come to the school or workplace, which despite the outsize media reports, tends to be a very rare occurrence.
You can balance it, the school can’t, because it has a superior duty to the children and employees. If protecting them emboldens others, that society’s problem. If I am convinced that paying the kidnappers ransom is the best way to get my child returned safety, do I or should I care whether it emboldens other kidnappers? Of course not.
Just let her keep her job until he storms inb with a machete?
Yes, then shoot him, repeatedly, till he’s no longer a threat – then cease fire.
I can be sympathetic with that attitude.
I wonder why Jack missed such an obvious solution.
That’s why Jack has identified this as a zero sum scenario.
Her employment was ended putting her at massive personal inconvenience. On the flip side, the lunatic ex husband won’t be directly threatening the hundreds of children and dozens of workers at the school.
It isn’t like the School arbitrarily did this because they heard there were difficulties between the two. They did it after the ex-husband proved crazy enough to come and endanger the whole school.
Why not just kill the ex-husband if he was such a threat?
In a self-defense scenario, I have no issue with that outcome.
Not certain what motivates the woman though. Years of being cowed into submission or having in self-motivated impulse for aggressive action on behalf of herself and her children being taught out of her may have some bearing here.
Jack, I think I disagree with you about this. I get zero-sum ethics. Still, doesn’t this provoke thoughts of a slippery slope? So, if a student at the school had a parent who no longer had custody, and said parent came to the school in a threatening way, does that mean that it’s ok to expel the student for the safety of everyone else at the school? And I think there are other possible versions of this. I am conflicted.
Again, in order to disagree, you have to propose a reasonable solution that doesn’t require diverting disproportional time and resources to the disadvantage of the main constituency because one teacher has a personal problem. Just saying it’s unfair to her doesn’t change the facts. It’s unfair to the kid and teachers to have to share space with maniac bait.
In The Terminator, a robot from the future is slaughtering everyone named Sarah Connor, AND everyone around her. The school has a teacher named Sarah Connor. I’m firing her, if I’m the school district. You?
I am with Patrice: I think the school bears more responsibility for its employee than you, Jack, are assuming or have concluded that it has. I like your term “maniac bait.” So true – but still, isn’t doing as you suggest a little like caving to “Taliban terror?” I mean, isn’t it reasonable and ethical to expect one party in a contractual relationship which presumably has significantly more resources than the other party in the relationship, to expend some resources for the sake of preventing a third and clearly unethically behaving party from interfering in or “terminating” the relationship?
Seconding deery’s at 2:31.
1. It’s nothing like caving to terrorists. This is one person, threatening one person. Nobody is letting him “win.” If the school administrators want to go visit the guy privately and tell him to back off or else, My hat’s off to them, but the parents have the final say. “Yes, I’m fine with you placing my 8 year old at risk as a matter of principle!” Really?
2. “Isn’t it reasonable and ethical to expect one party in a contractual relationship which presumably has significantly more resources than the other party in the relationship, to expend some resources for the sake of preventing a third and clearly unethically behaving party from interfering in or “terminating” the relationship?” NO!
“NO?!” That’s mighty union-friendly of you.
Sarcasm will get you nowhere. Unions do ethical work when they make sure members get fair pay and that their rights are respected. When they use their power to coerce employers into providing benefits they have no legal or ethical obligation to provide, or that interfere with the legitimate purpose of the activity, they are in the wrong.
I apologize for being sarcastic. Just when I think I have control of it, back it comes – before I am even aware of it, it seems. It’s been a life-long battle, since I was maybe about 12 or 13; I’m ready to call that fight a stalemate, and fight sarcasm with sarcasm by just calling it one typical symptom of the curse of mad genius. That DOES get me somewhere besides nowhere.
You probably won’t see me say anything more about unions, either.
Back to your 2:38: You said, “This is one person, threatening one person.” But isn’t that untrue? Isn’t the truth that the one threatening person is actually threatening many more, and that truth crucial to your position? I just see a classic scenario of bullying, and enabling of same by failure of parties who are in a position to stop it.
Check my position on bullying. It’s not the school’s job to prevent all bullying, and the school has no power over this bully. Nor does it have an obligation to employ one woman to its own detriment.
I agree with the first part of your second sentence at 3:45, but not with the second part. The school has chosen not to use its power versus the bully; that, I think, is the full truth. I think that is a failure, a missing of the mark, ethically speaking. Your last sentence is agreeable in a general case, but is a non sequitur in this case.
WHAT power? What power does it have?
What power?
1) Do what they do for paedophile priests and lay teachers – pay for relocation and a new job elsewhere.After all, it was because the teacher had some duties in religious instruction that they were able to fire her at will.
2) Armed guard for a year. A good idea anyway, he’s threatened not just her, but school employees. The school itself has a separate RO on him.
He’s due for release in a few days, BTW, and has vowed to kill her and the kids, now he knows she’s been left hanging out to dry.
If this had been an ordinary business, their conduct might be defensible. But this is blatant hypocrisy – passing by the wayside.
If they’re going to operate by the set of rules other businesses do, they should just pay $25,000 to some people to make the problem go away, leaving the method up to them. Not that they’d countenance violence or threats of course.
Of course the school does bear an amount of responsibility to its employee. However the school bears a hell of a lot more responsibility to its students.
That’s why Jack has identified this as a zero sum ethical quandry.
Someone had to draw the crap end of the stick.
This post should have been an ethics quiz.
I like zoebrain’s idea above .
“Here’s $25,000. Make the problem go away. Leave no witnesses.”
Sure, you do.
Here’s a better idea, also from her.
Better idea than ‘making the problem go away
Actually, I do have a solution. The Catholic Church school, which takes up half of my job at that church, has all of their doors locked. There is a low-paid parishioner employee sitting at a desk at the main door with a button to open the door. She also has a phone. This makes sense. I would go one step further. Anyone desiring entry should have to push a button to speak with her or someone else to explain their reason for being there. I’ve seen that at other schools. Personae non grata could be identified and their names (maybe photos?) given to the guardians of the doors. If one shows up, the school calls the police. Seems simple enough.
OK, just read the quotes from the article about Newtown. My solution doesn’t seem like it’s enough, does it? But I think it’s a start to a solution.
Simple, expensive, turning the school into a prison—for one dangerous guy, and one woman who did, you know, introduce him into the environment. Really? Build a fortress, using scarce educational fund to solve a woman’s personal problem?
Wow. Sometimes, it really is just business.
Wait, wait… You seem to be assuming that the existence of a disgruntled ex-husband suddenly causes a school to be in danger of a shooting, and that the absence of a disgruntled ex-husband means there is no such danger. If the school’s security procedures are not sufficient to protect against that one, specific threat, they’re also not sufficient to protect against a shooter who stumbles into the school at random.
Tightening security in response to the presence of the ex-husband need be no different from tightening security in response to the presence of an unknown suspicious individual. And I know that such things are done. My high school had general security procedures just like those Patrice recommends. As far as I know, none of the students ever felt imprisoned – at least not any more than they would have felt in an entirely unlocked school. After all, it’s not as if the doors were locked from the outside. It’s just that if you came in late, you had to enter through a specific door and sign in. There was no expense involved apart from paying a faculty member to man the door. Fortresses and prisons aren’t the same things.
The ex-husband DOES present a significant risk. He’s already demonstrated he is willing violate a restraining order, to make a scene on campus. Eliminating KNOWN risks IS responsible. The unknown risks that can never fully be accessed are quite simply handled as the budget can reasonably take.
I find your ‘shooting stumbling randomly into a school’ comment somewhat ludicrous.
Apparantly the school DID enact security protocol’s. It seems they executed a lock down drill during the ex-husband’s on campus confrontation. Apparantly the level of security they can currently afford is not sufficient. Next step they determined was eliminating the KNOWN motive for a KNOWN crazy.
As for the fortress analogy: History will show us, in the arms race, all fortresses can and will be breached. Then spend more resources to strengthen the fortress even more, until that is breached. Until a realization is made that other solutions ought be sought.
We can’t expect institutions to spend themselves into oblivion on security and then bankrupt themselves and no longer offer the service they offer. We simply can’t.
Yes, fine, I agree with that summary comment. But you should bear in mind that my comment was in response to Jack’s apparent assertion that channeling all visitors through one door is an inappropriate response because it “turns the school into a prison, all for one guy.”
I reiterate: It doesn’t turn the school into a prison, and it doesn’t just protect against one guy.
Fair enough.
Perhaps Jack can clarify his objection. I know in the past when he’s commented on the like, he hasn’t alluded to a physical prison, but the message communicated to the children, which can be quite impactful on their little psyches.
Huh? If the school is only doing it to keep out one guy, which is what Patrice said, then the system keeps out one guy, and would not be worth doing otherwise. The fact that it may keep out some other theoretical menaces is a rationalization. Without THIS guy, it would not exist.
As for the locking down not being a prison, be my guest. I don’t like my keepers locking me in, anywhere. It’s paranoia producing and a practice that quickly gets out of hand, witness the electronic monitoring some schools want to institute,
But that’s not what Patrice said. His hypothetical referred to personae non grata, plural. I took him to be describing the institution of general security measures that would at least somewhat help in the case of this individual, but that would be applied more generally.
It may or may not be true that in that hypothetical, the procedure would not exist without that one guy as the motivating factor. Even if it is, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t protect against others, and the fact that it might make the children generally safer is not a rationalization. It’s a bonus, and a further justification for implementing the policy.
Again, we’re talking about locking out, not locking down. I’m at least as averse to being penned in as the next guy. That’s not what was going on at my school. I could have left at any time via a non-staffed door. I just couldn’t have reentered that way. That’s the inverse of a prison, hence the distinction between that and “fortress.”
First of all, Jack, very few resources are wasted at the school here. And it is NOT a prison OR a fortress. The fact is, even if we’re not dealing with a violent individual, we are sometimes dealing with parents who have lost custody or other relatives who have become unwelcome in the child’s life (for whatever reason), who mean no violence, but might be trying to get around the custody decree and the parents’ wishes. Heck, I can’t even publish the last names of kids whose artwork is reproduced in the local paper, for fear that someone who is looking for them will be able to put 2 and 2 together. The hoops I have to jump through when I am trying to publish or promote something involving the kids here are frustrating but they are there to protect the kids. Do the kids feel that this stifles them? They don’t even know. Do these kids feel imprisoned because lovely Mrs. Berney (getting paid minimum wage at best) is sitting at the main door, greeting everyone and controlling who gets in that door? No, they do not. Schools are only prisons when they abuse the children in any way and/or if they are sanctioned indoctrination centers. Far be it from me to defend schools after the harrowing experiences I had with them with my own child. But this option just seems to be a no-brainer. Security does not a prison make.
Disagreeing doesn’t require having an answer yet. Answers can only be found after disagreement not before.
True, in many states, she can be let go for any reason or no reason. But this will make it much more difficult to find employment even without any fault of her own. A parochial school is supposed to hold to a higher moral standard of mercy and charity than other schools. At minimum I would expect them to help her with transition and references if her work has been good for fourteen years. Dumping her onto the ‘entitlement’ list and ruining her career because of something she has no control over is callous and not worthy of what they are supposed to be teaching. Not risking the students and staff is worthy, but she and any children she has are victims. (A better answer would be if ex’s grew up as a class and never even considered that kind of violent threat. As the Eagles said, “Get over it.”)
What about the LAW being enforced that this idiot be thrown in jail because he disobeyed his restraining order? I don’t get it – the “church” should stand behind the the LAW, with this woman and her family, and insist that this guy coming withing 500 yards of the school be thrown in Jail. It’s called compassion for her, justice for his bad behavior. Reason #gazilion why the catholic church leadership sucks, etc. etc.
I really don’t see how you miss this obvious conclusion and just ignore this guy and his ridiculous, immature, unenlightened, selfish BS behavior. But you visual is right on the money…
Where does that visual come from, by the way? Is it photoshopped?
It was in my library…thanks for reminding me to track down the credit. It’s art.
I asked because it looks partly like something that would be in “Carrie” (in a dream sequence or something), but it also looks partly like one of the final scenes of “The Shining.” The face/head and the torso, though, look like parts taken from different characters, and I can’t place those parts despite initial reaction to them as if I had seen them (separately) somewhere before. Can one Google-search images or parts thereof, like text? I really am ignorant about that.
The law doesn’t work like that. There is no pre-crime. Restraining orders don’t work, never have. You get in trouble AFTER you kill someone, not before. That’s the system. In these cases, it isn’t very helpful.
Simply put, Law will never stop bad people from breaking laws.
Law merely defines what behaviors we consider worthy of punishment.
Blameblakeheart…haven’t you ever violated a restraining order? I don’t want to encourage that type of behavior but it’s not as if a violation of a restraining order will keep someone in jail for any real length of time. Keeps a person in jail just long enough to really piss him or her off. Its not a jump to conclude that many people who violate restraining orders have no respect for authority so once the person is out of jail, it just starts all over again. Many women deal with this for years and years. With some men, the more a woman stands up for herself, she will only antagonize the man and end up dead.
Special problems require special solutions.
I wish I could think of one.
I have one – throw this guy in jail, get him some obviously needed Mental Health Councilling and perspective, Put this gal back into her job, take care of her and her family, and hire a security guard to check in every visitor, just like they had a Sandy Hook to make sure all visitors had to come thru one door. Wonder why that didn’t seem to work?
Is a puzzlement!
from this Article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/sandy-hook-school-safety_n_3287617.html
“Sandy Hook followed well-regarded security protocols including locking the doors during school hours and requiring that visitors be buzzed in through a main entrance, and it had conducted a lockdown drill just a week before the shooting, Gay said. But Sandy Hook wasn’t prepared for Adam Lanza, who shot out a glass window to get inside and then killed 26 people, including six educators, before committing suicide as police arrived.
Even though Sandy Hook had measures in place, Parker said security seemed lax in some areas compared to other schools. Gay said the checks at that main entrance amounted to a single line of defense.
“That was it, that was our one line of defense, and that’s how it is in most schools,” Gay said. “Without the ability to take cover or lock your classroom door or lock off a hallway once someone obtains access to the school building, that’s it. We didn’t have a secondary line.”
“No man, no problem”.
This was a potential teaching moment for the diocese and the church school on an issue of basic morality and fairness. Both flunked. I’m not a religious person myself but, in this context, I can’t resist asking, “What would Jesus say?”
He might say: Protect the children. You can’t solve all the problems of the world, but you can do your job. He was a smart guy, from what I hear.
I agree – both flunked to the maximum. This is a symptom of a more and more self-centered, callous society.
Yet another example of just how bad it is for a woman to get involved with a “bad boy.” The consequences can reach a lot farther than simply a bad date, a relationship that gets ugly, or a messy divorce. This poor woman is going to be picking up the pieces the rest of her life because she made some bad choices. It is not fair that other people also end up picking up the pieces because of her choices. This is one case where I am dreadfully sorry to have to agree with Jack. We don’t need another Newtown because this woman chose to link herself to a crazy and evil man who she’s since found it impossible to unlink from.
Um, you’re making a lot of assumptions here. How do you know he didn’t bait and switch her? Happens all the time, they meet, he’s super nice, got a job, respects her, she thinks all is well, they get married, then guy turns into monster, for whatever reason (and happens both ways, not just men). But to say it’s too bad, lady, it was your choice, now go hide in the woods somewhere because you are making the rest of us unsafe, is cowardly and ridiculous. Did we ignore all the 9/11 victims because they made the “choice” to work in the WTC? We are all in this world together. I agree with blameblakeart.
Uh, I don’t think you understood his comment.
Or maybe I didn’t. It wouldn’t be the first time…
You understand this one fine, Jack, though sometimes I don’t write the most understandable stuff. My point is that sometimes choices like the choice to link oneself to an unhinged person, have farther-reaching consequences than we think they will. In the end, it’s on the one who makes the choice to bear the consequences of it, and not to put others in the middle of consequences that arise.
That is, by the way, the most ridiculous analogy I’ve heard in weeks. An employee is responsible for her friends and relatives who disrupt the work place. Workers in a building are NOT responsible for terrorists who unexpectedly blow up their workplace. In the case of 9/11, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were responsible, which is why bin Laden is dead and we have troops in Afghanistan. Do you really reason like this?
If the ex-0husband was a threat to the school, why did they not just shoot him?
Wow – Hear hear! Truly, I blame the education system in general – especially one that turns out self-centered idiots like this stalker guy. So many people today’s whole existence is absorbed into how horribly they can treat others and get away with it. This is NOT human nature – this is learned behavior. The Boyfriend / Ex is the total problem and the focus of the energy should be upon his recovery of his Mind, because he has clearly lost it.
I am agreeing more with Jack now than I did initially. But I still see the scenario as a squandered opportunity for greater justice, and I see Jack’s agreement with the school’s firing of Carie as a case of two wrongs that can’t make a right – not a “zero-sum” case that is “right” and justified because risk of many wrongs being done has been avoided.
If Carie truly is in a position of being unemployable because of real or potential threat to her safety by a man, then I cannot consider her behavior unethical if she chooses to fight instead of flee, taking up whatever means she can muster to pose a threat to HIM. And, I would NOT think of that approach as a “second wrong” to make a right; I would think of it as doing what she must do, just as the school did only what it could do.
Carie might also get thrown in jail as a consequence, but then, that environment would probably not be any more dangerous for her than being out of jail, as long as the man’s threat to her remains. Plus, she would have “done her job” and received the reward of providing herself a relatively more reliable path to obtaining food and shelter. She might even make some new friends, inside and outside prison, to better deal with the man.
what the Eff? You’re kidding I hope.
It’s audaciously cynical, I know and admit, but I’m not kidding at 4:20.
Beth at 4:29 and Sharon at 4:31 help to frame it.
Following up Jack’s 4:47, it’s what I’d do, if I were Carie.
And I am not channeling ANYBODY.
Why is this a “women’s problem”? The women aren’t the ones doing the violence. And, bad choices? Really? I know many women who got into relationships with great guys who turned out to not be so great down the line. Women can’t control drug problems or mental problems – especially if the men didn’t have any problems at the beginning of the relationship. It’s not a female responsibility to make sure that males don’t commit crimes. Check out the stats for domestic violence. http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/domestic-violence-statistics/ Now all these women have to worry about being fired too? Could a potential employer pick a male candidate over an equally qualified female candidate solely on the basis that this eliminates a potential and very common occurrence? Employers shouldn’t be able to fire women for being victims – it is not their problem, it is government’s problem. They haven’t committed a crime. So, either this woman gets to keep her job because the bad hubby has been locked up OR the government has to pick up the tab because of the risk to minors. Under this latter scenario, the government can put her to work (in a suitable clerical, administrative, etc. position near her home). Once she is in a safe place, the school has to hire her back.
And THIS kind of reasoning is why the government is out of control. And of course, Beth, we’ve seen how the government is so efficient trustworthy, effective and frugal when it undertakes such tasks (channeling Eeyore.) So just make an unfortunate marital choice, and just throw the problem in my lap.,It’s not a woman’s problem—it’s THIS woman’s problem because its her ex. If her child becomes a delinquent, that’s also partly her problem,, and responsibility too. “It’s the government’s problem”—the solution to every personal tragedy and hardship!. Let that huge, expensive, corrupt mess of patronage, greed and stupidity “handle it.” Then everything will be all right.
How do adults still say this stuff? I’m serious. It’s amazing to me.
I’m shocked by your analysis of this — truly Jack. Do you know how many women this affects? I was stalked for a short period during my life. Should Georgetown Law been able to kick me out? What about the fact that the man doing it was a felllow student? Should we both have been kicked out? Would the University have to refund our tuitions? Luckily for me he dropped out, got the help he needed, and is now a productive member of society. This is not about government spending – this is about government failing to keep us safe. If government can’t keep us safe, then the women being terrorized should be able to provide for their children and not risk unemployment/poverty.
A school is different from employer, Beth. You’re paying the school. It has to keep you safe, within reason. I think that’s a more interesting hypothetical—I wonder if a school has ever tried to eject a student for this kind of thing.
But the number of women this affects is really irrelevant. The number of employees and children placed at risk is exponentially greater. I have never heard of a workplace being prevented from firing an employee whose family members disrupt the workplace, nor do I expect to until the world goes mad.
The government CAN’T “keep us safe” without creating a police state, in which case we’re not safe from the government. I don’t like the solution. All solutions are bad here. Some are imaginary.
Killing the ex-husband would have been the perfect solution.
Well, Jaaaaaaack, it seems like you are ignoring important facts about the problem. Carie has a problem, yes. But to say it’s her problem and only her problem, makes more problems. The problem does not appear to be one which Carie can solve all by herself. You distrust an assist from an untrustworthy government; I get that. But then, you have erected a “no-win” for Carie out of what you call a “zero-sum” ethics scenario. You have granted a pass to the one entity in Carie’s life – her employer – who stands at least a fighting chance of forging a win-win for itself and for Carie.
So, besides doing things the Little Red Hen’s way and doing it all by herself, how would you have any third party, outside of Carie and the man who is threatening her, involve itself to do things? And which party would that be? And what would it do?
I said what I would do. If Carie was my secretary in my home office, I’d tell her to go elsewhere. I’d try to put her in touch with organizations that could help her, I’d give her the benefit of my advice, but I’m not risking mu family and business because she can’t so9lve her problems. It would be unethical for me to do so.
Tell me–would a school be obligated to hire a teacher who said, “I have a crazy ex who might try to come here and kill me”?
And if, in reaction, Carie were to simply take matters into her own hands by killing her ex-husband, what would you do? Would you take her back, now that the threat has been disposed of?
After all, if she kills her ex-husband, it is not our problem? Right? And if someone else were killed in the process, that is just collateral damage, right?
It’s not the school’s problem, no. When did we start talking about “our” problem?
The the school should give her her job back if she kills the guy, since the threat would be eliminated.
Yes Beth, really. I’m personally acquainted with several women who just can’t stay away from charming sociopaths, and I work pretty closely with the police, I see that for every successful DV prosecution there are probably five or six 911 rescues that end with all charges dropped by the women who can’t stand to see the men in cuffs who were whaling on them not three minutes ago.
I haven’t heard many anecdotes of great guys who suddenly went bad after years of being good (situations like that usually involved some kind of trauma). I HAVE heard many anecdotes of men who charmed their women into ignoring or rationalizing away the warning signs of abusers only to stop the charming once they had “closed the sale.” If an otherwise intelligent woman lets an Edward Cullen type pull the wool over her eyes, she has to take accountability for that. This is doubly true if, like some I am personally acquainted with, AFTER escaping an abusive situation she gravitates toward another charming rake. A mistake is only a mistake once, after that it’s a choice.
Fired for being victims? Seriously? This woman wasn’t fired for being a victim, she was fired because she was a magnet for a problem that put other people at risk. Your co-workers have the right to work in a safe environment, and you have no right to make that environment unsafe because a few years ago you fell for some jerk’s tattoos and tight jeans, never mind the fact that he already had a violent history (as was the case here).
I was once on the complaint desk for the DC DA. The other lawyers would say it was the worst assignment ever, because you had to tell terrified women that there was nothing you could do until their boyfriends actually broke a law. Sometimes they broke a law by killing the woman who had just complained. I didn’t have one of those—the attorneys had a “club” you got into when you did. They got drunk a lot. And as I understand it, not much has changed, because there just isn’t a good solution.
Well worded and all valid.
Steve, you’re both right and an idiot at the same time. Amazing. Lots of women flock to more abuse once they are abused. Correct. I don’t think it’s because of tight jeans though, it’s because the vitimization is so deep they are conditioned to not know any different. Oh, and note that the battered wife defense is valid in many courts — and it’s valid because courts recognize that this is a complicated problem. Many women do know better but have limited to no options. And yes, there are legions of women who are sound, sane, and rational but somehow end up with a guy who goes psycho. Often there is an untreated mental illness that the guy was able to keep hidden — or it was treated and he went off meds suddenly because he was convinced he was cured. Or, he suddenly turns stalker-with-a-knife once the girl dumps him and something snapped. You know several women? Good for you. I know dozens — and every woman I know can point to dozens more. I even have a great aunt who was murdered by her husband back in the day. This is a massive problem and is severely underreported.
The psychological, physical and financial toll that these unhinged exes bring to a person’s life can be devastating. Charlesworth doesn’t deserve to be stalked nor does she deserve to live in fear due to the machinations of a nutjob so I’m not sure why she feels entitled to put others at risk as well. I have been in her position and one thing that never left my mind was the danger I put others in just by simply being around those people. I felt that I had contracted a horrible type of communicable disease which was unpredictable, easily transmitted to others and potentially fatal. Knowing the hell I was going through, there was no way I would ever want another person to potentially become caught up in my problem…let alone a school. This what I don’t “get” about Charlesworth. Did she not feel an obligation to protect others? Yes, she has to take care of her own kids but not at the expense of the safety of others and there are resources for this and is this not where the domestic violence advocates come in? I wish the school never got the chance to fire her because it is now too easy to point at the school and say the school did the wrong thing in this scenario…even with this man now in jail. Sadly, in most cases these people are not in jail long and what are the chances that someone who is unhinged is going to be even more angry once he gets out of jail? If she is still employed by the school, then where might he go to find her? Trying to get this woman’s job back is not the solution to this problem and could potentially cause more victims. Charlesworth is in a world of trouble and domestic abuse advocates should know that that the easy answer of blaming the school ignores all the other variables which no one seems to address which leaves the victims of these predators completely vulnerable and too often dead.
You should have clicked “Reply” under Beth’s comment. This was a perfect response.
So where does Carie go, with her four kids, unemployed, unemployable and with a guy threatening her? What does Carie do? What does anyone else do with her or for her, if anyone else does anything?
She’s not a nomad nor is she unemployable. Her only issue is putting a stop to the loon, which if he is indeed in prison is a good thing. Other employers may not have the hang up that particular school had.
You and I know the right answer when her safety is in question.
I don’t know what anyone else HAS to do for her… again, is it the job of society to alleviate the results of bad decisions she has made?
And I’d like the clarify, although society is not OBLIGATED to help, you know our society has plenty of sources of help available until she can get back on her feet.
Are you suggesting that she seek employment where all employees can exercise their concealed handgun licenses?
Society unfortunately has little choice in many cases but to hire itself to deal with the results of individuals’ bad decisions. Do you agree?
I’m suggesting she continue to seek employment as well as continue to mitigate or eliminate the consequences of her life choices.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Society unfortunately has little choice in many cases but to hire itself to deal with the results of individuals’ bad decisions. Do you agree?”.
Eeyoure…you get it. What Carie does has a lot to do with her ability to find resources to help her, her knowledge of psychology to determine where this guy’s breaking point is. For instance, there is no point in continuing to file police reports if he is to a point of vengeance at the time he makes bail or bonds out the following day. Whether Carie has a large family or network of friends could make a difference in what she does. The amount of money her family and network of friends has gives Carie even more options. Now, this is sad but the guy might try to kill Carie and she will suffer massive injuries and if she is lucky there will be witnesses and the guy will get locked away long to give Carie a chance to breathe before he gets out again. I will say this, I have never been one who cared much for guns and never cared one way or another regarding the gun debate…until my life was continually threatened. Carie needs to get a gun and learn how to use it. She needs ongoing training because Carie won’t have the ability to make any choices if she can’t defend herself against a man who wants her dead.
Bingo.
Chivalry is dead, so she can go get some training, a CCW, gun or taser and take care of her damn self. It is not the schools problem; it is not my problem or yours. If she is getting beat and I see it I would step in, if it was someone I knew the same. If she doesn’t have family or friends that can go take care of this then she needs to do it herself or she can rely on the government to do the investigation into her death, hopefully if she lets it get that far she won’t put others at risk.
You beat me too it and in a much nicer way…..
Just one question, what would Jesus do? This is supposed to be a catholic school. They are supposed to follow the teachings of Jesus. Would Jesus have tossed this woman and her children out? Of course not. That’s the opposite of what he taught. He taught about a community, of everyone working together to make the world better for everyone. If you’re really a christian, there’s no way you would toss this woman and her family out. If you’re not, then OK. Just don’t pretend you’re a christian.
Interesting how the parents’ gut reaction is to leave the school. I’m wondering what I would do in this situation, as a mom of two little girls. If the guy truly is a danger, can’t every parent in the school sign on to a joint TRO? Or can the school do it on the parents’ behalf? Courts are not great at keeping domestic abusers behind bars — but what if there were 500 violations (I’m assuming 500 students for my hypothetical) of a TRO. In this day and age, the right Judge would keep the guy behind bars.
A TRO won’t stop a bullet or a knife
Agreed. But it still offers some protection if he just shows up. Then you call the police, lock the doors, and send him to jail for a long time.
I guess I need to explain. The TRO offers no protection at all if he shows up shooting. He has already demonstrated that he is willing to violate it and as a solution you recommend having a bunch of people take one out against him, how does that stop him from killing? It would be much more effective if they took one out against her.
If he violates the protective order, does that not make him an outlaw. Bill explains explains what outlaws are .
When that man violated the TRO, he became an outlaw, exlex.
We do not have the concept of “outlaws” now, nor should we. The founding documents preclude it.
What do you mean we do not have the concept of an outlaw? Bill Levinson, who is an American, had just explained the concept.
The ex-husband openly defied a protective order. As far as I am concerned, he has no more business being part of society.
I mean we don’t endorse it, enforce it, or legalize it anywhere.
Beth…you seem like a very nice person. Let me give you this scenario. The teacher of one of your two children receives an email from her ex The email reads…”I will receive my vengeance for your sins, whore. God can strike at anytime, anywhere. God does not care about collateral damage when it comes to whores like you. Suffer the little children? Why is a whore like you working around children anyway? People need to learn that whores like you can’t be trusted around little children. They will learn. God has no patience for whores and the people who trust them.”
What is your gut reaction on this? The teacher who received this email can file charges against this psycho and the police could pick him up and he will most likely post bail or bond out within 24 hours. Now, he is REALLY upset with the teacher because she dared to go to the police. Are you going to keep your child in this school?
I would take my girls out temporarily and demand that the school and the police take appropriate action. And that action should not be a gut reaction to just terminate the teacher. The email you described above would most likely result in an arrest if reported to the police. This poor woman is being victimized twice — once by her ex, and then by the school. Here is my problem — this situation can play out anywhere. What if she worked at a hospital, or a government building, a private office somewhere? There can be children at any of these places. And co-workers have the same right to safety in my opinion. I have no doubt that women get emails like this every day. Where do we draw the line at people getting fired? Because this is such a common occurrence, I’m uncomfortable with agreeing that the victim should be fired.
He might go to jail when a court gets around to hearing the case. Depends on how long his attorney can delay. Months and months and more months….Be prepared to homeschool your child if you are waiting for an arrest. You are right. It does suck for the victim. I won’t deny that.
And suppose the victim decides to take the offensive and gun down the person making the threat?
Should the victim be prosecuted?
YES (not “no,” as I inexplicably typed originally.). Obviously. That’s not self-defense…as you well know.
Did you mean “yes?”?
I said no, I meant yes. Thanks, I can fix that.
Here you go Michael — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/teen-beheads-father-rape_n_3454452.html
Isn’t this a catholic school? I cannot imagine Jesus response to this women’s problem would be to cast her and her children out. And I can’t imagine he would say, sorry lady, it’s your problem not mine. If you put your children in a catholic school, wasn’t the point to learn the teachings of Jesus? I spent 12 years in catholic school and I can’t imagine any of the nuns who taught me reacting like this. None of them would have have considered abandoning this woman and her family just when they need help the most. That is the opposite of what Jesus taught. And in case any of you need a pointer, Matthew 25:45.
Ed, I am so glad you contributed to this discussion. Please hang in there because you are going to take lots of abuse, but I’m with you all the way.
What? This is nonsense. What would Jesus do? Oh, maybe get himself and others shot, and so what? This is moral grandstanding, Ed. It isn’t a solution, it’s a command that we imagine one that doesn’t exist.
It’s not nonsense. It’s the whole point of a christian school. Their mission statement is: promote the teachings of Jesus. You don’t get to say I’m a follower of Jesus until the first moment it becomes inconvenient, then screw this christian stuff. Remember, the ultimate lesson of Jesus was dying for everyone else. It wasn’t a subtle lesson. It also wasn’t a difficult lesson, giving up your life for others is the ultimate expression of christianity. Now we’re not (hopefully) called to do this every day, but it is what we’re taught.
So, Jack, I wasn’t going to lead off in my earlier objections by playing my Catholic card (because you would probably just accuse me of, well, being a misguided, deluded Catholic), but now that Ed has brought up how Christians are supposed to act — ok. This woman has done nothing wrong, and yet the institution she trusted, an arm of the Catholic Church, charged with upholding the principles found in the teachings of Jesus, has abandoned her. Not the Catholic Church I want to have anything to do with. Now, as an employee of said Catholic Church, I am well aware of just how bureaucratic and corporate the church has become, so this doesn’t totally surprise me. But here’s the deal — the church is populated by all kinds of flawed human beings. One would hope that once an action of the institution has been pointed out as un-Christian, they would rectify the situation and do SOMETHING to help this woman. However, the typical human response is to circle the wagons, and we have seen this very reaction with the sexual abuse scandals.
And someone here questioned “What power?” Are you kidding me? The church has a lot of power, make no mistake.
And Zoebrain, thanks for the veiled reference to the Good Samaritan story. Well written. So appropriate, since the 2 who pass the victim on the wayside and do nothing were both religious officials.
I wanted to write something similar but thought it would be inappropriate coming from an atheist. But I’ll still give a hearty “Amen!” to this thread.
The duty is to protect the children, and next, the employees. That cannot be reasonably and sufficiently accomplished when there is a maniac target employed there. Presuming Jesus wasn’t an idiot, he’d see it my way. Being Christian doesn’t give you leave to endanger innocents, the Catholic Church’s recent conduct to the contrary. (Yes, cheap shot. The Church deserves it.)
Protect the children?
Does anyone know how much a bullet costs?
First of all, thank you for speaking for Jesus. I’m sure he appreciates it. Second, protecting children? I guess you don’t include the children of the teacher in your aura of protection because they are being kicked to the curb. They will now have less protection because of this action, but I guess it’s their own fault for being victims. As for the rest of the children in the school, protecting them from what? This D-bag, never threatened anybody except the teacher. He never made any threat against any child. His crime was to violate a restraining order and he’s in jail for that. But the lesson here seems to be if you’re being abused, you better shut up about it or you will lose everything. You don’t think there are other children in schools whose mothers are being abused or who are being abused themselves? The very clear message this gives them is take it or else.
One more thing, this idea that we need 100% protection from all the evil in the world is destroying this country. Life is dangerous, deal with it. If you can’t handle the inherent risk in life, go find yourself a nice padded room and stay there. The rest of us don’t want the world screwed up by your insisting that you be protected from every bump and bruise. To see the incredible wimps that americans have turned into really saddens me. We have some tough times ahead of us. I’m not sure we’re up to it anymore.
“I cannot imagine Jesus response to this women’s problem would be to cast her and her children out.
He would not cast her and her children out; he would cast out the unclean spirits of the man — see Demons Cast into Pigs beginning at Mark 5:2.
So would she be acting unethically to seek employment elsewhere and fail to tell future employers that there is a maniac who seems intent on killing her and possibly her collateral co-workers?
Absolutely!
To the contrary, she should omit the information, committing identity fraud if necessary.
Nonsense. And endanger everyone around her? She has no right to do that, and no ethical system justifies that, other than “Look out for #1.” And that’s not an ethical system.
Your exact words
If we, as a society, adopt this attitude, and people like Carie resort to committing homicide to take care of such problems, we forfeit our moral credibility in prosecuting such homicides, for by our own admission, they are not our problem.
I don’t see that reasoning at all. People can’t go around executing bad guys, even if they are really bad. He is society’s problem to the extent that the wife can’t deal with him. Not the people and institutions I named.
The justification for killing him is that he is a threat.
How, exactly, would that have been worse than what actually happened?
There is an old Russian saying, “net cheloveka, net problema”. Translated, it means, “no man, no problem”.
I wonder if Carie should have taken this advice to heart.
Da. In Amyerica, squeaky wheel gyets the oil. In myother Russia, squeaky wheel gyets removed.
I bristle at the word “utilitarianism” and think that “principle of greatest good” applies equally well here (and isn’t the same thing, though there is a lot of overlap there.) But I still must agree with the analysis here. Depending on the details, the school may or may not have had more compassionate options. But to accuse them of acting unethically or being flat “wrong” doesn’t work.
Would paying $25,000 to some unsavory types to take care of the problem have been worse?
If movies have taught me anything, the solution to this teacher’s problem is to learn martial arts from a wise but stern retired government assassin. One montage later, she will be prepared to kill her ex in self-defense, probably by him falling off of something high.
*Movies have not taught me anything.
Doesn’t Julia Roberts gun down her estranged husband in Sleepign with the Enemy. There wasn’t an ex government assasin — just an understanding musical theater neighbor.
I view the dissenting comments on this thread as akin to massive tantrum. “There just HAS to be a solution to this that keeps the innocent teacher’s job!” No, there isn’t. Not under the law, not under the liability laws, not under ethical systems that place duties to others in hierarchies, as conflicting duties must always be placed. Ethics involves no win situations, frequently. Making no choice is cowardly and irresponsible.. Looking only at the losing side of the equation and concluding, “This decision has to be wrong!” is emotional and irrational.
And saying that Jesus would do “something” is a cop-out.
Tantrum? Isn’t it fair to ask, “are there better options” especially since this isn’t a one off situation? It happens every day. This woman is a teacher and, per your reasoning, she can’t be employed anywhere because she has an ethical duty to inform potential employers about her situation. Okay, well I don’t disagree with that ,but now we have to times that one woman by thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, in the US alone. Given the scope of the problem, you can’t just say “ethics involves no win situations.” We all need to work to a solution to give families like this options.
Eliminating the threat would be a win-win situation for everyone.
Oh my. This is a societal problem – not HER problem. I tried to read through the comments to make sure I was not repeating something – and there was a reference to “government” – which I do not equate to society so I am stating the obvious –This is a societal problem. As such – it requires many facets of society to change -including employers, police, neighbors, church members, grocery store clerks, etc…..there must be education to change the mindset that would leave this family ( and thousands of others) in danger. It is very s l o w l y happening and this case could move national awareness ahead by leaps and bounds if handled competently. Safety first – yes – for the family and the school – temporary leave of absence – fine – marshall resources – take up a collection for a good lawyer – file every possible criminal violation – go into TEMPORARY hiding – while the machine whirs and fails and lets him out again and again.