Shrug. Teaching is a job, just like any other. Assuming that the teachers do not engage in any illegal conduct while off the job or participate in innappropriate conduct on the job, their employer really should butt out of their private conduct.
Are we going to buy into the Clintonian argument that what a role model does in private is irrelevant to his character or to his leadership role?
You're buying into the Clintonian argument that "It's all about sex." In Clinton's case, he wasn't impeached because he was a sleazeball, he was impeached because he committed perjury.
Otherwise, who gives a rip if educators themselves earn extra income as strippers or prostitutes outside the classroom?
I have no problem with them being strippers on the side, since that is a legal business. I would object to them being prostitutes, if that was against the law.
Classic post-modernity, Modernman: Whatever is legal is moral.
You assume that all of the public provocation over this was simply impeachable offenses. You assume wrong.
Like Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, some of us were also provoked by Clinton's quasi-legal "on-the-job" actions (I don't think sex with interns in the White House was part of the presidential job description, do you?).
John the Baptist was publicly upset with (rebuked) Herod the tetrarch because he was sleeping with Herodias, his brother's wife, "and all the other evil things he had done." (Luke 3:19)
Was Herod sleeping with Herodias legal? Of course. Passages like Luke 3:19, where John's rebuke is mentioned, trump your "whatever-is-legal-is-moral" philosophy anytime, even if we wind up losing our head about it like John did (Luke 3:20ff).
"You're buying into the Clintonian argument that "It's all about sex." In Clinton's case, he wasn't impeached because he was a sleazeball, he was impeached because he committed perjury."
You are forgetting that many Republicans agreed with Clinton. To them it was "all about sex".
Once again, your whatever-is-legal-is-moral philosophy shines right through. To you, Nevada educators (in some communities there) could be moonlighting whores, perhaps even having sex with their 18-year-old students while on their second job. That's legal; guess it must be moral, eh?
To you, educators who recruit former students once they turn 18 in order to exploit them as part of their online porn biz would be just dandy. That's legal; guess it must be moral, eh?
Of course, we all know that any legal-but-shady activity any educator does off-campus in the presence of impressionable young minds has absolutely no influence upon them.