Gunn Control: Parents Demand that Porn Star Be Fired As Lunch Lady

250px-crystal_gunns_dsc_0278The good people of Vineland, New Jersey are demanding that an elementary school cafeteria worker and playground monitor be fired from her $5,772 a year part-time job because of her prior work in the adult entertainment industry. Louisa C. Tuck, 32, was known as Crystal Gunns and the parents want her fired despite the fact that her prior job was legal and she has done nothing wrong as a part-time worker. Indeed, the only problem is likely to be the number of father’s crowding the lunchroom in a sudden interest in having a meal with their children.

The parents in this case are not just wrong legally but they are asking for expensive litigation that will drain resources from the school system itself — all to enforce their own private puritanical demands.
Tuck has not worked in the industry for five years (though she still has a website and now works with children at the local YMCA. That, however, is not good enough for the parents at the D’Ippolito Elementary School. It appears that moral outrage does not include concepts of redemption or fairness in Vineland. I am particularly interested in which father recognized Gunns and raised the alarm.

Considering my memories of toothless, gravel-voiced, chain-smoking lunch ladies at my school, this can only be an improvement. I am fairly certain that the greatest danger to these children in being handed food by Tuck is arterial blockage rather than moral corruption.

The parental backlash against Tuck is part of a growing trend of teachers and employees being punished for their private lives, though this is the first that I know of involving past conduct.

For the full story, click here and here.

15 thoughts on “Gunn Control: Parents Demand that Porn Star Be Fired As Lunch Lady

  1. […] Assuming that this was not an unlawful weapon, it is unclear why a teacher should be put on leave simply because someone raised concerns. However, schools are increasing punishing both students (here, here, here, and here) and teachers (here, here, for activities outside of school. This includes teachers (here, here, punished for statements on Facebook. School employees have also been targeted. […]

  2. What a bunch of boobs… don’t people have something better to do than police our children’s sex education?

  3. I don’t see how this can disqualify her for the job. I bet that there are photos of some of these parents floating around doing keg stands, using beer bongs, and possibly some of those PTA mom’s making out with other girls back in their college days. MAybe they too should be let go from their jobs.

  4. Now who was it who said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Selective morality inevitably leads to wanton hypocrisy. I’m certain this community has a porn surfing parent somewhere who discovered Ms. Gunn’s past and after some self pleasuring, began to spread the story, expressing growing indignation with each telling.

  5. One wonders whether she was “busted” by her elemenatary school lunch mates viewing her website or previous films or whether it was one or more of the parents.

  6. Mespo & rafflaw,

    I put the comment forth solely as possibility based on law. It is not too uncommon for ALL employees of the school system under the terms of their employment – think Employee Handbook or Rules of Conduct – to have to abide by some form of “morality clause.” I was commenting on the legality of the proceedings, not the morality of them – and then only as a possibility.

    BuelahMan,

    Sorry. I didn’t try hard enough to break the link so it wouldn’t hyperlink in the comment. It was meant to be for the purpose of reference and/or citation, not perusal. 😉 Though she does have some impressive arguments…

    In general, I think the people are being overly puritanical – but where does one draw the line on such things? I don’t think it’s such a cut & dried argument as Prof. Turley makes it out to be – especially since so much of America law is enforced in the courts based on the body of legal precedents.

  7. I agree with Mespo on this one. If she has been working legally in her prior(or maybe curent part time profession) how can that possibly violate a morals clause. I would also be surprised that a lunch lady job actually required the signing of a formal contract. And as Prof. Turley suggests, who was the first parent who discovered her “past” and how did they find out? I am surprised that she wasn’t charged with a Gunn violation.

  8. jonolan:

    I suspect the part-time lunch ladies contract has no morality clause but if such a clause is common throughout the school system, what say you about the morality of denying someone the right to earn living because of some prudish notion of sexuality, and especially if the offending conduct is kept away from the job and in no way impacts the performance of that job.

  9. This issue is somewhat clouded since Ms. Tuck is still registered with PhotoClub and posting adult images on line. There is also her website, http://www.crystalgunns.com which she may or may not be in charge of.

    I’m unsure of the requirements for her employment at the D’Ippolito Elementary School, but if they include some sort of morality clause the parents may have legal reason for complaint based on her current activities as opposed to her previous work in porn.

    I don’t particularly like what’s being done to her, but since there’s current activities involved as well this may not be “wrong legally” as you put it.

Comments are closed.