Doctor Cleveland's picture

    Kevin Hogan Is a Great Teacher; Mike Beaudet's a Pornographer

    Twenty years ago I got my first teaching job, as one of two young English teachers hired by a little high school in greater Boston. The other new teacher was a guy named Kevin Hogan. Kevin was already a much better teacher than I was, assured while I was struggling, deft where I was stumbling, natural in the classroom in a way I wouldn't be until years later. The kids loved him. I liked and admired him. I certainly didn't feel any shame in being the second-best rookie English teacher in the building (and I was a very distant second); I was just figuring things out, and Kevin was obviously and enormously talented.

    We each left that school after a couple of years, and lost touch. I eventually went to graduate school and became a college teacher. Kevin ultimately remained a high school teacher, and a coach, becoming chair of the English department at a highly regarded charter school. The last time I saw him was on his wedding day.

    Over the last two days Kevin has been been publicly dragged through the mud by a scandal-monging Boston TV reporter named Mike Beaudet, who ambushed him in a parking lot during Thanksgiving week. If you want the details of the scandal, you can already find them spread humiliatingly across the internet; I'm not going to collude in Kevin's humiliation. Kevin has been suspended from his job. He is in real danger of being fired. And he will likely never find another job as a teacher. That is a sad thing, and not just for Kevin.  Teaching may be the single best thing he does for the world, and the world will be much the poorer if he leaves the classroom.

    Many of Kevin's students, past and present, have rallied to support him. So have some of the parents, and many readers and viewers, who are angry at Beaudet's voyeurism and at his TV station's low journalistic standards. Setting out to ruin a person is not investigative reporting, and it's not a public service. Beaudet does not pretend that Kevin has done anything remotely illegal, or that he did the things he's being shamed for while employed at the school where he teaches now. And no one pretends that it did any harm to his students or, indeed, affected them in any way. Like most students, they didn't know anything about their high school teacher's private life. But then that private life was put on TV.

    Watching Beaudet ambush Kevin is sickening. There is no goal except to confront an unsuspecting person with humiliating information, on camera. They don't need an interview to report the story. What Beaudet really wants is to make some pornography: he wants to degrade another human being on camera, inviting his viewers to take pleasure from that spectacle of degradation, and to make money from it. Like porn, Beaudet's little scene dehumanizes the person on camera, strips away his dignity and invites us to see him not as a person but as an object whose sufferings we can enjoy. But at least a pornographic movie is made with the performers' consent; Beaudet doesn't do that. He has gone out to degrade and dehumanize a person who has not agreed, someone he does not allow to say no. He's just going to violate someone on camera. If it were actual pornography, it would be illegal.

    It's a very hard thing to watch done to someone you like and admire. But liking and admiring them isn't even what makes it hard; the hard part is just watching it done to someone you know. The process demands that you imagine the victim as someone not quite real, someone who makes no demands on your sympathy or your shared humanity. TV wants to turn us all into sideshow freaks and sideshow gawkers, jeering and staring. But when you see that happen to someone whom you cannot forget is an actual person, it's like a kick in the stomach.

    If you must watch the clip, let me say that the Kevin I know appears only for a split second, just at the start. For the rest of the ambush, once he's realized what's happening, he can only try to escape or hide. But in the instant that Beaudet approaches him, asking something that Kevin initially doesn't understand, Kevin turns toward him slightly with a warm laugh, not because Beaudet's said anything funny but because Kevin uses the laugh to put people at ease and create rapport. He's begun doing that so fast that you could miss it. Some stranger has asked Kevin a strange question; his instinct is to draw that person into a friendly exchange, and before you notice he's already started doing it. A second or two later Kevin realizes that he's being attacked, and he shuts down. But that quick initial flash of warmth is pure Kevin; it took me back twenty years. It's what makes him so easy to like. It's what makes him so good in the classroom. That's the talent that Mike Beaudet wants to push out of the schools. That's the person he doesn't want you to see at all.


    Looks like the community is being supportive. Times seem to be a changin'.

    kevin hogan is great teacher, editor and friend.  he deserves a chance since this is the past. we all made mistakes in the past and we all have secrets in the past.  kevin hogan was the editor of my book I Rise and he did great job.  Give him a chance.


    Articulated brilliantly, my friend.

    I too knew Kevin a long time ago. I would be honored to have him teach my children. At a time when we hear about so much abuse of children by those in authority, we should give the good guys a break.

    Is the story 'bogus'?

    Kevin Hogan, the high school teacher, apparently appeared in pornographic movies, the most recent may have been from last year, and his role is likely more than a split second.

    Pornography, gay or straight, is sickening trash, and is as low as you can go in cinema.  Having it in your employment history is not the best way secure your career as a public school teacher.

    Kevin Hogan created a big fat problem for himself, and now Kevin Hogan has to get on with his life. It's sad if his indiscretion in his non-teacher activities leads to the loss of a great teacher, however, the case doesn't rank in the upper echelons of 'unfair' in America today.

    If only Fox News would hold their darlings in the GOP to the same accountability standard.

    Somehow I don't think he put it in his "employment history". 

    The community seems to be supporting him 8:1 with "who cares"?

    But perhaps you would like to inform us what legal behavior prohibits you from holding what employment forevermore? Some religions frown on fellatio, so I guess we should demand surveys of all new hires. Used contraception? Can't work here. Muslim? Obviously not suitable. Out-of-wedlock sex? Get real. Seen renting an X-rated movie? Not around my kids, you ain't. Voted Obama? Don't reflect community values.

    HAHA  Oh my God, if "BJ surveyor" becomes a new job description, I'm totally ditching this writing thing and getting into the field of HR. devil

    Reality Check PP: If he was employed doing porn, it's part of his 'employment history', even if he doesn't put it on his CV or his Facebook page. 

    If he keeps his job good for him, his problems should have been easily foreseen, are entirely of his own creation, and present problems for him, which may still be able to be overcome.

    My issue here is that we need to convince more people that stuff like this doesn't matter.  If he's a great teacher, he's a great teacher.  Maybe he enjoys appearing in porn!  He's still a great teacher, right?  Should he have foreseen that most people won't view this as charitably as I do?  Yes.  But most people should view it as charitably as I do.  Society isn't on his side, but reason is.

    I get it, you don't like porn.  I don't particularly like it either, but I find it no more degrading, dehumanizing or depressing then your average community theatre production of "The Odd Couple," and no one would ever suggest firing the guy for doing Neil Simon.

    I have no idea why I'm picking on Neil Simon here, by the way.

    From this article, it looks like the community is supporting him by 80%, but it's a bit hard to be sure.

    PP Reality check #2 - the school administrators or trustees will not be taking a poll to decide what to do with him, although 80% support will help him keep his job.

    They know if Hogan, who has already shown weak judgment, (hypothetical case) takes a few students on a 'field trip' to a porn studio their ass will fired along with him. The final determination will be solely along the line of self preservation for his supervisors and the school administers. Their own survival will be their main concern.

    NCD, are you an idiot?  Your suggestion that Kevin Hogan would take his aged 15-18 students to a porn studio is preposterous.  That's poor judgment, and your premising that possibility by assuming it was poor judgment for him to willingly ACT in a pornographic movie.  Please, NCD, turn off your computer.  Your thoughts are worthless.

    It would have been preposterous to imagine Hogan was doing porn movies in his spare time before he was discovered doing so.

    It may be a shock to you, but poor judgment can be a chronic disorder.

    Good points but the subset of public school teachers who also do porn movies is likely small enough that I will leave it to you, Dr. C. and others to take on the task to 'convince more people that stuff like this' makes no difference.

    We need good teachers so I would wish him the best, yet there are far bigger bigotry/prejudice issues to face in this country then saving the public school jobs of teachers dumb enough to appear in porn productions.

    ...yet there are far bigger bigotry/prejudice issues to face in this country then saving the public school jobs of teachers dumb enough to appear in porn productions.

    Not only are we not faced with such an either/or choice, it is far more productive to eliminate as many bigotry/prejudice issues as possible at once. Consider this: if issue A applies to 1% of the population and issue B applies to 1% of the population, etc., then there's generally not going to to be enough interest in tackling those issues on a one-by-one basis. However, if you look at issues A-Z and α-Ω as one bigger issue of bigotry/prejudice, then you might be able to get a large enough mass of people to make something happen!

    Go ahead take it on, more power to you.

    I recently read an article about this same thing happening, only it was a female teacher who wrote erotica... under a pseudonym. That none of the ELEMENTARY kids she teaches would never have know about, save for someone bringing it out there, fell on deaf ears. I guess not only can't you do porn, but what you chose to write about in your spare time can be held against you as well.

     I've done some research into the 'wisdom of repugnance' - enough to find out that although Kass's example was cloning, what I might find repugnant, my neighbor might not find repugnant, so this is such a slippery slope. There is, frankly, no universal 'wisdom' in repugnance. It's a purely personal matter.

    I don't care what the teachers do on their off time, if they don't bring it to school, it's not my business. EXCEPT if they break the law. 

    Last year, I found out that a teacher who was teaching one of my disabled kids spent a night in jail for DUI after crashing her car, and this wasn't her first offense. That I find much more offensive than a guy who likes to do porn on the side. But I wasn't that bitchy parent who called the school and told on her. I just figured I'd never let my kid in a car with her. And regularly visited school to make sure I didn't smell alcohol on her breath while she as working.

    But this is America, not another country and we tend to get all preachy and above it all when it comes to anything that could be considered (by some) to be prurient. But Miley Cyrus can writhe around on a pole at an award show and the school book drive flier can contain any number swag she's selling today, and that's just fine and dandy.

    Irony, beautiful irony.

    Seriously? The porn industry is horrible, sure, but amateur porn tends to show healthy, loving, consensual sex. It's much more fun to watch as a result. Even so, there's nothing degrading about choosing to do anything on camera. The degradation is in being forced, in front of a live audience, to do something you don't want to do.

    Thank you for posting this.  I am a former student of Kevin Hogan and I could not agree more.  Very well said.

    Thanks, Caroline. Great to hear from you.

    Doctor Cleveland, I too have had the honor of working with Kevin in the past. You have most elegantly and compassionately encapsulated what I admire about the man. The only way I was able to finally sleep last night (I couldn't sleep the night FOX first ran the story) is that due to Kevin's warmth, talent, and good nature, local, national, and international communities are rallying behind him. I have a feeling that even if Kevin is no longer able to pursue a teaching career, he and his amazing wife will rise above all this and be fine. Too many people love and respect them and don't give a darn what legal extracurricular activities he may have taken part in. 

    Thanks, Carolina. I'm hoping the best for them.

    I'll admit that I'd be surprised and a bit fearful to find out that a former porn actor was my kid's favorite teacher. But I'm wondering where to draw that line. Porn actor, prostitute, soft-core actor, exotic dancer, politician, financial adviser, used car salesman, ....

    As an anecdote, years ago, one of my community theatre acquaintances got himself a job teaching at a nearby college that's been in the news a lot lately. He had returned from years in Hollywood and told me stories about almost getting into a Ron Howard flick, etc. He was teaching film class and showed the class scenes from films he had been involved with—which turned out to be soft-core. And that was the end of that.

    I haven't heard that Hogan did anything that dumb, though.

    I guess we all got wrapped up in the porn aspect, but I'd like to address Doc's main point here -- the bad, pointless "gotcha" journalism.  I think a journalist could decide that this story is in the public's interest.  No matter what I might think, people do react strongly to this.  NCD, for example, argued that it's kind of dumb to participate in this sort of thing and not expect that some members of our society will have a problem with it.  Donal admits that he might have a problem with it.

    But then the journalist has a choice about how to pursue the story.  The ambush in the parking lot tactic is one that's a bit guaranteed to make the subject of the story look nefarious.  In implies to the audience that the subject is dodging a crusader for the public good.

    It's also not how to really practice journalism.  An interview isn't supposed to be like a pop quiz.  Your subject should be prepared.  Your subject should have time to adequately reply to allegations (if there are any) or to explain nuance (as there always is.)  Why was this guy hounded down in the parking lot with no notice when he could have been invited to the studio to be interviewed at length in a more controlled and calmer environment?

    My experience is more with Web sites and magazine than broadcast, so I've worked in controlled environments.  But I was also charged with the responsibility of making sure that the subjects of my stories knew, in advance, what was coming and that they were given adequate time to respond.  No fair calling a busy executive two hours before deadline and then running with the story anyway.  No fair waiting outside somebody's office and giving them there one and only shot at giving you their side of the story while you're in an elevator.

    Yes, you might lose your scoop doing it this way.  But there's tons of stories out there.  Your integrity is in finite supply.

    The reporter here owed Hogan the opportunity of notice and to be interviewed in an environment where he could participate in adult environs, in an adult manner.  It is true, if tipped off, that he might have gone to a more sympathetic journalist with the story.  It actually doesn't happen all that often, but it happens.  But so what? This local Fox dude should be ashamed.  Though I bet he isn't.

    Maybe there was someone else before them, but I recall that 60 Minutes made its rep doing ambush journalism decades ago, and I don't remember too many complaints—in fact everybody I knew thought it was great stuff. The targets on 60 Minutes certainly seemed to deserve it, but then Geraldo took it further. And local news programs started chasing local people through parking lots, too. And O'Reilly and Breitbart have taken it farther yet. Again, where do you draw the line?

    If it's someone I don't like, then it's OK. If it's someone I do like, then you've definitely crossed the line.

    In all seriousness, you raise a valid point, Donal. I think a more valid answer might be something along the line of: first you try to get an interview with the person. If the person is consistently "unavailable" for the interview (and there's an issue of judgment involved there), then the ambush interview is not without merit. That's my 2 cents, and it's off the cuff, so I reserve the right to change my mind on it. smiley

    I suppose there's a point where an ambush is the last resort.  But it's after multiple attempts to schedule an interview in a civilized manner.  Those attempts should include offering an off camera telephone interview as well as mailing, e-mailing or faxing questions to the subject, should they prefer to answer in writing.  I have, in the past, Fed-Exed questions to people who were reluctant story subjects.  In many cases, their being able to see my entire line of questioning made them decide to participate, either because the questions weren't what they feared or because they realized on seeing them that it would be better to address certain issues than not.

    By the time you ambush somebody they should pretty much know exactly what you're going to ask, who you are and why you're there.  You also should have done so much darned research that you'd be comfortable doing the story without their participation.

    What I don't like is the ambush done purely for the purpose of getting footage of somebody running away from the intrepid reporter.

    I think a lot comes down to power. I think you can legitimately play a little rougher with the mayor of a big city than you can with a small-time public employee.

    The alleged rationale for the story is that Kevin's past makes him (in some way that can't quite be articulated) unfit for working with teenagers. The actual rationale for the story is that it gives the local Fox TV station a chance to humiliate someone on camera. If the goal were to get Kevin out of the classroom, they could have forewarned him and his superiors, in which case he might have decided to step down quietly. But that wouldn't get Fox25 what it wanted, which is the videotaped shaming.

    I agree.  The best journalists I know "punch up" rather than down.  Unless somebody is actually creating harm to society, you don't generally pluck them out of obscurity just to try to knock them down.  But, I'm old fashioned.

    A great sendup of similar "trenchcoat stick-mike journalism" from the Doc's backyard a few years ago:


    Not only was Mr. Hogan ambushed, so were some of the parents.  In the initial "report" a couple of parents are shown in their cars, presumably there to pick up their kids after school.  They are then told about Mr. Hogan's past employment.  And, I believe, they were also shown pictures of him in these movies.  They are then asked what they think about having someone who has done porn teaching their kids.  

    No desire at all to watch it, sorry your friend got caught up in this sort of bullshit ... like what we need at this point is to have some jackhole out there trolling the past private lives of our damn teachers of all things.

    Mike Beaudet didn't just materialize there though. This really raises questions about his assignments and production oversight. Yeah, he's a slimeball . But what about the fuckers who paid him and sent him out to do it?

    That's certainly true. It's a way of doing TV "news," and an overall media strategy, at a lot of places. If it were just Beaudet, it would only be Kevin's problem. But sooner or later almost all of us are going to have someone who know and like caught up in some little Baudet's slow news day.

    Well written blog, You won't agree, but here is my 2 cents:

    If there is nothing wrong with a high school English teacher doing porn films then why didn't Kevin Hogan just admit it to the reporter?  Why didn't he say, "Yes, My porn name is Hytch Cawke and I get paid to have sex on-camera.  My latest film is 'Just Gone Gay 8.  It's available on-line and at local adult video stores.

    (based on the report all of that information is accurate)

    When you make the mud you have to be ready to spend some time in it.

    Ok-using your scenario then ANYONE can be attacked for their past even if legal. The social worker at DSS, Oh did you hear she had a kid at 15?? The teacher in a public school.. did you know they play poker for high stakes?? How about your local politician leaving his cancer stricken wife for a newer model??  OH NO WAIT-that's office worker who drinks EVERY NIGHT. NO PROBLEM!  A president who does you know what with a girl young enough to be his daughter ..A-OK with the prevailing morality. Moral clauses are moot if we do not define the prevailing morality. Patently unfair.How about the reply none of your business. Or how about tell me about your alcoholism, cheating, gambling, , political opinions. donations, religious beliefs, gossiping, rumor mongering - gay porn is worse than this??There are all different kinds of mud-apparently the gay porn mud is the kind to get you demonized for. ALL kinds of mud are legal but who is to say what is moral? WHo will cast the first stone? Just freaking ridiculous. This is a man's life.This is not an academic question.

    Let's be honest here.

    He should have been banging broads.

    I want to clarify my response, if only for my own intellectual well-being.  I don't care what kind of porn he likes to do, I have my own preferences.  But if my son's public school teacher is sucking dick and getting fucked in the ass on camera, there is a problem.

    I am glad you clarified.  Yours is a very mainstream opinion.

    But, if I may challenge it... why is it a problem?

    One issue is, why is that material available to kids.

    In the pre-internet days, it wouldn't be - there could be rumor, but not videos

    Why is it a problem when your son's teacher is getting fucked in the ass on camera?  Are you serious?

    I'll tell you what.  Me and Kevin Hogan would be best friends if I ever met the cat.  I'm quite sure we would jam to Rush.  In no way do I support the hurt that has come his way.  I'm sure he's reading this.

    You're fine, Kevin. (Edited to add) You just can't teach my son.

    Just to clarify something: would you have any less of a problem if he were fucking a woman on camera? I.e., is it the porn or the gay porn? (I'm guessing it's mostly the former, based off other stuff you've written, but without precise alignment of my snark-o-meter, your comment sounds very much like the latter.)

    No, really, answer the question.  You've restated your opinion here, but you haven't really explained it.  You're admirably pointing out that he's a fine person, so you're surely not implying that he's going to act in some untoward manner towards his students.  So where's the issue?  Sounds like it just skeeves you out a bit, which doesn't seem the best basis for making decisions like that.

    Fundamentalist Christianity skeeves me out, but if it's kept out of the classroom, I have no basis for saying "I don't want that Christian teaching my kid The GReat Gatsby."

    Thank you.  It's legitimate to question his judgment. One of his movies is the eighth in a series?  And kids do look at porn.  Just because we think discrimination against homosexuals is wrong (and it is wrong) doesn't mean he gets a free pass for his behavior.  This is not a scientific computation, but it is a fact.


    I do agree with you there.  As a parent, you have the right to question the judgment of the people teaching your kids.  But aren't there many reasons for questioning some one's judgment?  I might well question the judgment of a religious person, right?  I might question the judgment of somebody who believes we should go back to the gold standard.  I think that this has just come down to a taste issue, and you're of course entirely entitled to your tastes.

    In any event, you've expressed those tastes in an extremely diplomatic and fair minded way.  It does seem as if you believe that anyone who would participate in pornography, on some fundamental level, lacks good judgment.  I just don't agree with you there.

    Please read my comment again.  If it is perfectly acceptable for a high school english teacher and crew coach to be a porn star then why would Hogan deny it?  "I don't know what you're talking about" is what he mumbled in that story. 

    If  it's all fine and dandy why didn't he list it on his job application or mention it to the school when he was hired?  Or heck, why didn't he offer to donate a portion of  "Ass Fucked by a DILF #2" (actual title of one his movies) to the crew team in a school fundraiser?

    If he was doing this in the privacy of his bedroom - no problem at all - but there is NOTHING "private" about starring in porn films.  That argument is laughable.

    Sorry, You can't have it both ways in this world.

    He wouldn't put it on his resume because it's irrelevant to his qualifications for the job.

    Consider your logic again: even if he was doing this solely in the privacy of his bedroom (i.e., no cameras involved), would he want that announced to the world? I don't think so.

    I understand that if he were a former porn actor that would concern many parents, but the position that if it's OK he shouldn't mind people knowing about it is logically unsound. As I mentioned previously, I'm an atheist, but I don't want my employer knowing that.

    Uh, what's a DILF?

    Democrat I'd Like to Fondle.

    First, it's possible that he might have answered that way had the reporter been professional and courteous by scheduling an interview in a neutral location rather than popping out of nowhere in a parking lot.

    Second, there are a lot of perfectly legal and (to my mind, anyway) perfectly moral things that I do that I do not discuss at work.  If a reporter ambushed me outside of my office demanding to know if I blogged as destor23 I might well give an evasive answer, especially if the behavior of said reporter would lead me to question his motives.

    Third, the answer you suggest for him might not be the best one anyway.  He probably feels like the movies he participates in are fine things for adults, but not for minors.  That'd be a pretty mainstream view.  In which case his answer would be something like, "Yeah, I do that on my own time but I'm not going to get into the details about it with you."  Because, you know, nobody else who likes to watch or be watched discusses it in front of an audience that might be full of kids either.

    As a very precise example, I keep my atheism "in the closet" at my current job because the vast majority of my co-workers (including my boss) are quite religious. I'm not in the least bit ashamed of my atheism (but, to be honest, I would be ashamed of doing porn, and if Kevin Hogan did porn, I expect he might be ashamed of it to, but maybe not).

    My guess is, for the same reason someone wouldn't offer any of the above to the reporter, or even to an employer:


    "I'm a homosexual"

    "I'm a functioning alcoholic and while I don't drink at work, I get plastered every night and every weekend."

    "I'm bipolar."

    "I'm into S&M and frequent one of the many underground local establishments."

    "I like to wear my wife's nylons and panties around the house."

    ...and on and on.  None of the above is illegal, as with his extracurricular porn activity, but it's just not something you offer up and frankly shouldn't be anyone else's damn business, on all counts, if what you do on your off time (or who you are) doesn't make it's way into the workplace and/or affect job performance.

    Say you had a wild weekend in Las Vegas.  There is nothing wrong with that.  But if ambushed by a stranger in the parking lot of where you worked, someone shoved a camera in your face and asked you about it, what would be your response?  Would you say "yes, I did that and that and that." or would you say "excuse me!" and try to get away?

    Like porn, Beaudet's little scene dehumanizes the person on camera, strips away his dignity and invites us to see him not as a person but as an object whose sufferings we can enjoy. But at least a pornographic movie is made with the performers' consent...

    Interesting that Dr. Cleveland chimes in with his own personal knowledge of this man.

    Most of the time these objects of  review by MSM are just symbols; they are just virtual human beings.

    When the object is someone we knew and respected; that is another thing.

    Those who know the MSM's virtual object, have read more of the file than is available on TV or on the web.

    Mark Wahlberg (whom I have never met) has a history of 'bad behavior'. It actually troubled me for awhile.

    He just stood up and said:

    This is me. Handle it or ignore me.

    I have changed my mind about him lately. And yet Mark does not reside in my reality.

    Why do some folks survive the onslaughts of outrageous fortune hunters and others become so wounded?

    I appreciate this post because it is based upon personal knowledge of the object of scorn by professional accusers paid to accuse.

    I do not know exactly why, but this blog has struck me personally!

    Thank you.


    It's definitely contextual.  Anthony Weiner, for example, would have had a fighting chance with an excuse like, "Yes, I did it.  That was dumb.  My wife is going to kill me and I got caught up in my own celebrity and did something vain and foolish."  His constituents like him and they were rooting for him to take the high road.

    Wahlberg has had a long and lucrative show business career.  He probably doesn't have to work, he chooses what he wants to do.  So he can say, "this is me, deal with it."  The people who want to work with him are exactly the type for whom it's not an issue in the first place.  Contrast that with a Lindsay Lohan who is younger, less wealthy, and needs to work to support her lifestyle.  She can't say "Screw it, deal with who I am," because the people she wants work from just won't.

    I think status and "F you" money have a lot to do with it.  Also, of course, ambitions and expectations of life.  The alternative, for mere mortals, is to choose to live an outcast lifestyle.  Move to a cheap place and live cheaply and anonymously.  You'll mostly not be hassled.  But that's also not the life most of us social creatures want.

    Question for all here.

    If the (hypothetically) intolerant administrators of this school, joined by cohorts at the district, decided to save their own behinds from a head-hunting vocal minority of the parental public, put Hogan on  a glide path to dismissal, what would you do if you worked in the district or the school?

    Do you put your own career on the line for a conspicuously dumb guy who is a great English teacher? Because personally putting jobs on the line is what the administrators may risk by backing Hogan.

    Who would propose to, and then follow through on, going on strike, or resigning in protest?

    Give up your job, paycheck, seniority and tenure on the 'porn is legal and OK for teachers' position? Dr. C? Destor? VA?

    Then, when you are out looking for another job you proudly assert: "My school let go a teacher who acted in porn movies, so I quit on principle, please hire me".

    Frankly I doubt the sincere beliefs expressed here would carry that far, and that says a lot.

    No, I wouldn't.

    I'm not sure how much that says.

    I have a kid.  He needs medical insurance and food.  I can't walk on anyone without a plan.

    In my last job I was made to fire some people (I was a supervisor) during rounds of layoffs.  I thought the decisions were deeply unfair.  I didn't walk out that day (Hell, dumb little robot I am sometimes, I think I stayed and worked late that day) but the resumes started to go out.

    And I guess that's what I'd do in that situation.  I'd endure it and provide for my family because that comes before my ideological stances, but I'd start looking for a way out of a toxic environment.  And I believe that other talented people would, too.  And that's how organizations rot slowly from within.

    So, no.  No heroics.  But people do react and I would, too.

    By the way, I get that what you're saying is reasonable.  When you engage in iconoclastic behavior, you have to accept that society might well be bothered by it, whether or not it's morally right or wrong.  I don't read you as saying that what he did was necessarily dumb, more that he should have reasonable anticipated problems, given where our society is at this point.

    But, hey, if the majority of the public is behind him, then maybe nobody has to lose a job over this, which would be the best outcome.

    I'm not a teacher, nor do I work for the school. I am a member of the public - who's opinion helps influence the policy makers that ultimately tell said administrators what is expected of them in administering the schools. As is pretty much everyone else posting here.

    I say administrators should DEFINITELY be expected to stand up to a head-hunting vocal minority on behalf of the teachers under their protection if that minority is wrong. What if a vocal minority decide next to assert an interracially-married couple shouldn't be teaching their kids ... what do you say if administrators decide to save their own behinds and put them on a glide path to dismissal?

    So, what ... this guy made a porn? So. None of his students can even legally encounter it. What's the problem ... why are these people's kids watching porn in the first place?

    And if yours do .... the first question you ask isn't going to be "Who's been peddling porn to my kid?" or maybe "Is my kid hanging around with kids who access and provide him with porn?" or even maybe "Damn, wonder why my kid wanted to see his teacher's bare ass? HA! Bet that'll learn 'em!" ... nope ... you go blame the damn teacher for having done something before he ever started teaching those kids? Stupid. If he's a good teacher; tell the nosy a-holes to shut the fuck up and let him do his job. We need good experienced teachers more than we need to accommodate uptight morons.

    There is absolutely no reason this was news in the first place.

    What destor said. I'm no hero. Beyond that, I'm a hypocrite. At the risk of saying it one too many times, I don't advertise to my employer that I'm an atheist. I've never been put into a position to deny it, either, and I'm fairly certain I'd admit to it if asked (which would be illegal) or at least say it's none of his opinion.

    To be clear, my previous disagreement with you wasn't on the specific, as this is very much an edge case for me (all the more reason I wouldn't put my career on the line for it). My previous disagreement with you was purely one on what I took to be a (minor) logical flaw in your argument about needing to pick our battles on discrimination/prejudice. I loves me some devil's advocate, in case that's not clear by now. devil

    In thinking a little more about it, the degree to which I'd stick my neck out would also be influenced by how well I knew and respected the guy. I won't defend that qualifier as it's not necessarily completely logical, just say that's how it'd be.

    Frankly I doubt the sincere beliefs expressed here would carry that far, and that says a lot.

    Yes, it says that the risks of being ambushed by an unscrupulous journalist should be worrisome to all of us because we can't count on our immediate bosses, coworkers and neighbors rallying to protect us. Those who support privacy claim that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear. Those who pay attention to history know that personal information can be twisted against you.


    Privacy is not the issue here Donal. Hogan starred in porn films available for download or purchase. Hogan was not a reincarnation of Harvey Milk, a true American hero who died fighting for the privacy rights of all Americans.

    VA, I would defend your right to your beliefs in anyway I could, and would expect so would the federal courts. However if you are employed by some Bible thumping Republican hypocrite, you would best avoid the religion subject, as enforcing the law, and one's rights, in America is slow and very, very expensive.

    Privacy is one issue. I'm fairly law-abiding, and I have had a public persona, but I certainly don't want someone showing up with a camera asking about my private life.

    Your argument seems to be that making porn is so bad the guy has forfeited all his rights. I am leery of the drugs and organized crime associated with the porn industry, but I'm not ready to say he's necessarily a danger to students.

    No that's not my argument, and your private life is safe. Hogan is not 'forfeiting all his rights', he has only put his job teaching children at risk, and his privacy was never invaded.

    No, the reporter put Hogan's job at risk by publicizing Hogan's second career. As far as I know Hogan has a legal right to make that sort of film. As far as I know the school board has a legal right to hire and fire whom they choose.

    But the reporter started this fight, and is now holding coats and licking his lips for the next chapter of the story. And he will probably do the same thing again, and again.

    The school board cannot hire and fire who they choose. They cannot just fire blacks, Catholics, 55 year olds, Democrats, Texans, disabled, smokers, short people, asthma sufferers, etc. If you're declared a drug user or terrorist, you're out of luck. Where we stand is figuring out rights of gays, sexually open people and other figures exposed by the internet and tendency to be less covert. (even supporting Occupy Wall Street or not being fervent about the war can cross the lines still)

    No, Hogan put one career at risk by having another one, the reporter reported the facts.

    No, the status quo was working, but the reporter forced the situation into critical mode. You keep trying to excuse the reporter's role in this and blame it all on Hogan. Hogan was doing something you don't like, but nothing illegal.

    If a reporter ambushes you in the parking lot and exposes that you post on a liberal blog, and your bosses fire you because all their clients are conservatives, who got you fired? If a reporter ambushes VA and reveals that he is an atheist, and he gets fired, who got him fired? If they ambush me and report that I've been to Occupy Baltimore, and I get fired because that makes my bosses nervous, who got me fired?

    I'm against dangerous people as teachers, but you're requiring that people be not merely non-dangerous, but non-controversial to hold onto their jobs, and I find that absurd.

    There's sort of an applicable discussion going on in the UK right now (interesting that it's going on in the place that's arguably the birthplace of sleazy attack journalism, going way way back, centuries before Murdoch et. al. ) with the Patrick McMullan testimony, in that he seemed proud of taking the ambush ethos to new heights:

    Is Privacy Evil?

    by Lauren Collins, The New Yorker's Daily Comment, Dec. 1

    .....McMullan gave evidence Tuesday at the Royal Courts of Justice, in London, to the Leveson Inquiry on press ethics.....

    .....“I felt slightly proud that I’d created a riot and got a pediatrician beaten up.” If journalists, in some people’s esteem, rank alongside used-car salesmen and tax collectors, they descended, with every word McMullan spoke, closer to hangmen.

    McMullan’s testimony riveted Britain, much like the “three-in-a-bed with cocaine”—as McMullan described it—in which the News of the World, in December, 2005, reported that the Welsh singer Charlotte Church’s father had participated....

    Read more

    Here is the London Review of Books Blog take on the story:

    From the Gutter by Glen Newey, Nov. 30,

    which is interesting in that it starts out quoting Marguerite Duras on journalists being moralists and then gets into all sorts of complex snark (some readers might need a British slang translator).....

    I have always been disgusted with Fox News, and only watch it for amusement to see how low they can go. Mike Beaudet's sleazeball ambush puts him right at the top of the Fox News creeps.  So who at Fox was watching the porn and discovered Kevin Hogan?

    Beaudet?  Is there a closeted staff member filled with self loathing and self hatred about his own latent homosexuality that he is ashamed of and needs to lash out? Food for thought.

    A thought-provoking post and discussion. Yes, the Fox reporter engaged in the cheapest, most sensationalized form of character assassination. And yes, it's remarkable that his students have rallied behind him. He's only suspended at this point, so maybe they can save his job. But once the story broke, I can't see the school board acting otherwise, especially since there is no doubt a morals clause in every teacher's contract. Hopefully, he'll get the opportunity to argue his case at a hearing.

    One thing I disagree with is the contention that the reporter violated his privacy. Performing in commercial porn (not there's anything wrong with that) is very much public behavior. 

    The government and our employers and the media have no business in the bedrooms of the nation. So there's no reason an openly gay (or otherwise sexually active) teacher should fear for his/her job. But there's a real difference between doing something in private and disseminating video of it to the world. 

    It isn't illegal or even necessarily immoral; it just leaves you open to the judgment of your community. If you're rich and powerful enough (see Charlie Sheen), you can tell the community to fuck off. If not, be prepared for consequences.

    Making porn is a COMMERCIAL endeavor. The product is subject to controlled public release, but porn is only shown in private establishments and possession is limited to only those who are of legal age (which does not include a single one of this man's students, BTW) among other tight restrictions regarding legal location of distribution, etc. Asserting some sort of overlap between the two situations seems to be starting to push at the elastic boundaries a bit ... there genuinely is no legal way for this teacher's porn be encountered by his students, certainly not via some public transport mechanism.

    But, honestly, that distinction isn't why I think you miss (at least my) point.

    Your formula proposes that if a private citizen is involved with the production of any product that is publicly distributed, they give up their right to security in their private space. In perpetuity. I don't think that is sustainable. Descending on his workplace as if a time-sensitive police sting were going down, in particular, was not justified and a TOTAL invasion of privacy.

    The part I found to be truly pornographic was the “Let It Rip” clip.  The masturbatory glee with which they rehashed the ambush of Hogan was truly obscene; they were practically salivating as they reveled in their moral superiority.

    When you consider that the story started off with Mr. Hogan saying "I don't know what you're talking about, have a nice Thanksgiving" and then you realize the the story aired on the following Tuesday after Thanksgiving - you can do the math and realize Mr. Hogan had at least 5 days (if not more) to contact a lawyer and the reporter and do a formal style interview to set the record straight.  I'm sure the reporter would rather have used an interview with real answers in exchange for not airing the confrontation style interview.  Investigative Reporters confront their subjects because IF they were to ask for a formal interview - then they run the risk of the subject going into hiding before the story deadline, thus never getting the answers.

    This isn't a story condemning the teacher because he is "gay" - but rather that he recently starred in pornography sold on the shelves of Mass and worldwide on the web.  How long did he think this would go unnoticed by electronic savvy kids?
    Recently, a former porn actress (Sassa Grey) read books to first graders for a grand total of 3 hours and the school district got heat for it - that was a ridiculous response.  But this teacher works daily with older students who have a bevy of social difficulties to hurdle.  Parents need to trust that the teacher spending 40 hours a week with their child has the good judgment to guide them appropriately.  When it is discovered that the teacher does not have the appropriate judgment then getting rid of that teacher is the appropriate response. Appearing in not just one porn, but many in your forties says a lot about one's good judgment skills.  If Mr. Hogan did this in his early twenties, then I would totally think it was somewhat okay and even a fantasy we've all indulged ("Imagine getting paid to have sex with a hot looking partner!?")   But these films were in production as recently as last year in between his teaching jobs. Mr. Hogan also started an online porn store in 2009 called "Candy Coated Porn" that sold in home dungeon style devises and also, after his past was just uncovered, closed his twitter account under his pornstar name "Hytch Cawke" (ah hem, I think the "Hytch" is word play and has something to do with the metal ring on the end of his unit?)

    Imagine for a second if this was discovered and there was no fallout for Mr. Hogan?  The message would be that starring in porn is equivalent to being the Head of the English Dept, so "Go for it kids, porn is cool!"  Mr. Hogan deserved to be exposed for lying to his school district and running the risk that this could have been discovered by the students first.  And imagine what would have been then?  Students mocking him behind his back, parents wanting him dead, a toppled school administration and every news outlet in New England knocking at Hogan's door.  This simply isn't a case of a jilted lover posting your private sex tape online - this was many sex for hire films, and as it turns out not all of them are gay porn.  One question - if you lived in Nevada where prostitution is legal - would you allow a prostitute to teach your child?  Before answering, remember the only difference between being paid for sex prostitution and paid for sex pornography is one is protected by free speech.

    Any one who knows anything about the porn industry knows that there are way more victims than is seen on the surface.  Mr. Hogan is delivering "punishment" to a much younger man in Fetish World.  I pray that man was at least 18, but let's face it - even if he was 18, then he was probably a victim of some adult rapist for some time in his 17 years prior to "acting out" himself.

    Mr. Hogan, do porn if that is your passion, but get the wisdom to understand that this option eliminates you from teaching high school students and younger.  In fact, you did know this eliminated you as a candidate, hence the reason you lied on your state licensure application  

    These are judgments I am making here on Mr. Hogan a pornographer, but so many seem to want to shoot the messenger (Mr. Beaudet) confusing this issue for an attack on gay people.  At a time when we need more, not less investigative teams at new outlets under large budget cuts, it's been Mr. Beaudet who has put his face and name on the line consistently churning out legitimate stories.  He has an excellent reputation for going after some heavy topics and doing right by the taxpayers.  He's done great stories for nearly two decades, stories that include exposing discrimination and even (surprise, surprise) gay ballot box issues that would have hurt the pro gay marriage vote in Massachusetts.  He's done stories that could be considered both pro and anti illegal immigration, so what becomes clear to this viewer is that he doesn't have an agenda other than discovering the truth. This story could be called a "lay up" (no pun) in the Investigative News circles - not too hard (no pun again) to uncover once given the tip (really, no pun again ; )  Not all investigational stories are six months in the making, but regardless this story still performed a service for the parents, taxpayers and school department in that district.  The school is forced to face the problem and couldn't hide the issue and pass it onto another school.  The students started a petition and say "he's a great teacher."  But the point is kids are impressionable and most of them would be glad to eat ice cream for dinner every night. 

    Good luck to Mr. Hogan, I think you can still teach in some state or go to the university level.  You can even parlay your new found porn celebrity and write a book or promote the one you recently edited.  You're now free to live your dream and make your next film.  It could be titled "C^m to Class with Professor Hytch Cawke."

    In the end, this is a great teaching moment for students in an age when everything they put on the web is something that could possibly hurt their chances of getting into college or a future job. 

    Stay strong with this witch hunt on you Mike and keep up the good work!


    Really? Seriously Kevin it sounds like you too have lost yourself in the News Corp funhouse.

    Mr. Hogan had at least 5 days (if not more) to contact a lawyer and the reporter and do a formal style interview to set the record straight. I'm sure the reporter would rather have used an interview with real answers in exchange for not airing the confrontation style interview.

    No, Mike Beaudet used to highlight his best confrontations on his website and his trailers usually show him chasing someone who doesn’t want to talk. He WANTS to show people who won’t talk to him. This teacher had no obligation to give WFXT a story or answer questions. Fox spends $5k to go harass someone for the afternoon.  That’s more than a teacher takes home in a month.  Do you know what it costs a teacher to hire a lawyer?

    Investigative Reporters confront their subjects because IF they were to ask for a formal interview - then they run the risk of the subject going into hiding before the story deadline, thus never getting the answers.

    NO, that's Mike Beaudet. Good reporters ask for interviews and while they may be persistent, they recognize that an ambush will not result in a well thought through response, ESPECIALLY if the target has no experience with publicity. If he's the governor, ok, but a private person may just decide that what they did in the past is their business. What makes you think that he owes Fox any answers??? Watch 60 minutes or 20/20 interviews. Excellent reporters such as Barbara Walters and AG Shulzinger were heralded for being GRANTED interviews by controversial figures. Paparazzi (and apparently News Corp) TAKE stories without asking.

    As for your comments about the teacher's choices to do and participate in porn, I am neutral. I believe that some of your arguments would be ones that a parent could appropriately communicate to a member of a school board if it bothered them. That would allow the school to consider the issue and professionally handle the situation.

    Mr. Hogan deserved to be exposed for lying to his school district and running the risk that this could have been discovered by the students first.

    WHO DESERVES TO BE EXPOSED, KEVIN???? Does Mike Beaudet have you convinced that people who make mistakes or choices that you think are bad, deserve to be exposed? If a child is caught with porn under his bed does he deserve to be exposed? If a 15 year old girl has sex and gets pregnant, does she? If you have an affair and then go on parenting your children, shouldn't you be outed on television for having access to young people when you have done some a morally reprehensible thing? If someone is a sex addict and is having difficulty maintaining stable relationships, should there be a Facebook page about that? If a child steals another kids candy, should we perhaps set up a cyberbullying attack on them?

    Do you understand what happens when you EXPOSE a private citizen on television? It is not like a Herman Cain deal, where a public person has put themself out for scrutiny. It ruins and destroys them. People only hear the bad, judge way beyond the reality of the situation, are terrified of the publicity and fear that is created and jump to crazy conclusions.  Fox Undercover INVITES people to hate and misjudge especially when facts are conveniently left out or misreported.  It’s a free for all at that person because it’s one person against News Corp -- not a fair fight.   A private person doesn't have the resources to fight and might not feel that they even have to answer to Fox (and they would be right).

    All the things that you said could happen if kids found out - well the kids did find out - ALL OF THEM - and that's Mike Beaudet's fault. Why not just inform a board member or the principle of the school? Wouldn't that have also set the ball rolling if people really did have a problem with him teaching? Instead, Fox Undercover created a circus and alot of people got hurt. And this is not the first time for Mike Beaudet its just that this time he went after someone who others don’t categorically hate. And speaking of who should be doing what, Mike has repeatedly withheld factual information, lied about his approach on video and IS KNOWN to have misreported hard facts. That should categorically disqualify Mike Beaudet as a reporter as well as a teacher.

    I buy that this isn't just a gay issue. It just so happens though that any youth at that school who is gay, is GOING to be affected in a very traumatic way by what Mike Beaudet did, so like it or not, the gay community is involved. And let’s face it, if Malden were in a more liberal town, you may have gotten even more support for the teacher.

    In the end, this is a great teaching moment for students in an age when everything they put on the web is something that could possibly hurt their chances of getting into college or a future job.

    So this was to teach kids a lesson not to do porn, lest they be exposed in the future by a billion dollar news company who runs trailers for skewed tattletale exposes during sweeps week prime time shows? If you want people who are gullible enough to buy that guise, I'd go back to your Fox 25 News audience.   The only lesson here is that Mike Beaudet continues to be duped by his own feelings of power and invincibility into brazen and antisocial behavior which is solely propped by the backing of the Rupert Murdock empire and not the support of Boston communities.

    I don't see this as just a gay issue.  I see this as taking advantage of the freedom of press and an obviously too powerful media company to attack private individuals to show how big and powerful they are.  Sorry but this is not just bad journalism.  It's toxic media.

    Latest Comments