If they were you wouldn't have parents complaining after the fact.
This is not necessarily true.
They could have been, like I said before, Ms. Grey may have been announced as a movie star. But the school knew of her ex-career, and they know the controversy an ex-Adult Film star can create with some parents. But, it seems school over looked that, and that isn't professional.
Why would they bring it up? It seems so strange to me that you believe they should. "Sasha Grey, former porn-star, is going to be at the school. Dads, now's your chance to get a picture and an autograph." They wouldn't say, "Harrison Ford, former carpenter." It just doesn't make sense to me. In this case, given that she's no longer in porn movies, it's just not an issue.
And if she has a kid in the school, even were she actively making adult movies, I wouldn't have a problem with it if she were volunteering as a parent.
They should have informed parents, giving the parents the choice to have their kid opt out.
Again, you're presuming they didn't. If parents aren't curious enough to know who this woman is, that's not the school district's issue.
Now she is an ex-Adult film star, currently a movie star. Now the school will have say an ex-drug dealer or a ex-gang member who is a community leader at the school and say read to kids, and the school will notify parents of that person's past involvement in drugs and gangs, and their current profession.
In these cases, informing the parents about the past gang and drug involvement would ONLY be acceptable to me if it were integral to the reason they were at the school. Typically, the entire reason a former gang member speaks at a school is to warn kids about the dangers of being in gangs or of doing drugs.
This seems self apparent to me. I would be more shocked and outraged if the school district DID make a big deal about the former adult movies that she made, unless she were there to teach kids about the dangers of making adult films. Honestly, THAT might get me a little amped up, as that's a message my 3rd grader doesn't need to hear.
That is pretty common, they should have been just as professional with Ms. Grey. Therefore, when she twitted that she was reading to kids, the news picking it up would not have not reported parents being up set. There would not be such a controversy. It is about the school being consistently responsible.
At this point, if you don't see the easy, clear, common sense distinction between the two, I'm not sure I know how to explain it.
Now, did you see that link I posted about the Coach who gave a politically incorrect motivational survey to his high school players and was fired instantly when discovered. Done because it was politically incorrect. The coach was there for years, no controversial career background. As an ex-coach how many schools would say no to him if he wanted to read to a group of kids. His is qualified. How many parents would be upset if he read to their kids? You have to be fair across the board. You can't say yes, to a movie star with a controversial past, and no to a coach with a controversial past. You have can't be selective in your value judgements. Favoring one and opposing another based on any specific value system. As a school, you have to let parents know properly who is interacting with their kids so they have an option. Most schools have security and Federal background checks on visitors and staff, but they can't let the parents know who from the outside of the school is reading to their kids. Again, as a parent you don't want to find out from the news, as it headlines Porn Star reads to kids. Or Movie star reads to kids and you look her up because you are not that familiar with her. Or you hear it from another source. Then people start talking and say, "you let a porn star near your kid in school!" That makes you look like an irresponsible parent, you clash with other parents as they will not let your kid play with their kid as it is a bad influence. Parents....right? It is irresponsible or the school to not properly notify the parents to give them an option. That is my angst with this issue.
There is a difference between a coach whose controversial past involves kids in the schools and a person who made a living doing something legal and from which she left voluntarily, not removed. In other words, in Grey's case, the controversy is unrelated to kids, schools or conditions of her employment. In the Coach's case, the controversy is ALL about kids, school and the conditions of his employment.
Couple of other things. First, I don't give a **** what anyone else thinks of my parenting. I really don't. I have three kids. They're weird and I love it. The two oldest are in high school getting very good grades. Both are in the Marine Corps JROTC program at school. Both are funny, respectful and happy. The three year old is hilarious, curious and active. I couldn't ask for more. They probably play too many video games for some and watch too much TV for others, but you know what? Doesn't matter to me at all. As long as their homework is done and they get some sunshine when it's out here in Seattle (which is twice a year, usually). You're welcome to think I'm an irresponsible parent. None of my business, but don't think for a minute I give a rip.
Second, there's a difference... a big difference between a component striving to be fair and someone using it as a weapon. You don't HAVE to be fair. No one does. It's impossible. While we can try to be fair, it's just not going to happen. No two situations are exactly alike, and in situations like this, it's a cop out. In this situation, comparing to completely unrelated situations, the coach and the ex-porn star, and saying that they're equal is in itself unfair. It's ridiculous. They're not the same in any way.