1

Abigail Halverson

Artifact 2

April 10, 2015

 2

This is a case about an African American principal who is assigned to administer a

predominately black high school. This principal recommended dismissal of a white tenured

teacher because during a conversation with two administrators the white teacher said she hated

all black folks. Therefore the principal questioned her ability to treat students fairly and her

judgement and competency as a teacher so he recommended dismissal of the white tenured

teacher.

The constitutional amendments that govern this situation are the 1st, 5th, and 14th

amendment. The first amendment to the U.S constitution prohibits the making of any law

abridging the freedom of speech. In this scenario they are also violating her 5th amendment by

not allowing her to have a hearing or any hearing process. They are depriving her of her liberty

and property without due process of law. They are depriving her of due process of law. The

14th amendment applies in this scenario in favor of the school. The Equal protection clause

allows the school to protect their black students. The 14th amendment addresses citizenship rights

and equal protection of the laws.

The case of Mt. healthy city school district v Doyle would support the principal in the

dismissal of the teacher. In this case, a school board voted not to renew the contract of a teacher

who had made a call to a local radio station to comment publicly about a proposed teacher

grooming code. The board cited lack of tact in handling professional matters. This case relates

to the one about the African American principal wanting to dismiss the teacher for what she said

because her statement did show lack of tact, professionalism and poor judgment as a teacher.

Another case is Connick vs Meyers in which expressions regarding public concern receive

first amendment protections but ordinary grievances are to be handled by the administrative body

without the court. In the scenario of the principal and the teacher the school should be allowed to
 3

use their own administrative process and the courts should not even be involved as this could be

considered a case of mere ordinary grievance and not of the protected first amendment

expressions.

The other side of the scenario is the teachers point of view. In the case Pickering v.

Board of education the supreme court recognized that teachers have a first amendment right to

air their views on matters of public concern. The supreme court ruled that the teachers exercise

of right to speak on issues of public importance may not be the basis of his dismissal, just like in

the case of the principal and the teacher. The teacher can speak as a citizen rather than an

employee.

The case of Givhan v W. Line Consol would support the teacher in the scenario. In this case it

was concluded that so long as the expression pertains to matters of public concern, rather than

personal grievances, statements made in private or through a public medium are constitutionally

protected.

In my opinion I support the school and the principal in the decision to dismiss the teacher

because a statement like the one she made would render her unfit to perform her duties which

include working with African American employees and teaching African American students.