Artifact 2 1

Artifact 2

Jacqueline Lucero Gutierrez

College of Southern Nevada

Proffesor Dr. Warby

July 18th, 2016

Artifact 2 2

Abstract

There was argument between a white tenured educator, Ann Griffin, a black Principal,
Freddie Watts, and his black assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers. In the heated argument, Griffin
remarked that she “hated all black folk.” Per the principal, he wished to have her dismissed as
she will unfit to properly and fairly treat all students the same. Court cases like Loeffelman V.
Board of Education of the Crystal City School District and Pickering V. Board Of Education
suggest that Ann Griffin should not have overreacted, as her remarks were not for the benefit of
the school or her students. They were private statements which are not protected under the
Freedom of Speech rights under the First Amendment. Griffin took her own interest and
proclaimed to hate all black folk which is discrimination and therefore unconstitutional. She may
argue that her expression did not threat her students or colleagues. However, her behavior was
unrequested and unbeneficial, herby requiring discipline.
Artifact 2 3

A white tenured teacher was in an argumentative conversation with the Principal, Freddie

Watts, and the assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers. In the argument, Griffin stated that she “hated

all black folks.” The principal and vice principal are both black and were assigned to administer

a high school that was predominantly black. The conversation caused negative reactions among

their black and white colleagues. The principal recommended that Griffin be dismissed because

it is a concern that she may not treat all students with fair judgement and competency.

Pro the scenario of the teacher is the Cleveland Board of Education V. Loudermill,

(1985). In Griffins case, the principal quickly wants to dismiss the teacher because he believes

her to be incompetent of treating all students the same. In the case, the court states “the tenured

public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of

the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story” (Cleveland Board of

Education V. Loudermill). Griffin, needs to be able to address her concerns against the principal

and assistant principal. Griffin would be able to defend her side of the story. She seemed to be

one against two black men that may have misinterpreted her. Griffin backfired with her remark

in defense, and meant to only discomfort the two, instead of “all” black folks. Evidence must be

brought up to prove that she is incompetent of teaching students in the predominantly black

school.

Another case pro to the scenario is Virginia V. Black Et Al., (2003) “The Court

specifically stated that a particular type of content discrimination does not violate the First

Amendment when the basis for it consists entirely of the very reason its entire class of speech is

proscribable” (Virginia V. Black Et Al). Griffin’s expression did not violate the first amendment.

It was discriminative but not to an excessive point. According to the Virginia V. Black Case,

“The First Amendment permits a State to ban "true threats," e.g., Watts v. United States […]
Artifact 2 4

which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group

of individual” (Virginia V. Black Et Al). Griffin was being expressive in the heat of the moment.

She did not mean to hate all black people. Her simple statement did not intend threats. If she is a

tenured teacher, she must have agreed to treat all students the same. Her statement against black

people was not to discomfort anyone. In the Virginia case, “The Klan has often used cross

burnings as a tool of intimidation and a threat of impending violence, although such burnings

have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology, serving as a central

feature of Klan gatherings […] As the history of cross burning in this country shows, that act is

often intimidating, intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of

violence” (Virginia V. Black Et Al). Griffin, did not act in a serious of a case as the Ku Klux

Klan did, as their sole purpose was to intimidate black people. Griffin accepts of them, as she

works in predominantly black school. She was in a simple argument and over reacted, but never

cause actual harm to the students.

Con the scenario is the case Pickering V. Board Of Education, (1968). Griffin made a

public concern that she “hated all black people.” According to Pickering V. Board of Education,

a teacher cannot be dismissed for making public concerns on matters of public concern.

However, if the comment disrupts the working relationships among the personnel or affects their

assigned work tasks there is a reason for dismissal. In this specific scenario. The black and white

colleagues of Griffin and the two principals caused a negative commotion among them. In

Pickering V. Board of Education, Pickering’s concerns were made to criticize a policy in which

the school could improve. The case states, “The statements are in no way directed towards any

person with whom appellant would normally be in [391 U.S. 563, 570] contact in the course of
Artifact 2 5

his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate

superiors or harmony among coworkers is presented here” (Pickering V. Board Of Education).

On the other hand, Griffin personally and directly hated “all” people of black color. Which may

include the two principals, colleagues, and students. The case also mentions that "the teacher by

virtue of his public employment has a duty of loyalty to support his superiors in attaining the

generally accepted goals of education and that, if he must speak out publicly, he should do so

factually and accurately, commensurate with [391 U.S. 563, 569] his education and experience"

(Pickering V. Board Of Education). In the scenario, she just stated it. It was just a statement with

disrespect to her superiors, colleagues, and students of black color. It was not factual, nor

planned, but mentioned in the heat of the moment.

Another case “con” to the scenario, is that of Loeffelman V. Board of Education of the

Crystal City School District, (2004). In the case, a school teacher told her students that she

opposes interracial marriage along with other racist remarks. The school board terminated her

because of her racial statements. The teacher then appealed the judgment because her first

amendment right was being violated. The court supported the school board because she did not

have any unconstitutional rights violated. The court stated that the “Teacher's comments

irreparably damaged the student-teacher relationship by destroying her rapport with her students

and thereby diminishing her ability to effectively teach her students” (Loeffelman V. Board of

Education of the Crystal City School District). In Griffins case, the principal stated that her

comment may affect her judgement, competency, and fairness to all students because of her

discriminative remarks. That would be a cause to consider because Griffins statement was

already causing a commotion within her colleagues. In Loeffelman’s case, it is also mentioned

that “teacher's comments did not address a matter of public concern. Her comments expressed a
Artifact 2 6

private opinion regarding interracial relationships and biracial children […] Her comments were

not part of a lesson plan being conducted by Teacher […] Thus, because Teacher's comments did

not address a matter of public concern, but rather a matter of private concern, they are not

entitled to First Amendment protection” (Loeffelman V. Board of Education of the Crystal City

School District). Once again, the teachers comments were of private concern and non-related to

the benefit of the school or students education. Her comment cannot be protected by her free

speech rights.

According my evaluations of the cases, Griffin is entitled to due process, however, she

should be dismissed as she violated discrimination policies and offended her colleagues and

superiors. As the Loeffelman V. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District, (2004)

states “her comments were not part of a lesson plan being conducted by Teacher […]Thus,

because Teacher's comments did not address a matter of public concern, but rather a matter of

private concern, they are not entitled to First Amendment protection” (Loeffelman V. Board of

Education of the Crystal City School District). Her remark was discriminative and of private

concern. She did not state it to help out her peers or school. Griffin simply was mad and released

an expression of hate. Hate is a strong word and cannot be underestimated. She may not be like

the Ku Klux Klan, but their intentions was to intimidate people. In Pickering V. Board Of

Education, (1968) “no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or

harmony among coworkers is presented here.” It does not matter what color the principal and

vice principal; Griffin still caused a commotion within her colleagues. Racism is not a joke.

Griffin needs to be dismissed from a predominantly black. Her being there will continue tensions

with her students and colleagues. She raised a personal attack on all black people, and therefore

needs to be brought upon the consequences of her violation. In Pickering’s case “public
Artifact 2 7

employment has a duty of loyalty to support his superiors in attaining the generally accepted

goals of education and that, if he must speak out publicly, he should do so factually and

accurately” (Pickering V. Board Of Education). By no means, did Griffin simply convers ate

with her superiors. Regardless of the conversation, she should have maintained discipline and not

have stated discriminative remarks.

Artifact 2 8

References

Cleveland Board of Education V. Loudermill 1985. (n.d.). Retrieved July 14, 2016, from

http://caselaw. findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/532.html

Loeffelman V. Board Of Education Of The Crystal City School District 2004. (n.d.). Retrieved

July 19, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1109760.html

Pickering V. Board Of Education 1968. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2016, from

http://caselaw.findlaw. com/us-supreme-court/391/563.html

Virginia V. Black 2003. (n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

supreme-court/537/465.html