Portfolio Artifact #2 1

Portfolio Artifact #2 (Ch.2 &3)

Julio Z. Vargas

College of Southern Nevada

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 2

Abstract

This is the second installment in my EDU 210 portfolio. The professor assigned a

scenario from a local high school. It involves a racial situation which has two sides to argue. We

get to play attorney and use examples from other courts cases to argue our position. Each side of

the case must have two relevant court cases to back up your claims.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 3

Portfolio Artifact #2 (Ch.2 &3)

Paterson School vs. Jennifer O’Brien – Pro School

This court case dealt with a situation similar to the one we were presented with. A first-

grade teacher, whose class was made up of Latino and African American students, took to

Facebook to complain about her students. "In late March 2011, O'Brien made two posts to her

Facebook page. The first read, "I'm not a teacher — I'm a warden for future criminals!" while the

second read, "They had a scared straight program in school - why couldn't (I) bring (first)

graders?" (Ivers, 2013) These comments have the same racial tone that the teacher in the

example did. Although the teacher was tenured, the administrative law judge ruled in favor of the

school. “However, the judge rejected her arguments, calling her comments "intemperate and

vituperative" and saying they made cooperation with parents impossible.” (Ivers, 2013) Ann

Griffin saying she hates all black could make cooperation with parents impossible at her school

as well. In conclusion, the school has a right to dismiss Mrs. Griffin.

Brown vs. The Chicago Board of Education – Pro School

No, this isn’t the famous Brown vs. The Board of education court case about segregation in
school. This case still had racial content but was on the lighter side when it came to the severity.
When Mr. Brown was lecturing one morning, he came across a note filled with explicit lyrics
including the “N word”. He later went on to teach his students how that word should not be used.
Brown was later suspended because the Chicago Board of Education has a strict policy against
such terms in front of students. Brown sued the BOE on two counts, First Amendment violations
and due process violations. “The court found that because he was still within the context of a
teacher and educator at the time he held his discussion, the widest freedoms under the First
Amendment did not apply.” (Tung, 2016) This ruling alone is enough to dismiss Mrs. Griffin.
She did not use the “N word” but she did talk negatively about the native American community
while in the context of a teacher. Mr. Brown had good intentions when he was suspended for
using the “N word” and was still dismissed.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 4

Givhan vs. Western Line – Pro Teacher

Bessie Givhan was a junior high teacher that constantly complained to school

administrators about educational policies and practices. The district court ordered Givhan to be

reinstated because they found these constant complaints as the reason Givhan wasn’t re-hired.

“The Court first considered the question of whether teacher speech occurring in a private context

would be subject to constitutional protection as well. A unanimous Court answered this question

affirmatively.” (Ryan) In compliance with the ruling on this case, Mrs.Griffin should not be

fired. The first amendment protects her because the conversation with the administrators was

private.

Pickering vs. The Board of Education – Pro Teacher.

Marvin Pickering, a teacher in Illinois sent a letter to a local newspaper that was critical

to the revenue of the local school board. This letter was seen by the Illinois school board as the

reason their new tax rate hike to fund educational activities. Thus, Marvin Pickering was

terminated because “the letter was deemed to be "detrimental to efficient operation of schools in

the district." (Ryan) After a series of appeals Pickering took his case to the Supreme Court where

the decision was overturned because his dismissal was unconstitutional, violating the first and

fourteenth amendments. Mrs. Griffin’s remarks could also be seen in the light of detrimental to

the operation of her school. If the school chooses to fire her for this reason she must remain

employed.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 5

Conclusion.

After reviewing the court cases I used for both sides of this case, I choose to side with the

school. Although Mrs. Griffin was a tenured teacher, the first case shows she can be dismissed

for this comment she makes. If the school wants to claim Mrs. Griffin can’t work with parents at

their school, they have the racially insensitive comment to do so. The second case refers to a

teacher using a racial slur in a positive teaching way but still being dismissed. Even though the

teacher was not being racist the BOE’s rules were enough to get him fired. Mrs. Griffin should be

fired from that school. The students will not respect her, and the parents won’t trust her. It will be

best for both parties if she is dismissed from the school.

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 6

References

Ivers, D. (2013, January 11). Court upholds firing of Paterson teacher who called students 'future

criminals'. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2013/01/court_upholds_firing_of_paterson_teacher_

who_called_students_future_criminals.html

Tung, J. R. (2016, June 8). No Racial Slurs Allowed by Chicago School, Teacher Firing Upheld.

Retrieved January 24, 2018, from http://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2016/06/no-

racial-slurs-allowed-by-chicago-school-teacher-firing-upheld.html

Ryan, J. M. (n.d.). Teacher Free Speech in the Public Schools: Just When You ought It Was Safe

to Talk . . . Retrieved January 24, 2018, from

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1821&context=nlr
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 7
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 8
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 9