School Law Portfolio Artifact 2 1

School Law Portfolio Artifact 2

Mackenzie Melnar

College of Southern Nevada

School Law Portfolio Artifact 2 2

School Law Portfolio Artifact 2

There have been many debates on whether or not teachers maintain freedom of speech as

public employees. As freedom of speech is our First Amendment right as citizens of the United

States under The Constitution many would say yes, a teacher’s freedom of speech is protected.

However, some would say that a teacher’s rights can only go so far due to the fact that they are

publicly employed. In this scenario a white tenured teacher, Ann Griffin, made a statement in a

heated argument that she “hated all black folks.” She happened to make this statement to the

principal, Freddie Watts, and assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers, who are both African-

American. The high school where they all work is predominately black so naturally when word

got out about her racist comment, colleagues both black and white reacted negatively. Dismissal

of Ann Griffin was recommended based on the teacher’s judgment and her ability to treat

students fairly. There are many court cases surrounding the topic of teacher’s rights to freedom

of speech that may protect Ann Griffin from dismissal. However, there are also some that would

help in arguing the grounds for dismissal.

In one court case it was decided that a government employer may “fire an employee for

speaking on a matter of public concern if: 1) the employer’s prediction of disruption is

reasonable; 2) the potential disruptiveness is enough to outweigh the value of the speech; and 3)

the employer took action against the employee based on the disruption and not in retaliation of

the speech” (Waters v. Churchill, 1994). Based on the statement that was made by Ann Griffin,

the court may infer that Griffin’s speech will cause disruption enough to outweigh the value of

her speech and as such action to dismiss her from her position was recommended.

Another court held that “for a government employee’s speech to be protected by the First

Amendment, the employee’s speech must be on a matter of public concern and the interest in
School Law Portfolio Artifact 2 3

expressing herself on this matter must not be outweighed by an injury the speech could cause to

the interest of the state as an employer” (Ghosh v. Southern Illinois Univ., 2004). In the instant

case, Griffin’s speech was not a matter of public concern. It could also be argued that what was

said could potentially injure her students and colleagues which would in turn affect the state’s

interests negatively.

In the interest of protecting Ann Griffin’s employment by the school board of which she

is employed and tenured, it can be argued that she was simply exercising her freedom of speech.

It was once stated in court that “in order for the state in the person of school officials to justify

prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that it’s action was

caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that

always accompany an unpopular viewpoint” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). As it pertains to this

case, Griffin’s viewpoint may be an unpopular one, but she cannot be condemned for having it.

Lastly, it has been said that “fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free

speech” (Whitney v. California, 1927). That being said, Ann Griffin’s speech cannot have been

so harmful to the public that it would require her dismissal. If Griffin made her statement in a

private conversation with no intent of causing disruption or harm to the school, there are no

proper grounds for her removal from employment.

In deciding this case, a court is likely to rule that Ann Griffin is to be dismissed from

public employment. The school board’s case is much stronger than Griffin’s unless there was

more information regarding the situation in which her speech was uttered. Another point of

concern would be how the word leaked of her utterance and what actions should be taken

towards the person responsible for that. Without any of that information the court can claim that
School Law Portfolio Artifact 2 4

Griffin’s speech was intended as a personal viewpoint that potentially disrupts the school/work

environment enough to hold grounds for dismissal.

School Law Portfolio Artifact 2 5

References

Ghosh v. Southern Illinois University, 331 F.Supp.2d 708 (Ill. 2004)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 US 503 (1969)

Waters v. Churchill, 551 US 661 (1994)

Whitney v. California, 274 US 357 (1927)