Running Head: Artifact #2 1

Teachers and Free Speech Assignment

Kristine Morales

College of Southern Nevada

Running Head: Artifact #2 2

A principal, Freddie Watts, and an assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers, are African-

American administrators in a specific school where they are assigned to administer a mainly

black high school meaning, the make-up of students in this school are mostly African-Americans

students. Ann Griffin, a white tenured faculty member of the school, in a midst of a heated

conversation with both the principal and assistant principal made a remark that she “hated all

black folks.” When other faculty members of the school heard about the statement that she said,

it resulted a negative reaction from her colleagues as expected. With this, Freddie Watt, the

principal of the school suggested that Anne Griffin should be dismissed because of the concerns

that she might not have the ability to treat her students fairly, make right judgements, and her

competency as a teacher is also a concern.

As a tenured teacher of the school, Anne Griffin has several rights that can protect her

from this situation. The first amendment gives Ann the rights to share her views or beliefs

without fear of retribution even if she gave a remark that is unpleasant for others to hear. As a

tenured teacher, she also can’t be dismissed from the school without due process. However, the

principal, Freddie Watts also has the right to dismiss her because after hearing her comment, it is

only right for him to question Ann’s capability and competence as a teacher because it was clear

that she cannot treat her students fairly and without any bias.

One court case that can support the administrator’s case is the case Pickering vs. The

Board of Education (1968). In the court case, Pickering expressed his beliefs about the Board of

Education through the news. The difference between Pickering and Griffin is that Pickering gave

his comments as a citizen and not as a tenured employee of a predominant black high school.

Furthermore, the comments that he said in the published news were neither shown nor could be

assumed that it could interfere with his ability to complete his duties as a teacher for the school.
Running Head: Artifact #2 3

In the book of Legal Rights of Teachers and Students (Chapter 10 fig.10), shows that Ann’s

comment can affect her teaching effectiveness negatively because it shows clear bias, and it

could possibly jeopardize the relationship with the majority make-up of the school.

The court case Connick vs. Myers (1983) is another example to show why Griffin’s first

amendment rights was not violated. The case talks about how Sheila Myers was being

transferred, she did not like the decision and wouldn’t accept it so, she was terminated by Harry

Connick. Her evaluation was insubordination because of disrupted close working relationship in

the office. The Supreme Court then held that Myer’s freedom of speech rights was not being

violated. This is the same case with Ann Griffin’s comments. Her comments cannot be protected

by the first amendment because her comments can be seen as an attack to her colleagues and to

the African-American students of the school.

On the other hand, in defense of Ann Griffin’s case, her first amendment right could be

protected similar to the Mt. Healthy City School Board of Education vs. Doyle (1997). In this

case, Doyle was involved in an argument with another teacher who had slapped him. He was also

arguing with the school’s cafeteria employees, referred students as “sons of bitches,” and other

mistreating two girls after failing to “obey” his commands as when he was a supervisor in the

cafeteria. Adding to this, he later on discussed the new dress code of the school, which he

criticized in a radio station. After, this he then apologized for his actions to the principal of the

school. When it was time for him to renew his contract, the board elected not to renew it because

the board said that he demonstrated “a notable lack of tact in handling professional manners.”

His comments on this radio station were protected by his first amendment speech. The board

claims that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction in the case. If Ann can prove or show that
Running Head: Artifact #2 4

the only reason of her dismissal was because of the comment she gave, she then can claim that

her first amendment was being violated.

Another example is the Garcetti vs. Ceballos (2006) case. Ceballos sued the government

for disciplining the way he communicates which opposed government interests, which shows

that the government’s actions violated his first amendment. The court ruled. A public official

may exercise protected freedom of speech only during a private speech, as a citizen, and not

during his official duties. Since Ann was not teaching at the time when she was having a

conversation with the principal and assistant principal, her expressing her view in a private

setting was not a type of any violations. She could be protected by her first amendment rights.

However, after further analyzing this case of Anne Griffin and the school administrators,

it seems like that the judge will more likely side with the administrators. Griffin’s comments

were simply not just a comment, but it shows and gives an offensive attitude towards the

principal and the African-American students of the school. Her comment can be proven that her

teacher effectiveness is questionable, and it could have a negative impact to the students. And

also because of her comment, she jeopardized her good relationship with her colleagues.
Running Head: Artifact #2 5

References

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)

(n.d.). Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/138/

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)

(n.d.). Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/

Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977)

(n.d.). Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/274/

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)

(n.d.). Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/563/