TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Running head: TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT 2

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities Portfolio Artifact 2

Caitlyn Gormley

College of Southern Nevada

TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities Portfolio Artifact 2

African-American administrators, Freddie Watts (principal), and Jimmy Brothers

(assistant principal), work along side teacher, Ann Griffin, in a predominantly black high school.

One day, the three were involved in a heated conversation where Griffin stated she, “hated all

black folks”. After the incident, colleagues reacted negatively, in regards to her statement.

Furthermore, dismissal of Griffin was recommended by Watts with concern of her competency

as a teacher and ability to treat students fairly.

In the case of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), Marvin Pickering was fired after

writing a letter to a local newspaper about a tax proposal. The school district felt the letter

negatively impacted the school district and Pickering’s ability to work there. Pickering fought his

dismissal on the grounds of freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the

dismissal because Pickering’s letter was of public concern and did not affect work relationships

or his ability to teach. This case supports Griffin’s dismissal seeing as her comment is not of

public concern and therefore is not protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, Griffin’s

statement directly impacted relationships with other teachers and questions her ability to treat all

students fairly.

Continuing, in the case of Melzer v. Board of Education of the City School District of the

City of New York (2003), Peter Melzer was fired due to his association with North American

Man/Boy Love Association. Upon public knowledge of Melzer’s association with NMBLA, a

majority of the community expressed their dissatisfaction with Melzer being a member of the

group. Upon investigation, the board fired Melzer because they believed he would cause a

disruption to school and no longer held the authority to be a teacher. While Griffin is not

knowingly apart of an association, her views towards blacks are known, at least within the
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

school. Seeing as the school is predominantly black, her views are disruptive to the community.

Students and staff may not feel comfortable working with Griffin. This can prevent a productive

learning environment, hinder students’ ability to receive a proper education, and question

whether students will be treated fairly or not.

On the other hand, in Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), the U.S. Supreme

Court decided that teachers and students do not give up their First Amendment rights while on

school grounds, and in order to hinder freedom of expression, school officials must prove that

the actions are a direct disruption to school. Since Griffin’s comment was not directed at anyone

in particular, only a group of people, it can be viewed as free speech. Additionally, there needs to

be definitive proof that Griffin’s comment will interfere with her ability to teach. So far, there

have been no allegations that Griffin has treated students and coworkers unfairly. Ann Griffin is

also tenured, which mean she has met the school district’s requirements for teaching, and thus,

shows her competency as a teacher.

With Griffin being a tenured teacher, she has a “property right” to her employment

(Underwood & Webb, 2006). As stated in the case of Cleveland Board of Education v.

Loudermill (1985), the Due Process Clause as part of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that

Griffin is given notice of the reasons for termination and has time to respond. If Griffin was

properly notified and she was able to defend herself against the accusations, then the school

board can make the decision to fire her after an investigation. If not, then Ann Griffin was not

rightly fired by her school district and must be reinstated.

Looking at the various court cases and their rulings, it is clear that Ann Griffin’s

statement that she “hated all black folks” is cause for her dismissal. With Pickering v. Board of

Education, Griffin’s viewpoint of “black folks” is not of public concern. The statement is of her
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

opinion, and with that opinion, will impact her ability to teach effectively. It has already been

indicated that her statement caused negative responses from her coworkers and can result in a

hostile working environment moving forward. Likewise, it cannot be assumed that Griffin would

treat all students fairly, despite their race. Looking at the students’ perspective, they may feel

uncomfortable or unsafe being in a classroom with a teacher that expresses the viewpoints of

Griffin’s. To conclude, as long as the school board went through the proper motions in firing

Ann Griffin, the United States Supreme Court likely will side with the school’s decision in the

firing of Griffin.
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

References

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)

Melzer v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. Of the City of N.Y., 336 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2003)

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

Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Underwood, J, & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.