Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact #2

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Nicholas Vona

College of Southern Nevada

September 7, 2017
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 2

Ann Griffin is a white woman who is a tenured teacher at a predominantly black

high school. She has made a racist remark about her feelings toward African-Americans to the

principle and vice principle of the school, who also happen to be African-American. The teacher

has received negative reactions from her colleagues once they heard about the remark she

made. Consequently, Principle Freddie Watts has recommended Ann Griffin’s dismissal, citing

concerns regarding her ability to treat students fairly, judgement and competency as a teacher.

Clark v. Holmes (1972) will be the first case in arguing for Principle Watt’s decision to

dismiss Ann Griffin. In the case of Clark v. Holmes (1972), a non-tenured teacher counseled a

number of students instead of referring them to the university’s professional counselor;

overemphasized sex in a health course; counseled students with his office door closed; and

belittled other staff members in discussions with students. The court ruled against the non-

tenured teacher and the decision to not rehire him was upheld. There is a legitimate interest to

the state that prevents the teacher from being able to speak about anything he chooses. The

necessity to maintain discipline and a harmonious work environment among coworkers, and the

need to encourage a close and personal relationship between the employer and his superiors,

where that relationship calls for trust and confidence are two examples of legitimate interests.

The teacher’s right to free speech was overcome by the University’s interest as an employer. In

the case of Ann Griffin, her, free speech interest would not supersede her responsibilities to the

state, her superiors and her coworkers.

Hesse v. Board of Education of Township High School (1988) will be the second case in

arguing for Principle Watt’s decision to dismiss Ann Griffin. In the case of Hesse v. Board of
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 3

Education of Township High School (1988), teacher David Hesse claimed that the defendants

retaliated against him after he exercised his freedom of expression. In the end, the court ruled

against Hesse and in favor of the Board of Education of Township High School. Hesse taught in

the defendant’s school district for over a decade as a tenured teacher. He had received a

substantial amount of negative evaluations a far back as 1978. Hesse did receive some positive

reviews as well, but the overwhelming majority were negative. His contention came after he was

transferred in 1985 to traveling teacher status. Also, Hesse claimed he was required to submit

daily lesson plans and was forced to undergo excessive classroom evaluations. The court found

that it was clear Hesse manifested a sense of animosity and bitterness toward his superiors,

evidenced by his personal attacks against various school officials in many letters he wrote to

them. Hesse’s record showed many examples of how his personal animosity toward school

officials were a disruption to the learning environment and created a hostile work atmosphere.

Out of all the letters and comments made by Hesse, only one of his comments were determined

to be matters of public concern. Speech that involves personal concern and personal attacks, as

opposed to public concern, is not protected. In Hesse’s case, his comments were not protected

by the first amendment. In relation to the case of Ann Griffin, her comments were also hostile

and effective in creating an unharmonious work environment among her colleagues.

The first case in presented in defending Ann Griffin’s position is Pickering v. Board of

Education (1968). In the case of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), the Supreme Court

ruled that the school had violated Pickering’s rights to free speech after dismissing Pickering for

publicly criticizing the school board and superintendent’s actions regarding a school tax levy.

Pickering’s comments in the letter were basically a criticism on the School Boards handling of

funds, more specific the allocation of funds between academic and athletic programs. The Board
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 4

dismissed Pickering following the publishing of the letter, claiming that Pickering’s statements

were false and that they damaged the reputation of the administration and Board members.

Pickering’s letter was in fact protected by the First Amendment. No evidence was

brought forth of any actual damages caused from Pickering’s criticism. Furthermore, Pickering’s

comments were not detrimental to the school and they were simply a matter of personal opinion,

not a personal attack. Ann Griffin was also dismissed for arguing with and criticizing her

principle and vice principle.

The second case in arguing against Principle Watt’s decision to dismiss Ann Griffin is

Hecht v. National Heritage Academies, Inc. (2016). In this case, Craig Hecht, a white teacher,

had been terminated for making a racial joke to another teacher. The teacher claimed that the

school violated the Michigan Civil Rights Act by firing him. Mr. Hecht told another teacher that

the white tables in the room were better than the brown tables, and that the brown tables should

be burned. Upon review, the court ultimately ruled Mr. Hecht was unfairly treated, and he

should not have lost his job as a result of making the admittedly racially charged comment.

Hecht was discriminated against because other non-white employees had made similar jokes in

the past and received no discipline for their actions. Furthermore, black employees regularly

engaged in racial banter without repercussion. There were some distinctions between racial

comments made by Mr. Hecht and his black colleagues. However, evidence showed Mr. Hecht’s

race played a role in the decision to terminate him. The school did have a zero-tolerance policy

against racial stereotypes. However, since it was proven that his race played a role in the

decision to fire Mr. Hecht, it showed that the zero-tolerance policy was unequally enforced. In

relation to Ann Griffin being dismissed, she happened to be the only individual that was
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 5

disciplined for the argument she had with two other faculty members who were both African-

American and happened to work at a predominantly black school.

I am supporting Principle Watts’ decision to dismiss Ann Griffin after making the

racially charged comment that she hated all black folks. The First Amendment would have

protected the teacher if she was merely upset and made comments of public concern, such as

criticizing general policy matters or curriculum. Similar to Clark v. Holmes (1972), Ann Griffin

should have realized that there was a legitimate interest to the state that prevents her, as a

teacher, from speaking out about any matter she wants. Her comments were clearly of a personal

concern as opposed to a public concern, and they would have been successful in destroying the

effectiveness of working relationships between herself and her colleagues. Personal attacks on

administrators, such as telling two black colleagues that she hated all black folks, is not a form of

protected speech within employment context, and is not protected by the First Amendmnt. Just

as the court found David Hesse’s letters and comments in Hesse v. Board of Education of

Township High School (1988) to be a disruption to the learning environment and created a

hostile work atmosphere, it’s reasonable to believe that Ann Griffin saying she hated all black

folks to her black superiors of a majority black school in which she taught would create similar

negative effects.
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 6

References

Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928 (1972). Retrieved September 9, 2017.

https://openjurist.org/474/f2d/928/clark-v-holmes

Hecht v. National Heritage Academies, Inc., 890 N.W.2d 868 (2017). Retrieved September 9,

2017. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-supreme-court/1744001.html

Hesse v. Board of Education of Township High School, 848 F.2d 748 (1988). Retrieved

September 9, 2017. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-

courts/F2/848/748/291624/

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S.563 (1968). Retrieved September 9, 2017

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

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

Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 7