Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact #2:

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

McKenna Gault

College of Southern Nevada

April 5, 2020
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 2

A predominantly black high school has an administration made up of Principal Freddie

Watts and Assistant Principal Jimmy Brothers who are also African American. There was a

white tenured teacher named Ann Griffin who made a very serious comment that she “hated all

black folk” during an argument with the administrators. The news of her outburst soon leaked to

the rest of the staff. Her black, and even white, colleagues started to have negative reactions

towards her because of her statement. The principal recommended dismissal based on how she

may hold prejudiced views on the largely populated race of her students and based on her

competency as a teacher.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) is the first case that provides a defending argument to Ms.

Griffin’s actions and protect her from being fired from her position at the school. In R.A.V. v.

City of St. Paul (1992), a few teenagers put a cross on an African American family’s lawn and

ended up burning it. This was a known act of members of the KKK and so these teenagers were

trying to send a message to this family. A state ordinance was in place that prohibited such acts

which “aroused anger, alarm or resentment in others on a basis of race, color, creed, religion or

gender” (R.A.V v. St. Paul, 1992). The supreme court ruled the ordinance “prohibits otherwise

permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses” (R.A.V v. St. Paul,

1992). Even though people may not approve of the ideas that were expressed, the First

Amendment protects that right. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) is a defense for the teacher

because even though the school does not agree with the statement, she is entitled to make her

opinion known. She is allowed to have her own opinion because of her first amendment right

which is the main part of her defense.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) is the second court

case that will support Ms. Griffin case. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 3

District (1969), some students decided to wear black arm bands to school to show support for the

truce in the Vietnam War. The school made policies later in the school day to stop their public

display only after people began to notice the stance that the students were taking. Some of those

students did not listen to the new rules put in place and ended up being suspended for their

continued support of the truce. Then began a fight between the parents and school administration

as to how their freedom of speech was being violated. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the court

ruled in favor of the students because their First Amendment right was still protected even at

school. The main reason for this ruling is what they were doing did not disrupt school operations

and so what they were doing was acceptable. In the case for Ms. Griffin this case could support

her side. It was a racial comment that was made in a discussion with her administration and not

while teaching or directing it at any student(s).

There are two cases that would defend Mr. Watts’ and Mr. Brothers’ positions as to why

dismissal was an appropriate consequence for Ms. Griffin’s statement that she “hates all black

folk.” The first case that would support this position would be Hazelwood School District v.

Kuhlmeier (1988). The school administration in this case did not want to publish two articles that

a student wrote for the school newspaper because they deemed it inappropriate. The student,

Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other students brought their former principal, Mr. Reynolds to court.

The court found that the First Amendment did not require schools to promote any works written

by a student. If a teacher sees that speech is “inconsistent with ‘the shared values of a civilized

social order” (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 1988). In terms of the case of Mr. Watts and Mr.

Brothers had the right to find Ms. Griffin’s speech “inconsistent with ‘the shared values of a

civilized social order.” They did not do wrong by the First Amendment because their actions

were “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns” (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 1988).

Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 4

Like the administration explained the reason for Ms. Griffin’s dismissal was based on her

competency as an educator and how she may unfairly treat some of her students because of their

race.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) is the second case that supports the cases

of the administration for Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers. During a high school assembly, a

student, Matthew Fraser, gave a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. His

speech had an inappropriate metaphor that he believed would help his election. Fraser was

suspended for two days because of this speech as it violated the schools disciplinary code. The

school enforced a rule that did not allow behavior that “substantially interferes with the

educational process… including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures” (Bethel v.

Fraser, 1986). The court found that the school was correct in suspending his due to inappropriate

language. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969),

was protected by the First Amendment because it was political speech. However, in the case of

the metaphor the student gave in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), it was not

protected by the First Amendment because it was inconsistent with the “fundamental values of

public-school education” (Bethel v. Fraser, 1986). Mr. Watts and Mr. Brothers viewed Ms.

Griffin’s statement as obscene, profane language against African Americans. The administration

recognized that type of comment was not protected under the First Amendment and so it is

appropriate to take disciplinary action against it.

The different points of view, as shown, have many court cases that can help support their

position. The comment that Ms. Griffin made is not appropriate and was dealt with in the correct

manner. No school should be subject to having an educator who does not see everyone as equals

and having that negativity in a school environment will only lead to more problems than good.
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 5

Freedom of speech is a very important concept to be aware of and what exactly is protected

under the amendment as not everything is. As explained in Bethel School District No. 403 v.

Fraser (1986), obscene, profane language would not be protected under the First Amendment.

There has to be a reason as to why is it acceptable and it has to be school appropriate. The

situation went even further from her favor once word reached her coworkers. The environment

was very negative because all of the staff did not agree with her actions and offensive statement.

The administration had a job to do and seeing as that type of behavior should not be tolerated,

especially in a school that is predominately African American. The school should have the

ability to take action to discipline Ms. Griffin or let her go altogether for her actions as she is not

fit to teach.
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 6

Reference Page

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 5, 2020, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 5, 2020, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 5, 2020, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-7675

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 5,

2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21