Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Erika Barron

College of Southern Nevada

 Ann Griffin was a white tenured teacher at a school with predominately black students.

Her bosses, Freddie Watts, principal, and Jimmy Brothers, assistant principal, were African-

American. She engaged in a heated conversation with Watts and Brothers and stated that she

hated all black folks. After her statement became public around the school, there was a rift

between not only Griffin, Watts, and Brothers, but with other teachers as well. Due to this rift,

Watts grew concerned for Griffins students and her inability to stay impartial towards the

different races. He suggested that Griffin be dismissed.

There are a couple cases that back the decision of the principal to dismiss Ann Griffin.

The first is Pickering v. Board of Education. While Pickerings dismissal was overturned, he was

protected by his right to make critical public comments on matters of public concern

(Underwood & Webb, 2003, p. 48). Griffins comment was a personal opinion, not a public one.

Speech that involves purely personal concern is not protected (Underwood & Webb, 2003, p.

49). This case also found that Pickerings statements are in no way directed towards any

person with whom appellant would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a

teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or harmony

among coworkers is presented here (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968). Pickering was

able to work well with his principal and coworkers since his opinion was for the most part agreed

with. In Griffins case, however, she was unable to work with her higher ups and many of her

coworkers due to their distaste in what she had said. She is able to be dismissed if the school

district believes that the speech would significantly undermine the teachers ability to perform

his or her duties, disrupt the normal operation of the school, undermine supervisory authority, or

destroy the effectiveness of working relationships (Underwood, Webb, 2006, p. 49). This is

exactly the thought of the principal.

 Another case which would back the principals decision of dismissal is Loeffelman v.

Board of Education of the Crystal City School District. Again, under this case, Ms. Loeffelman

was not protected by the First Amendment as her negative comments about interracial couples

and their children were personal and not of public opinion. It was also concluded that her

comments caused a serious disruption to the school setting (Loeffelman v. Board of

Education of the Crystal City School District, 2004). The exact same thing is being said of

Griffin and her work environment after her statement became public. The case also states that

The School District's interest in efficiently operating a school that is free from race-based

discriminatory speech outweighs any First Amendment right that Teacher may have to express

her private opinion regarding interracial relationships and biracial children to her students

(Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District, 2004). Griffins

comment was definitely race-based discriminatory speech and she would not be protected by the

First Amendment right of free speech. Therefore, the principal, again, would have every right to

dismiss Griffin based on her comment.

As far as Ann Griffins case goes, she does have tenure. Tenure is awarded for teaching

assignments (Underwood & Webb, 2003, p. 36-37). So, in order for Griffin to receive tenure,

she had to teach at that school for a certain amount of time as well as be judged by her ability to

teach her students. Clearly, she was a good, veteran, teacher, otherwise she would not have

received her tenure status. Not to mention, she more than likely was teaching while hating all

black folks and still doing everything required of her and more. A case that would support Ms.

Griffin and her tenure would be Howard v. West Baton Rouge Parish School Board in which

[b]oth the Teacher's Tenure Act and the jurisprudence of this state has traditionally protected the

employment security of its worthy tenured teachers (Howard v. West Baton Rouge Parish
School Board, 2001). If Ms. Griffin was, in fact, a tenured teacher, she would more than likely

deemed a worthy teacher and would thus be protected by the Teachers Tenure Act. Furthermore,

the case stated that [i]n the cases cited wherein teachers were terminated for willful neglect of

duty, the trend has been that the teacher must violate a policy or order or where there is a

dereliction of duty in order to be found guilty of willful neglect of duty (Howard v. West Baton

Rouge Parish School Board, 2001). Ms. Griffin did not neglect her duty as a teacher, she merely

made a negative, personal statement that upset her principal, assistant principal, and fellow

coworkers. Unless there is a policy stating that Ms. Griffin is unable to make comments about

her feelings of other races, then she didnt violate anything.

Another case that would help Ms. Griffin in her fight would be Board of Regents of State

Colleges v. Roth. In this case it is stated Having acquired tenure, a teacher is entitled to

continued employment "during efficiency and good behavior" (Board of Regents of State

Colleges v. Roth, 1972). Since Ms. Griffin was a tenure teacher, with good behavior and an

efficiency of her work with her predominately black students, she should not lose her job over

the statement she made. It also states that As a matter of statutory law, a tenured teacher cannot

be "discharged except for cause upon written charges" and pursuant to certain procedures

(Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 1972). Because of this, Ms. Griffin would be

allowed to take her case to the School Board as well as to court. During these case hearings, Ms.

Griffin could show that she is, in fact, as asset to the school and her personal statement made in

an argument should not be held against her.

Based on the amount of research I did, as well as what I read in our textbook, I think the

court would rule in favor of the principal. First of all, there are almost no court cases that rule in

favor of a teacher that made a personal comment, only those of public opinion. Ann Griffin made
a very negative, personal, comment and she would not be protected by the First Amendments

right to free speech. Since her feelings caused rifts between her bosses and the people she

worked with, she would be in violation of harmony in the workplace as well as destroying her

ability to remain impartial in the classroom due to her feelings about certain students in her

classroom. She disrupted the normal operation of the school and she would be unable to perform

her teaching abilities to the best of her capability. Finally, the court would instantly look at the

Pickering v. Board of Education balancing test and would instantly see that Griffin was in

violation of almost all of their factors. Due to all of these reasons, I believe the court would rule

in favor of the principal.

 References

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth. (1972). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/564/case.html

Howard v. West Baton Rouge Parish School Board. (2001) Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-supreme-court/1218398.html

Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District. (2004). Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1109760.html

Pickering v. Board of Education. (1968). Retrieved from 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.