Artifact 2: Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact 2

Teacher’s Rights and Responsibility

Cynthia Guzman

College of Southern Nevada

EDU 210 - 1004

September 30, 2018

Artifact 2: Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 2

Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

In a mostly black high school Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers are the assigned

principal and assistant-principal. They get into a heated debate with a fellow administrator, Ann

Griffin. During the debate Griffin says to the two administrators that she “hated all black folks”.

Griffin is a white tenured teacher. Watts and Brothers are both African-American administrators.

Word leaks about her statement which causes an uproar of negative reactions among her

coworkers, consisting of black and white persons. The principal, Freddie Watts, recommends

termination based on concerns of whether Griffin will treat students equally and her judgment

and competency as a teacher. The question in this case is how will the court rule.

The first case that will be used to support the court’s decision of dismissing Griffin is

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

highschool teacher Marvin Pickering was terminated after he wrote a letter to the local

newspaper criticizing the superintendent and school board over their handling school funds. The

Supreme Court overruled the dismissal of the educator. The Court ruled that teachers do not

leave their right of freedom of speech at the door of the school. The Court also stated that

teachers, “... do have the right to make critical public comments on matters of public concern,”

(Underwood & Webb). The Court also declared that unless the comment affects or undermines

the effective working relationship between the educator and the educator’s superiors or

coworkers or ability to perform assigned duties the case will not be put up for reprisal. The case

of ​Pickering v. Board of Education (​ 1968) supports the decision of the court to dismiss Griffin
Artifact 2: Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 3

because the comment made directly affects her working relationships. It caused an uproar of

negative feedback. It also affects her relationship with her superiors, principal Freddie Watts and

assistant-principal Jimmy Brothers, seeing as they both are African-American men. With this

comment there will be probably be signs of hostility against Griffin from Watts and Brothers

which will cause an unhealthy and unsafe work environment for the rest of the faculty.

The second case that will support the court’s decision to dismiss Ann Griffin is ​Harris v.

Victoria Independent School District (​ 5th Cir. 1999). In this case, the performance of Victoria

highschool and it’s principal were being questioned by two teachers, Dwight Harris and Gene

Martin. They gave a speech during a committee meeting discussing an improvement plan for the

school. In this speech the principal, Robert Brezina, was criticized for not implementing the plan.

Brezina reprimanded both teachers and sent them to work at two different campuses. Harris and

Gene sued Brezina claiming he violated their First Amendment rights. Because of failure from

the school not providing evidence to show that the speech disrupted school operations, the Fifth

Circuit came to the conclusion that the speech was a matter of public concern and was entitled to

the First Amendment protection. ​Harris v. Victoria Independent School District ​(5th Cir. 1999)

supports the court’s decision for dismissal because “hated all black folks” statement from Griffin

is not considered a public concern, it is a personal concern. Public concern topics, as stated in our

class text involve, “comments on instructional methods; comments on curriculum; comments on

administrative or board action on general issues of management and policy,”(Underwood &

Webb). Speech that involves personal concerns are not protected under the First Amendment.

Palmer v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District 201-U ​(1995) will be

the first case to support the court’s ruling of not dismissing tenured teacher Ann Griffin. In the
Artifact 2: Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 4

case of ​Palmer v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District 201-U (​ 1995), Deer

Creek Junior High was closed down by the district claiming it is undergoing renovations and

began to transport students to the only other junior high school in University Park. The plaintiff,

Palmer, claimed that there was a disproportionate burden of transportation among the black and

white students. The population of their town is predominantly black and it seemed that the only

children that were being transferred to the other junior high school were white. The board

claimed that they didn’t have sufficient funds to transport all students. Palmer, a black parent of

student enrolled in Deer Creek Junior High, stated that the board’s explanation was just an

excuse for the district to be able to discriminate. The board never explained why Deer Creek, the

grander and better equipped school of the two in the district, needed renovations. The court ruled

the board to reopen Deer Creek. The board went back on that promise and didn’t open it. The

court also, “After additional proceedings the court held that at-large elections to the school board

violated § 2(b). It approved a plan creating seven single-member districts. Entry of the

permanent injunction under the Voting Rights Act made the dismissal of the other claims final,

and plaintiffs appealed,” (Reuters).

The court can take example from this case and rule that there are discriminatory actions

being taken against Griffin. The court can state the school is only using her statement as a ruse to

justifying her firing. The court would come to this conclusion from evidence presented from

Griffin seeing that it is the employee’s job to provide evidence of injustice. The evidence that the

court would base this ruling would be that the high school is predominantly black as well as her

superiors, Watts and Brothers, this could be their way of kicking her out along with other
Artifact 2: Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 5

nonblack faculty members. Watts and Brothers might want to keep the school remaining

predominantly black.

Based on the court cases presented along with the information from the incident I believe

that the court will decide to agree with the dismissal of Ann Griffin. I came to this conclusion

based on the cases of ​Pickering v. Board of Education ​(1968) and ​Harris v. Victoria Independent

School District ​(5th Cir. 1999). Unlike Pickering’s criticisms from the ​Pickering v. Board of

Education (​ 1968) case and Harris and Gene’s speech from the ​Harris v. Victoria Independent

School District ​(5th Cir. 1999) ​case​, Ann Griffin’s statement does not fall under the protection of

the First Amendment. Harris and Gene’s speech about the principal not implementing a new

improvement plan does fall under the First Amendment protection because it is a matter of

public concern. As well does Marvin Pickering’s criticism in his letter to the local newspaper.

With both cases the plaintiffs are speaking as citizens and keeping their personal feelings out of

it. They are speaking just as citizens. Griffin’s “hated all black folks” comment is a personal

concern. The remark conveys a particular message and is understood by a particular group of

people (Underwood & Webb).The comment made by Griffin also directly affects her working

relationships with her superiors principal Freddie Watts and assistant-principal Jimmy Brothers

since they are both African-American men. It also will affect her relationships with her

coworkers since when word was leaked about the remark it cause negative reactions among them

all. With the information from these cases is why I support the court’s ruling for dismissal.
Artifact 2: Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 6

References

Reuters, Thomson. (n.d). ​PALMER v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COMMUNITY UNIT

​ etrieved from
SCHOOL DISTRICT 201 WILL COUNTY ILLINOIS (1995). R

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1353428.html

Reuters, Thomson. (n.d). ​HARRIS v. VICTORIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (1999).

Retrieved from ​https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1078833.html

Pickering v. Board of Education ​(1968).

Underwood, Julie, and L. Dean. Webb. (2006) ​School Law for Teachers: Concepts and

Applications. ​Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Artifact 2: Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 7