Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

Article #2

Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

Alexander Bonde-Balutowski

College of Southern Nevada

March 29, 2019

Abstract
Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

Throughout the following essay, we will explore a situation that principle Freddie Watts

and assistant principal Jimmy Brothers had to conquer. While in a heated discussion at their

workplace Ann Griffin, a white tenured teacher, stated that she, “hated all black folks.” This

created an almost simultaneous kick back from both white and black teachers who demanded

that some action be taken. This created a tough situation for Mr. Watts and Mr. Brothers as they

attempted to find a solution that would ratify the situation. In an attempt to correct the situation,

Mr. Watts called for the dismissal of Ann Griffin based on concerns of her ability to treat not

only her students fairly but her fellow coworkers as well. Additionally, Mr. Watts began to

question the competency of Ann Griffin as a teacher. In the following paragraphs, we will

explore both sides of her dismissal from legal and ethical standpoints. For additional court cases

and or further information on the cases discussed below, please visit Prenhall website. For

information on Education Statues please vist Cornell’s website listed in the citations portion of

this essay.
Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

To begin, we will examine why dismissing Miss Griffin based on her choice of words

could be bad. The first piece of Legislation that we will view is the Pickering v. Board of

Education. “ A teacher criticized the school board and superintendents actions regarding a school

tax levy in a letter to the editor published by the local newspaper. The board dismissed the

teacher. The Supreme Court found the school had violated the teacher’s rights to free speech,”

(Julie Underwood. L. Dean Webb pg 49.) In regards to Miss Griffin, by dismissing her based on

her choice of words, Mr. Watts may be treading the line of violating Miss Griffin freedom of

speech. “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,” (U.S. Const. Amend.

1.) This creates a delicate line that people placed in power must be conscious of when handling

disciplinary actions as many lawyers may attempt to use this amendment to their advantage.

Now while at first, it seems as though Miss Griffin may be protected under freedom of

Speech, she is in fact not in this case. “ As opposed to speech on matters of public concern,

speech that involves purely personal concern is not protected. Examples of such unprotected

speech include; Personal attacks on administrators, board members, and/or other teacher and

grievances and complaints relating to individual personnel actions,” ( Julie Underwood. L. Dean

Webb pg 49.) Essentially although Miss Griffin does have the right to freedom of speech, by

verbally saying that she, “hated all black folks,” she is forfeiting her legal protection. An

example of this would be Ballard v. Independent School District of Bryan County. “In 1998

Ballard was replaced as baseball coach. Shortly thereafter Ballard confronted and threatened to

hit Superintendent Dobbs. He also threatened the teacher who had replaced his as baseball coach.

Neither threat was witnessed by any student. Dobbs suspended Ballard and brought charges for

his dismissal to the school board. After a hearing, the board voted to terminate Ballard’s teaching
Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

contract due to “moral turpitude” (immorality). Ballard brought suit challenging the

termination,” ( Julie Underwood. L. Dean Webb pg 76.) While Miss Griffin did not state verbal

intent for violence, she did make it clear that she had a biased against African American people.

In turn, this created a situation where people began to question the competency of Ann Griffin as

a teacher. This alone is enough for an administrator to push a dismissal case to the Schools

board.

One question that may arise during a dismissal board hearing is if the dismissal is the

right action to take or if there is another discipline route that should be taken. “ The procedures

for disciplining teachers depends on whether the teacher is tenured or nontenured and on the type

of discipline involved (dismissal, suspension, nonrenewal, reprimand, fine).” ( Julie Underwood.

L. Dean Webb pg 75.) As Miss Griffin was on Tenure, this creates a situation that makes

dismissing her very difficult and hard to complete. This leads to a lot of schools deciding against

pushing for a full dismissal of a teacher. An example of a school board having to decide what

course of action to take when attempting to handle a teacher's disciplinary actions is McElroy v.

Board of Education of Bellmore-Merrick Central High School(2004). “In the fall of 2003, a

hazing scandal involving the Mepham High School (NY) football team came to light. Three

younger players were physically assaulted and sexually abused by four members of the varsity

team while the team was attending a summer camp in Pennsylvania. Two of the coaches who

attended the camp were teachers at the high school. Although a grand jury found the coaches did

not have actual knowledge of the physical assault, it found that the coaches tolerated an

atmosphere that encourages hazing. In the aftermath of criminal charges and civil suits, the

school district the two teachers from classroom duties at the high school to administrative duties

at the central administrative offices,” ( Julie Underwood. L. Dean Webb pg 77.) While this is a
Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

different case altogether, it highlights the problems schools face when attempting to discipline a

teacher. While schools must take into account the teachers well being and legal protections, at

the end of the day everything comes down to the learning and well being of the students. By

verbally saying she, “hated all black folks,” Miss Griffin jeopardized the students that she was

trusted to teach and guide.

The first and most important trait that every teacher should have would be the ability to

treat each and every student equal regardless of physical appearance or cultural decisions. After

reading through the scenario faced by Mr. Watts, it is clear that Miss Griffin did not have this

ability. That is why after reading the cases above and gathering more information on this

situation I agree with Mr. Watts decision to dismiss Miss Griffin. I believe that this is the right

course of action solely based on Miss. Griffins clear and present bias towards African

Americans. This bias creates doubt as to how Miss. Griffin treated her students, as well as what

type of discrimination, may have taken place in her classroom. Reassigning Miss Griffin to

another school is not a harsh enough punishment to be administered because you would allow

her bias to move with her to another school. Additionally, by relocating Miss Griffin into an

administrative position you may be subjecting more students to be affected by her bias. At the

end of the day, the most important thing is the education of the children attending the school.

Citations

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

II Staff, C. (2008, September 29). Topical Index: State Statutes 2. Retrieved March 28, 2019,

from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state_statutes2#education.

26 A.D.3d 336 - IN THE MATTER OF WATKINS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PORT

JEFFERSON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of

the State of New York, Second Department. Retrieved on March 28 2019 from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/200636226ad3d3361143

17 N.J. 137 (1989) 564 A.2d 861 WAYNE E. PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

BOROUGH OF NORTH PLAINFIELD. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Retrieved on

March 28 2019 from https://www.leagle.com/decision/200636226ad3d3361143

220 F.3d 465 - IN THE MATTER OF BOROFF v. VAN WERT CITY BD. OF EDUCTION.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Retrieved on April 28 2019 from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/200636226ad3d3361143