ASSIGNMENT (ARTIFACT 2) 1

Assignment (Artifact 2): Case Scenario Argument/Analysis

Amber Parker

College of Southern Nevada

ASSIGNMENT (ARTIFACT 2) 2

Assignment (Artifact 2): Case Scenario Argument/Analysis

Case Summary

Principal Freddie Watts and assistant principal Jimmy Brothers both work at a high

school that is mostly black and are African American themselves. Both Watts and Brothers got

into a heated argument with Ann Griffin, one of the school’s white tenured teachers. During their

argument, Ms. Griffin proclaimed that she “hated all black folks.” Her statement about hating

black folks spread like wildfire causing so many negative reactions amongst the student and staff

both white and black alike. As a result of the negative impact of her statement, Principal Watts

recommended that Ann Griffin be fired due to concerns about her ability to treat people fairly

and with respect. Principal Watts’ recommendation was also based on concerns about Ms.

Griffin’s teaching capabilities.

Two Supporting Court Cases – Ann Griffin Should be Dismissed

There have been many court cases where a teacher is dismissed based on racial comments

that affect school staff and students. Courts in agreement with Principal Watts’ recommendation

of dismissal for Ann Griffin might refer to older court cases to support their ruling. Two court

case examples include Adler V. Board of Education (1952) and Anderson V. Evans (1981). In

Adler V. Board of Education, Adler, a New York schoolteacher, is fired after revealing that she

is part of a communist group. After her termination, she quickly retaliates against the Board of

Education hitting them with a lawsuit for wrongful termination in violation of her right to

freedom of speech. The Supreme Court heard both sides of the story and ruled against Adler,

stating that her freedom to speech was not violated. The court ruled that a teacher’s association

has an affect on the way they run their classroom as well as their ability to educate. Teachers

have the biggest impact on young children and the way they shape their minds and view society
ASSIGNMENT (ARTIFACT 2) 3

as they grow up. When questioned if they were denying Adler of her right to free speech, the

court responded saying that she and any other teacher will not be denied their rights, but rather

they will have to choose between making their opinions heard and maintaining their jobs. If the

court determining Ann Griffin’s fate referred to this case, Griffin would be fired based on the

fact that her comment could negatively influence the way children shape their minds. As a result,

Griffin chose to voice her own opinions rather than keep quiet and maintain her current job as a

teacher.

Another court case that could be used as supporting evidence to dismiss Ann Griffin is

Anderson V. Evans (1981). This case tells us that Evelyn Anderson is a white tenured teacher

who teaches in a predominantly black school, and that Anderson made some very hateful

comments towards black people after her daughter was assaulted and robbed by a group of

young black people. Not only did she make these hateful comments, but she also terminated her

teaching assistant because their skin happened to be black. Anderson was quickly fired from her

job shortly after firing her teaching aide. The court did not rule in Anderson’s favor, stating that

there must be a common balance found between the public interest of the employer and the

employee’s interest as an individual. In the Griffin case, the court could use this case to support

evidence that Griffin’s personal opinions do not outweigh the interests that have to be maintained

by the school officials.

Two Supporting Court Cases – Ann Griffin Should Not be Dismissed.

Ann Griffin was recommended for dismissal after stating she hated black people. If the

court wanted to rule that her freedom of speech was violated and that Griffin should keep her

job, they could look back at previous cases to support their decision. Two cases they could refer

to include Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and Garcetti V.
ASSIGNMENT (ARTIFACT 2) 4

Ceballos (2006). In December of 1965, a group of students in Des Moines gathered together in

Christopher Eckhardt’s home to devise a plan to publicly show their support for a truce in the

Vietnam War. The students decided to wear black armbands for the duration of the holiday

season, as well as to fast on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. On December 14, school officials

including the principal of Des Moines school got wind of the student’s plan. In response to what

they heard school officials created a policy stating that students caught wearing armbands would

be asked to remove them. School officials deemed that refusal to remove the armband would

result in suspension. On December 16 and 17, Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John

Tinker wore armbands to school which resulted in their suspension. The students were not

allowed back to school until after New Years Day, the last planned say of their protest. With the

help of their parents, the three students took the school to court for violating their right to

freedom of expression. The students and their parents sought to prohibit the school and school

district from disciplining the students. Despite all efforts, the court ruled that the school district’s

decision of suspension was the correct thing to do in order to uphold the school’s discipline

rules. Looking at Griffin’s case, the court could use this case to rule in favor of Griffin stating

that she has freedom to speech and that right should not be violated. Despite what her superiors

might think, this case could be used by the court to prevent Griffin from losing her job and

credentials.

In order for the court to rule in Griffin’s favor, they could refer to the court case of

Garcetti V. Ceballos (2006). The people involved in the Garcetti case are neither teachers nor

educational employees. Those involved are public employees the same as teachers. This case

involves Richard Ceballos, an employee for the Los Angeles Attorney’s office and his superiors.

After discovering that facts regarding a search warrant affidavit were falsified by a Sheriff,
ASSIGNMENT (ARTIFACT 2) 5

Ceballos immediately informed the attorney’s in charge of prosecuting the search warrant case.

Despite the fact that the Attorneys unanimously decided that the arrest was questionable, the

D.A.’s office refused to dismiss the case entirely. In response to this, Ceballos informed the

defense he believed the affidavit contained false information and statements. Ceballos was called

by the defense to testify. Seeking to receive damages from the federal district court, Ceballos

claimed that the D.A.’s office retaliated against him for his cooperation with the defense. He

argued that his cooperation was protected under the First Amendment. The district court ruled

that the attorneys were protected by qualified immunity, but their decision was later reversed by

the Ninth Circuit. The ninth circuit stated that Ceballos had engaged in speech that concerned the

public and was therefore protected under the first amendment. The court could rule in Griffin’s

favor when referencing the Ceballos case, arguing that she was speaking as an individual and not

for a group of people. They could argue that Griffin only spoke for herself and as a result, did not

cause harm to the school or board’s reputation. In short, the court could use the Ceballos case to

prevent Griffin from losing her job.

Personal Opinion.

While all of these cases have supporting evidence for one side or the other, I would have

to say that the Anderson V. Evans has the most similarities to Griffin’s case. The Anderson case

involved a white tenured teacher making hateful comments towards black people just like

Griffin’s case, and both were terminated because of it. Although the Garcetti V Ceballos case did

not involve anyone with a career in education, it had some good points regarding the protection

of the first amendment. However, the downfall to that is that working with young children is not

the same thing as working with adults. In Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School

District, Tinker lost the court case because it was deemed that the student’s freedom of speech
ASSIGNMENT (ARTIFACT 2) 6

was not violated by the school officials. In Adler V. Board of Education, Adler was not

terminated because she said something offensive about students or fellow teachers, but simply

because she was part of a group that officials deemed as offensive.

Based on all the evidence from Griffin’s court case and the four court cases referenced, I

believe that Ann Griffin was not wrongfully terminated. While she is allowed her own opinion as

is everyone, I do not believe it was okay for her to voice them in front of her superiors, students,

and peers who were part of the group she was bashing on. I would agree with Principal Watts’

decision to dismiss Ann Griffin from service because I believe that she crossed a line when

saying she hated all black people in front of her black students, peers, and superiors. Whether or

not she said these things with an intent to harm, I believe that the court would rule that she was

not wrongfully terminated nor were her rights violated.

ASSIGNMENT (ARTIFACT 2) 7

References

Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York, 342 US 485 (1952)

Anderson v. Evans, 660 US 153 (1981)

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 US 410 (2006)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503 (1969)