Running head: PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT II 1

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Portfolio Artifact II

Khadeejah Griffin

College Of Southern Nevada

 2

Introduction

In a disagreement with two African American administrators, Ann Griffin, a tenured

teacher expresses that she, “hates all black folks”. Principal Watts and vice principal Brothers

agree that the statement is extremely profound and believe that she should be dismissed from

teaching due to her racist remark. Once word leaked of her statement, colleagues of all races

began to have negative reactions towards it. The administrators believe that her statement is

revealing how she may operate her classroom, allowing them to believe that she may treat her

students differently based on their race. In the sense of education, students come first and if they

do not feel comfortable around Ms. Griffin, then it becomes a concern. Ideally, the big question

is, will Ms. Griffin’s teaching license be dismissed or will she be able to continue teaching?

For Dismissal

The First Amendment does not protect any profound statements made by individuals. In

the case of​ ​Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. of San Diego County (2011) the ​court said, “It

does not permit Johnson to speak as freely at work in his role as a teacher about his views on

God, our nation’s history, or God’s role in our nation’s history as he might on a sidewalk, in a

park, at his dinner table, or in countless other locations. Again, the school district has the right

and responsibility to set the curriculum and, within the delivery of that curriculum, teacher

speech can be regulated.” This case underlines the affect teachers may have when expressing

themselves freely in the classroom or to other colleagues. In regards to Ann Griffin, she can be

dismissed since her statement was extremely unprofessional and harmful towards other
 3

individuals. Teachers are not permitted to express their own views if it offends other individuals.

In education, teachers should never make racial slurs because it can have an effect on the

students learning environment. Most students will start to feel uncomfortable when they feel like

they will be judged by their educator due to their race. Although Ms. Griffin’s remark was said

out of anger, she completely discredited African Americans as a whole and will have to suffer

the consequences for her actions.

Speech that addresses personal beliefs, is not protected by the United States Constitution.

Ann Griffin’s statement was a personal attack as she expressed her feelings towards principal

Watts and vice principal Brothers who were both African American administrators. In the case of

Mayer v. Monroe County Community School(2007)​, ​it expressed that the “First Amendment

does ​not entitle public school teachers to cover topics or advocate viewpoints that depart from

the curriculum adopted by the school board”. Although Griffin’s statement was said to other staff

members/administrators, it was a viewpoint which departed from the curriculum adopted by the

school board. ​Other colleagues have now become concerned with Ms. Griffin’s teaching and are

now debating if they feel comfortable teaching around someone who looks at others differently

due to their race. They begin to question if her actions are disruptive to the school operations. In

the end, Ann Griffin will be dismissed due to her advocating and expressing viewpoints that are

not appropriate in the school environment.

Against Dismissal

As mentioned in the scenario, ​when word leaked of Ann Griffins’ statement, it caused

negative reactions among colleagues of all races. Ann Griffin can argue that the environment that
 4

she had been working in was extremely unfriendly and unsupportive. “Title VII affords

employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule,

and insult. To prevail on a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate: that

[his] workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation that was sufficiently severe or

pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] work environment” (Schwapp v. Town of Avon 1997).

Once everyone became aware of the statement Ann Griffin said, they began to react negatively.

In her defense, if she has any evidence that they began to treat her differently, she has a better

chance at prevailing in this claim.​ If Ms. Griffin feels that the other teachers are judging her by

her statement, she has a claim of against the administrators arguing that the work environment

made her feel extremely uncomfortable and was extremely hostile. ​When Ms. Griffin presents

evidence on how her colleagues and administrators treated her, the court could possibly overrule

her dismissal.

Fortunately, in the case of Ann Griffin, the Fourteenth Amendment is on her side. The

fourteenth amendment states that no state can deny an individual due process for their property.

In the case of Perry v. Sindermann(1972), the Court stated that, “​Though a subjective

"expectancy" of tenure is not protected by procedural due process, respondent's allegation that

the college had a ​de facto​ tenure policy, arising from rules and understandings officially

promulgated and fostered, entitled him to an opportunity of proving the legitimacy of his claim

to job tenure. Such proof would obligate the college to afford him a requested hearing where he

could be informed of the grounds for his non-retention and challenge their sufficiency”. ​Since

Ann Griffin is a tenured teacher, she has the right to her tenure which cannot be taken away from
 5

her unless due process is given to her. The state cannot deprive Ann Griffin out of her tenure

without a fair opportunity to decide whether she is at fault or not.

Conclusion

After constructively reviewing cases similar to Ann Griffins’, the issue can be resolved in

a more professional manner. Although Ms. Griffin made an extremely unprofessional and

harmful remark, the remark was made behind closed doors. In the scenario, it stated that her

statement was leaked which had to be issued by Principal Watts or vice principal Brothers. The

reaction of other colleagues was due to Principal Watts and vice principal Brothers actions in

leaking the statement. If they felt that the remark was extremely harmful and effecting the school

environment, they should have reported it to the board of education and made a claim against

Ms. Griffin first. On the other hand, if Ms. Griffin cannot control what she says and how she

talks to other colleagues, then she should be dismissed. The remark was made out of anger, but it

was extremely offensive to both African American administrators. Teaching is a diverse career

which is why teachers should never address any situation regarding race.

In regards to the case of Perry v. Sinderman(1972), the court ruled that tenure can protect

individuals right to due process. If Ann Griffin is truly at fault in this situation, she is still given

the right to defend herself. This can allow Ann Griffin to find arguments against the

administrators like working in a hostile environment and her statement being leaked to the

public. In truth, this case can go either way as both sides have enough evidence to overrule the
 6

other. In the end, the decision is solely up to the Supreme Court. They will be the only ones to

decide if Ms. Griffin will be dismissed or not.

References

Alvin D. Schwapp v. Town Of Avon, 30 F. Supp. 2d 279 (1998). Retrieved January 24, 2019

from caselaw.findlaw.com website:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1057687.html

Johnson v. Poway Unified School District, 658 F.3d 954 (2011). Retrieved January 28, 2019

from caselaw.findlaw.com website:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1579924.html

Mayer v. Monroe County Community School 474 F.3d 477 (2007). Retrieved January 26, 2019

from kappanonline.org website:

https://www.kappanonline.org/underwood-school-districts-control-teachers-classroom-sp

eech/

Perry v. Sindermann 408 U.S. 593 (1972). Retrieved January 28, 2019 from law.cornell.edu

website: ​https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/593