Running head: TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Amanda L. Laymon

College of Southern Nevada

 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONISIBILITIES 2

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Ann Griffin is a white tenured teacher in a mostly black high school. The principal of the

school, Freddie Watts, and the assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers, were having a conversation

with Ms. Griffin. Things got slightly out of hand and Ms. Griffin proclaimed that she “hated all

black folks”. Both of the administrators are African American, but they weren’t the only ones

offended by her comment. Ms. Griffin’s coworkers, white and black, did not take well to her

comment either. Freddie Watts proposed her dismissal due to his concerns of her judgement and

adequacy as a teacher, as well as her ability to treat students fairly.

The first presented case to assist Freddie Watts in the dismissal of Ann Griffin is Harris v

Victoria Independent School District (1999). In this presented case, a high school put together a

committee in order to increase its school and principal ratings. The two head faculty members of

the committee were Harris and Martin; they met with Brezina and discussed their concerns about

their principal. This resulted in an improvement plan which didn’t show results after several

months. When Harris and Martin returned to Brezina they stated the faculty felt they needed a

new principal in order to improve, and if there wasn’t a change they would riot. Brezina in turn

transferred both Harris and Martin to new schools, due to neglecting their freedom of speech

(“Harris v Victoria Independent School District”, 2016). The courts ruled in favor of Brezina

stating that freedom of speech is unprotected when it’s a personal attack on an administrator or a

complaint to an individual’s action (Underwood et al., 2006, p. 49). Harris v Victoria

Independent School District (1999) sufficiently defends Freddie Watt’s case due to Ann Griffin’s

expression of hate toward “black folks”, which includes Mr. Watts. It makes her expression a

personal offense to him, not to a public matter concern. Therefore, rights charges should be

extended to Ms. Griffin’s dismissal.

 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONISIBILITIES 3

The second presented case to assist Freddie Watts in the dismissal of Ann Griffin is

Spence v Washington (1974). In this presented case, a man hung an American flag out of his

apartment window. The flag was hung upside-down and on the front and back it contained a

peace sign designed with tape. His reasoning was to bring peace to the flag instead of violence as

shown in, at the time, Cambodia and Kent State University’s deathly shooting (“Spence v

Washington”, 1992). Following this case, the court ruled two new questions to determine if

freedom of speech is protected or not. They include: “(1) Was the conduct ‘intended to convey a

particularized message’? and (2) Was ‘the likelihood great that the message would be understood

by those who viewed it’?” (Underwood et al., 2006, p. 48). Spence v Washington (1974)

sufficiently defends Freddie Watt’s case due to Ann Griffin’s message she conveyed. For the

first question, Ms. Griffin intended the message to be offensive. The conversation was getting

heated and she needed to express her feelings of anger and frustration. For the second question,

Ms. Griffin’s statement was blunt, she was not trying to cut corners, which made it

understandable to anyone who views it. There is no question to the offensiveness implied in her

statement. Therefore, Freddie Watts has solid reasoning to press rights related charges on Ann

Griffin’s expression.

The first case presented in favor of Ann Griffin keeping her job is Cleveland Board of

Education v Loudermill (1985). In Cleveland Board of Education v Loudermill (1985), a school

security guard was dismissed from his job when the administration found out he lied on his

application. He was never given time to state his end of the situation. Although he was given a

post termination hearing, the court ruled that he was entitled to answer to his charge before his

termination. Cleveland Board of Education v Loudermill (1985) brought the requirement for a

property protected right, which he gained from working there longer than three years, a due
 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONISIBILITIES 4

process notice and a chance to have their side heard before a verdict is made. Cleveland Board of

Education v Loudermill (1985) properly defends Ann Griffin’s case, because just like the

security guard had property rights so did she with tenure. Ms. Griffin was also prevented her

right of due process to respond to her dismissal charge, and therefore, the charges against Ann

Griffin should be removed allowing her to keep her job (Underwood et al., 2006, p. 65).

The second case presented in favor of Ann Griffin keeping her job is Pickering v Board

of Education (1968). In Pickering v Board of Education (1968), a teacher used his written

freedom of speech to criticize the actions the school board was trying to take on tax levy. The

letter was published in the local newspaper, and caused the school to release him from his

position. The court determined that the teacher was violated in his First Amendment right and

revoked his dismissal. Pickering v Board of Education (1968) gave teachers their freedom of

speech in the work place, which in Ann Griffin’s case gave her the freedom of speech to express

her feelings. Her speech toward Watts and Brothers was an expression of her anger in the

moment of a heated conversation. Therefore, Pickering v Board of Education (1968) should

successfully remove the charges of dismissal against Ann Griffin (Underwood et al., 2006, p.

49).

My decision regarding this case is for Freddie Watts and his proposed dismissal of Ann

Griffin’s neglect of freedom of speech, with the use of Harris v Victoria Independent School

District (1999) and Spence v Washington (1974). Ms. Griffin in the anger of the moment let her

expression go away from public concerns regarding school issues, and took it personal. Under

Harris v Victoria Independent School District (1999) the use of personal expression is no longer

protected. Ms. Griffin neglected to keep it professional by mentioning opinions concerning Mr.

Watts nationality. Spence v Washington (1974) added further questioning into the intended
 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONISIBILITIES 5

message of the expression. Ann Griffin’s message was one of offense toward Watts and

Brothers, as well as the rest of the “black folk”. Although her freedom of speech is protected

there are restrictions that she failed to maintain. Had she kept it professional her dismissal would

not have been recommended, and she would not be out of a job (Underwood et al., 2006, p. 48).
 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONISIBILITIES 6

References

“Harris v Victoria Independent School District”. (2016). Find Law. Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1078833.html

“Spence v Washington”. (1992). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/405

Underwood, J. & Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.