Running head: TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Alondra Cruz

Sherry Herington

College of Southern Nevada

TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Abstract

Keywords​: Add keywords here. To replace this (or any) tip text with your own, just select

it and then start typing. Don’t include space to the right or left of the characters in your selection.
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

Ann Griffin is a tenure white teacher. She works in a predominantly black high school.

The principle, Freddy Watts and assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers are both African American.

During a heated conversation Griffin said she “hated all black folks.” It caused negative

reactions among her colleagues, both white and black. Resulting in principle Watts request of her

dismissal based on her ability to treat students equally, her judgement, as well as her competency

as a teacher.

In order to determine whether Griffin can be fired we must look at the First Amendment,

Due Process, Fourteenth Amendment and previous court cases.

Tenure is defined as, “a statutory right that confers permanent employment on teachers,

protecting them from dismissal except for adequate cause.” Dismissal refers to, “the termination

for cause of any tenured teacher of a probationary teacher within the contract period.” The First

Amendment insures and protects the freedom of speech. People have the right to say what they

feel. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures the right to due process. A tenured teacher cannot be

fired without being afforded certain procedural rights. The court case Brown v. Board of

Education insured equal treatment and protection of students or color and white students.

Although the First Amendment protects freedom of speech a teacher can still be

dismissed for saying something they shouldn't. In the 1968 court case Pickering v. Board of

Education, Pickering wrote a letter to a local newspaper in which he talked about and criticized

the school boards fiscal policies. Pickering was then dismissed from the school. The school

claimed that his letter gave a bad reputation of school board members along with the district

administrators, and claimed the statements were false. The Illinois courts sided with the school

letting them dismiss Pickering. The court case reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

applied a balancing test which helped determine if the letter jeopardized his relationship with

immediate supervisor or harmony with co-workers, interfered with teaching effectiveness and/or

impeded school operation. In this case they found that his letter did not affect any of those areas.

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Illinois courts. This court case made sure teachers

had a right to speak on subjects of public concern without losing their job.

In another court case Mt Healthy City School District v. Doyle a nontenured teachers

contract was not renewed after making a call to a local radio station. He complained about

proposed grooming standards on teachers. He had previously had other problems, like making

obscene gestures to female students. The board stated he had a “lack of tact in handling

professional matters.” Although the lower courts ruled in favor of Doyle, the Supreme Court

decided to reverse and remand the case. They made sure that the teachers freedom of speech was

protected. They wanted the school to see if there was enough evidence, without taking away his

exercise of freedom of speech, to not renew his contract. There was still enough evidence for

Doyles non renewal.

In the court case Givhan versus the​ Western Line Consolidated School District
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

References

Last Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. ​Journal Title​, Pages From - To.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992

Ann Griffin is a tenure white teacher. She works in a prominently black high school. The

principle, Freddy Watts and assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers are both African American.

During a heated conversation, Griffin said she "hated all black folks." It caused negative

reactions among her colleagues, both white and black. Resulting in principle Watts request for

her dismissal based on her ability to treat students equally, her judgment, as well as her

competency as a teacher.

In order to determine whether Griffin can be fired, we must look at the First Amendment, Due

Process, the Fourteenth Amendment and previous court cases.

Tenure is defined as, "a statutory right that confers permanent employment on teachers,

protecting them from dismissal except for adequate cause." Dismissal refers to, "the termination

for cause of any tenured teacher of a probationary teacher within the contract period." The First

Amendment ensures and protects the freedom of speech. People have the right to say what they

feel. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures the right to due process. A tenured teacher cannot be

fired without being afforded certain procedural rights. The court case Brown versus Board of

Education ensured equal treatment and protection of students or color and white students.
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

In the 1968 court case Pickering v. Board of Education, Pickering wrote a letter to a local

newspaper in which he talked about and criticized the school boards fiscal policies. Pickering

was then dismissed from the school. The school claimed that his letter gave a bad reputation of

school board members along with the district administrators, and claimed the statements were

false. The Illinois courts sided with the school letting them dismiss Pickering. The court case

reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court applied a balancing test which helped determine

if the letter jeopardized his relationship with an immediate supervisor or harmony with

co-workers, interfered with teaching effectiveness and/or impeded school operation. In this case,

they found that his letter did not affect any of those areas. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling

of the Illinois courts. This court case made sure teachers had a right to speak on subjects of

public concern without losing their job.

In another court case Mt Healthy City School District versus Doyle a nontenured teacher contract

was not renewed after making a call to a local radio station. He complained about proposed

grooming standards on teachers. He had previously had other problems, like making obscene

gestures to female students. The board stated he had a "lack of tact in handling professional

matters." Although the lower courts ruled in favor of Doyle, the Supreme Court decided to

reverse and remand the case. They made sure that the teacher's freedom of speech was protected.

They wanted the school to see if there was enough evidence, without taking away his exercise of

freedom of speech, to not renew his contract. There was still enough evidence for Doyle's

nonrenewal.
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7

In the court case Givhan versus Western Line Consolidated School District a petitioner lost her

teaching job. According to the district, Givhan made "petty and unreasonable demands" to the

school principal, which were described as "insulting," "hostile," "loud," and "arrogant." The

District Court stated that her dismissal violated her right to freedom of speech. After the school

district stated that the main reason she was dismissed was because she criticized the school

districts policies. Leading to her reinstatement. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision

stating that her opinion and complaints were not protected under the First Amendment since the

encounters were made private with the principle. Twelve years later Givhan was reinstated after

they applied the Mt Healthy Test.

The court case Garcetti versus Cellabos the Court stated that "whether the employee is speaking

as a private citizen or as an employee is the first consideration because if speaking as an

employee, there is no further constitutional assessment." Cellabos was an assistant district

attorney. He wrote a memorandum, in which he talked about a deputy sheriff. Cellabos was not

promoted and was retaliated against by the district attorney's office. The Supreme Court decided

that the district attorney office did not violate his rights because Cellabos spoke as an employee,

the Constitution cannot protect him from employer discipline. They decided that speech will be

protected if it passes the Pickering test as long as it, "does not occur pursuant to official duties,

related to a public concern, and is the motivating factor in the adverse employment action."

If the Pickering test were to be applied to this case they would find that it does jeopardize

Griffins relationship with her coworkers because they had negative reactions to her comments. It

also can interfere with her teaching effectiveness and interfere with the management of the
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 8

school because the school is predominately black students. Although in the Mt. Healthy court

case they decided that speech can't be the determining factor for a teacher's dismissal, there can

be other reasons to dismiss Griffins. It could be that her bias has caused a lack of competency in

the classroom. She made these comments privately. Which in the Givhan case, determined that

private statements are not protected. Griffins freedom of speech is not being violated because

she is speaking as an employee. Since she works in a predominantly black school, she has to

teach black students. It is part of her duty. Griffins chances of winning are slim. She must prove

that her opinion has not affected her teaching effectiveness.