Professional Documents
Culture Documents
but to also be a positive co-worker. With that being said, certain personal beliefs have to be kept
personal at times, no matter the situation. In the case of Ann Griffin, she did not consider keeping
her convictions to herself and thus, this situation came to be. Griffin, a white, tenured teacher, is
being recommended for dismissal regarding a statement that she made during an intense
discussion with principal, Freddie Watts, and assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers. The statement
that Griffin made was that she, Hated all black folks. It is important to note that Griffin teaches
include that Watts and Brothers are both African-American as well. Following this outburst,
Griffins colleagues, both black and white, were displeased with hearing that one of their own
felt this way. Therefore, Principal Watts is seeking the dismissal of Griffin from the school due to
concerns that Griffins prejudice thoughts would inhibit her from being fair to students, as well
as well as due process. The First Amendment entitles every American citizen the right to free
speech. According to McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes (2014), while being an educator does not
take away this right, it can limit the expression of these rights while within a school setting.
Along with the First Amendment comes freedom of expression, which is stated as, Public
employees comments on matters of public concern are protected expression if they are made as
a citizen and not pursuant to official job duties. (McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes. 2014. p. 233).
This amendment applies to this case because while citizens of the United States are entitled to
free speech, when speaking as an educator, the school board can take into consideration if the
words spoken could be detrimental to its reputation, as well as the teachers ability to be a
ARTIFACT #2 3
proficient educator. The second amendment that can be cited in this case is the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that no
state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. (McCabe,
McCarthy, & Eckes. 2014. p. 259). Within the Fourteenth Amendment, exists due process,
which, Guarantees that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. (McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes. 2014. p. 285). Also, Courts have established
that a teachers interest in public employment may entail significant property and liberty
rights necessitating due process prior to employment termination. (McCabe, McCarthy, &
Eckes. 2014. p. 285). Both the Fourteenth Amendment and due process apply to this case
because as a tenured teacher, Griffin has property interest within her employment contract. This
basically states that state law guarantees her a position within her contracts terms. This does not
mean that she cannot be dismissed from her position; however, it entitles her to due process. The
liberty rights come from the Fourteenth Amendment and are given to all teachers, tenured or not.
This also means that Griffin is to be notified for the reasons that she is up for dismissal.
Griffin is arguing her case that she should not be dismissed under the First Amendment
and free speech. She stated that the conversation that she had with Watts and Brothers was in
private. The debate that she and the men were having continued, and words were exchanged in
the heat of the moment. In Griffins favor, the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos needs to be visited. In
the Garcetti case, the Supreme Court ruled that, whether the employee is speaking as a
there is no further constitutional assessment. (McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes. 2014. p. 235).
Griffin states that the debate was not concerning school or her job, and therefore was speaking as
a private citizen. This would mean that she would be protected under the First Amendment
The second case that Griffin is citing for her case is Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated
School District. Griffin again makes the argument that she, as did Givhan was speaking privately
with Watts and Brothers and not concerning school matters. Following the disagreement, the
conversation somehow leaked out of Principal Watts office, resulting in the faculty becoming
privy to what Griffin had said in anger. Watts then made the decision to place Griffin up for
dismissal, regardless of the fact that the conversation should not have been, on the record.
Regarding the Givhan case, the Supreme Court eventually ruled in her favor under the First
Amendment. (Justia. 2014) Again, this would mean that Griffin would be protected from
between Griffin, Brothers, and himself. He states that the conversation did indeed take place
within his office; the debate quickly spiraled out of control. His personal secretary overheard the
conversation as Griffin yelled, I hate all black folks! before she stormed out the door. Watts is
also stating that with the majority of the schools population being African-American, he has a
difficult time accepting that Griffin could do her job without prejudice. This statement also made
Watts question the competency of her teaching skills and therefore made the decision to ask for
her dismissal. Watts cites the case of Pickering v. Board of Education. He references the
Pickering balancing test when considering what Griffin stated. Watts declares that her racist
comment could indeed affect her teaching effectiveness, jeopardizes her relationships with
superiors, as well as co-workers, and could interfere with the management of the school.
(McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes. 2014. p. 236). Due to the fact that Griffin would not pass the
School District v. Doyle. Watts does agree that free speech is of the utmost importance, when the
ARTIFACT #2 5
speech is completely unprofessional and the words can be damaging to ones employment, that
employee needs to be reprimanded for that indiscretion. In Mt. Healthy City School District v.
Doyle, the teacher originally won the case, however, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court
stated, burden of proof is on the employee to show that the speech was constitutionally
protected and was a substantial or motivating factor in the school boards adverse reaction. Once
established, the burden then shifts to the school board to show by preponderance of evidence that
it would have reached the same decision in the absence of the teachers exercise of protected
speech. (McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes. 2014. p. 235). Consequently, Griffins declaration made
her a questionable educator to black students. Watts is unsure as to whether or not Griffin made
any questionable errors when it came to grading students unfairly at this time.
In closing, in the Case of Ann Griffin, Griffin should be dismissed from her position as a
tenured teacher. Citing the case of Pickering v. Board of Education, based on her personal
feelings, Griffin cannot do her job thoroughly or fairly in a mostly African-American school.
While free speech and the First and Fourteenth Amendment do apply in this case, when an
educator can no longer be impartial or trustworthy among her students or her colleagues, their
integrity can be called into question. Therefore, Ann Griffin is to be let go from her position.
References
Givhanv.WesternLineCons.Sch.Dist.439U.S.410(1979).(n.d.).RetrievedSeptember12,
2015.
McCabe,N.,McCarthy,M.,&Eckes,S.(2014).Teachers'SubstantiveConstitutionalRights.In
LegalRightsofTeachersandStudents(2nded.,p.233).Boston:PearsonEducation.
McCabe,N.,McCarthy,M.,&Eckes,S.(2014).DiscriminationinEmployment.InLegalRights
ofTeachersandStudents(2nded.,p.259).Boston:PearsonEducation.
McCabe,N.,McCarthy,M.,&Eckes,S.(2014).TerminationofEmployment.InLegalRightsof
TeachersandStudents(2nded.,p.285).Boston:PearsonEducation.
McCabe,N.,McCarthy,M.,&Eckes,S.(2014).Teachers'SubstantiveConstitutionalRights.In
LegalRightsofTeachersandStudents(2nded.,p.235).Boston:PearsonEducation.
ARTIFACT #2 6
McCabe,N.,McCarthy,M.,&Eckes,S.(2014).Teachers'SubstantiveConstitutionalRights.In
LegalRightsofTeachersandStudents(2nded.,p.236).Boston:PearsonEducation.
McCabe,N.,McCarthy,M.,&Eckes,S.(2014).Teachers'SubstantiveConstitutionalRights.In
LegalRightsofTeachersandStudents(2nded.,p.235).Boston:PearsonEducation.
McCabe,N.,McCarthy,M.,&Eckes,S.(2014).Garcettiv.Ceballos.InLegalRightsof
TeachersandStudents(2nded.,p.235).Boston:PearsonEducation.
McCabe,N.,McCarthy,M.,&Eckes,S.(2014).Pickeringv.BoardofEducation.InLegal
RightsofTeachersandStudents(2nded.,p.234).Boston:PearsonEducation.
McCabe,N.,McCarthy,M.,&Eckes,S.(2014).Mt.HealthyCitySchoolDistrictv.Doyle.In
LegalRightsofTeachersandStudents(2nded.,p.234).Boston:PearsonEducation.