You are on page 1of 7

Ch.

2 & 3 Assignment 1

Ch. 2 & 3 Assignment Submission (EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #2)

Ch. 2 & 3 Assignment Submission (EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #2)

Lori Hyland

EDU 210 - 1004


Ch. 2 & 3 Assignment 2

Ch. 2 & 3 Assignment Submission (EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #2)

Dismissing a teacher can have a serious, life-changing effect on lives of the teacher and

his or her family. In fact, many incidents related teacher dismissal have been presented in court,

leading all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ruled on these cases based on the

Constitution. One scenario to consider is the case Ann Griffin, a white, tenured teacher who

works at a predominately black high school. One day during a heated conversation with her two

African-American administrators, Principal Freddie Watts and Assistant Principal Jimmy

Brothers, Ann Griffin said that she hated all black folks. After word of her statement got

around, both Griffins black and white colleagues had negative reactions, and the principal

recommended that Ann Griffin be dismissed from her teaching job. Both sides of the argument

will be examined based on relevant court cases, and a final opinion on the case will be

determined.

The schools side in this court case is that Ann Griffin should be dismissed from her

teaching job because of her statement that she hated all black folks on the grounds that Griffin

is unable to treat her students fairly and her lack of judgment and competency as a teacher. One

court case that supports the schools side in this argument is Loeffelman v. Board of Education

of the Crystal City School District. In this case, teacher Jendra Loeffelman was asked by one of

her students how she felt about interracial couples if they are in love. Loeffelman replied that

she was totally against interracial couples and that such couples should be fixed so they will

not produce mixed children who are racially confused (Loeffelman v. Board of Education).

After the school board decided to terminate her for these racially discriminatory statements,

Loeffelman appealed, stating that her comments were protected by free speech under the First

Amendment. After hearing the case, the decision of the school to terminate Loeffelman was
Ch. 2 & 3 Assignment 3

upheld, stating, The school Districts interest in efficiently operating a school that is free from

race-based discriminatory speech outweighs any First Amendment right that Teacher may have

to express her private opinion regarding interracial relationships (Loeffelman v. Board of

Education). Thus, this similar case supports the schools decision to terminate Ann Griffin

because the schools interest in running a school free of racial bias in which the teachers treat

everyone fairly outweighs Griffins First Amendment right to free speech.

Another court case that supports the schools decision to terminate Ann Griffin is the case

of John W. Stroman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Colleton County School District. In this case, John

W. Stroman, a public school teacher, was terminated from his job after he wrote and circulated a

letter to his colleagues complaining about a change that would result in a delay in summer pay.

Stroman filed a lawsuit against the Colleton County School District on the basis that his

dismissal violated his right to exercise free speech under the First Amendment (Stroman v.

Colleton County School District). After hearing the arguments in this case, the decision upheld

the school districts decision to terminate Stroman. The decision stated, We Therefore hold that

any First Amendment interest inherent in the letter that Stroman circulated is outweighed by the

public interest in having public education provided by teachers loyal to that service (Stroman

v. Colleton County School District). This means that a teachers comments are not protected by

free speech if the school reasonably believes that speech undermines the teachers ability to

perform his or her duties, disrupts normal school operations, or destroys the effectiveness of

working relationships (Stroman v. Colleton County School District). Therefore, this case

supports the schools decision to dismiss Ann Griffin based on the belief that her racial comment

about hating black folks affected her judgment and competency as a teacher and her ability to

treat her students fairly.


Ch. 2 & 3 Assignment 4

Ann Griffins side in this argument is that she should not be terminated from her tenured

teaching position because her comments are protected under the First Amendment right to free

speech. One related case that supports Ann Griffins side in this argument is Tinker v. Des

Moines Independent Community School District. This case involved three public school students

who were suspended from school because they wore black armbands to school to show their

protest for the Governments policy in Vietnam. The Court ruled that the students had a right to

wear the armbands and should not be suspended from school. Further, the Court stated that the

right to free speech applies to not only verbal communication, but also to written and symbolic

expression. The decision stated, First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students,

subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A

prohibition against expression of opinion, without evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid

substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the

First and Fourteenth Amendments (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School

District). This ruling can be applied to the case against Ann Griffin because teachers have the

same right to express their opinions as anyone else, provided they do not substantially interfere

with school discipline or rights of others. A school cannot make the decision to terminate a

teacher as a result of the teacher exercising his/her right to free speech. Hence, the school

wrongfully terminated Ann Griffin based on one comment in which she was expressing her

opinion under protection of free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment.

Another similar court case that opposes the termination of Ann Griffin is Pickering v.

Board of Education. In this case, Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher, was dismissed from

his job after he wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, criticizing the board of

educations allocation of funds between academics and athletics. Pickering filed a lawsuit
Ch. 2 & 3 Assignment 5

claiming that the school board had violated his First Amendment rights by terminating him for

exercising his right to free speech (Pickering v. Board of Education). The Supreme Court

overturned Pickerings termination, explaining that unless the public comment undermines that

effective relationship between the teacher and colleagues , the teachers ability to perform his/her

duties, or the ability of the school to operate, the expression cannot be used as grounds for

dismissal (Pickering v. Board of Education). As a tenured teacher, Ann Griffins comment

against black folks in the midst of a heated conversation cannot be proven to substantially

change her working relationship with colleagues or to interfere with her ability to perform her

duty as a teacher. Therefore, Ann Griffins comment is protected under the right to free speech.

In summary, I believe the court would rule against the termination of Ann Griffin on the

grounds that her comment is protected under the First Amendment right to free speech. In

regards to the case of Loeffelman, the comments about interracial couples were stated directly to

the students, some of which were biracial and could have been directly influenced by her

comments (Loeffelman v. Board of Education). However, in the case of Ann Griffin, she was

speaking to adult administrators and in the midst of a heated exchange, not to the students she

taught. Secondly, in the case of Stroman, the letter he circulated could have negatively impacted

the morale and working environment of his colleagues because of his complaint about a policy in

which teacher pay would be delayed (John W. Stroman v. Colleton County School District). On

the other hand, Ann Griffins comment was not directed at any school policy that would

influence the morale or work ethic of her colleagues. Additionally, the Tinker case explains that

the rights of free speech apply to teachers as well as everyone else, and a teacher should not be

terminated on the basis of a comment that is protected under the First Amendment (Tinker v. Des

Moines Independent Community School). Finally, the Pickering case ruled that an expression of
Ch. 2 & 3 Assignment 6

free speech cannot be used as grounds of termination unless the comment substantially impacts

the persons ability to perform his/her job or the working relationship with colleagues (Pickering

v. Board of Education). In the end, I believe the court would rule against the schools position

and reverse Ann Griffins termination on the grounds that it violated her First Amendment right

to free speech.
Ch. 2 & 3 Assignment 7

References

Pickering v. Board of Education 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Retrieved January 24, 2017, from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/563/case.html

The Crystal City School District. Retrieved January 24, 2017, from
http://www.lawcitations.com/case/n/the-crystal-city-school-district

John W. Stroman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Colleton County School District; A.l. Smoak,


Jr.,superintendent of Education, Colleton County Schooldistrict; Colleton County Board
of School Trustees; Nathelh. Kennedy, Chairman, Colleton County Board of
Schooltrustees, Defendants-appellees, 981 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1993). Retrieved January
24, 2017, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/981/152/22184/

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. Retrieved January 24, 2017, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503

You might also like