Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artifact 2
Abstract
There was argument between a white tenured educator, Ann Griffin, a black Principal,
Freddie Watts, and his black assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers. In the heated argument, Griffin
remarked that she “hated all black folk.” Per the principal, he wished to have her dismissed as
she will unfit to properly and fairly treat all students the same. Court cases like Loeffelman V.
Board of Education of the Crystal City School District and Pickering V. Board Of Education
suggest that Ann Griffin should not have overreacted, as her remarks were not for the benefit of
the school or her students. They were private statements which are not protected under the
Freedom of Speech rights under the First Amendment. Griffin took her own interest and
proclaimed to hate all black folk which is discrimination and therefore unconstitutional. She may
argue that her expression did not threat her students or colleagues. However, her behavior was
unrequested and unbeneficial, herby requiring discipline.
Artifact 2 3
A white tenured teacher was in an argumentative conversation with the Principal, Freddie
Watts, and the assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers. In the argument, Griffin stated that she “hated
all black folks.” The principal and vice principal are both black and were assigned to administer
a high school that was predominantly black. The conversation caused negative reactions among
their black and white colleagues. The principal recommended that Griffin be dismissed because
it is a concern that she may not treat all students with fair judgement and competency.
Pro the scenario of the teacher is the Cleveland Board of Education V. Loudermill,
(1985). In Griffins case, the principal quickly wants to dismiss the teacher because he believes
her to be incompetent of treating all students the same. In the case, the court states “the tenured
public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of
the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story” (Cleveland Board of
Education V. Loudermill). Griffin, needs to be able to address her concerns against the principal
and assistant principal. Griffin would be able to defend her side of the story. She seemed to be
one against two black men that may have misinterpreted her. Griffin backfired with her remark
in defense, and meant to only discomfort the two, instead of “all” black folks. Evidence must be
brought up to prove that she is incompetent of teaching students in the predominantly black
school.
Another case pro to the scenario is Virginia V. Black Et Al., (2003) “The Court
specifically stated that a particular type of content discrimination does not violate the First
Amendment when the basis for it consists entirely of the very reason its entire class of speech is
proscribable” (Virginia V. Black Et Al). Griffin’s expression did not violate the first amendment.
It was discriminative but not to an excessive point. According to the Virginia V. Black Case,
“The First Amendment permits a State to ban "true threats," e.g., Watts v. United States […]
Artifact 2 4
which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious
of individual” (Virginia V. Black Et Al). Griffin was being expressive in the heat of the moment.
She did not mean to hate all black people. Her simple statement did not intend threats. If she is a
tenured teacher, she must have agreed to treat all students the same. Her statement against black
people was not to discomfort anyone. In the Virginia case, “The Klan has often used cross
burnings as a tool of intimidation and a threat of impending violence, although such burnings
have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology, serving as a central
feature of Klan gatherings […] As the history of cross burning in this country shows, that act is
often intimidating, intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of
violence” (Virginia V. Black Et Al). Griffin, did not act in a serious of a case as the Ku Klux
Klan did, as their sole purpose was to intimidate black people. Griffin accepts of them, as she
works in predominantly black school. She was in a simple argument and over reacted, but never
Con the scenario is the case Pickering V. Board Of Education, (1968). Griffin made a
public concern that she “hated all black people.” According to Pickering V. Board of Education,
a teacher cannot be dismissed for making public concerns on matters of public concern.
However, if the comment disrupts the working relationships among the personnel or affects their
assigned work tasks there is a reason for dismissal. In this specific scenario. The black and white
colleagues of Griffin and the two principals caused a negative commotion among them. In
Pickering V. Board of Education, Pickering’s concerns were made to criticize a policy in which
the school could improve. The case states, “The statements are in no way directed towards any
person with whom appellant would normally be in [391 U.S. 563, 570] contact in the course of
Artifact 2 5
his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate
On the other hand, Griffin personally and directly hated “all” people of black color. Which may
include the two principals, colleagues, and students. The case also mentions that "the teacher by
virtue of his public employment has a duty of loyalty to support his superiors in attaining the
generally accepted goals of education and that, if he must speak out publicly, he should do so
factually and accurately, commensurate with [391 U.S. 563, 569] his education and experience"
(Pickering V. Board Of Education). In the scenario, she just stated it. It was just a statement with
disrespect to her superiors, colleagues, and students of black color. It was not factual, nor
Another case “con” to the scenario, is that of Loeffelman V. Board of Education of the
Crystal City School District, (2004). In the case, a school teacher told her students that she
opposes interracial marriage along with other racist remarks. The school board terminated her
because of her racial statements. The teacher then appealed the judgment because her first
amendment right was being violated. The court supported the school board because she did not
have any unconstitutional rights violated. The court stated that the “Teacher's comments
irreparably damaged the student-teacher relationship by destroying her rapport with her students
and thereby diminishing her ability to effectively teach her students” (Loeffelman V. Board of
Education of the Crystal City School District). In Griffins case, the principal stated that her
comment may affect her judgement, competency, and fairness to all students because of her
discriminative remarks. That would be a cause to consider because Griffins statement was
already causing a commotion within her colleagues. In Loeffelman’s case, it is also mentioned
that “teacher's comments did not address a matter of public concern. Her comments expressed a
Artifact 2 6
private opinion regarding interracial relationships and biracial children […] Her comments were
not part of a lesson plan being conducted by Teacher […] Thus, because Teacher's comments did
not address a matter of public concern, but rather a matter of private concern, they are not
entitled to First Amendment protection” (Loeffelman V. Board of Education of the Crystal City
School District). Once again, the teachers comments were of private concern and non-related to
the benefit of the school or students education. Her comment cannot be protected by her free
speech rights.
According my evaluations of the cases, Griffin is entitled to due process, however, she
should be dismissed as she violated discrimination policies and offended her colleagues and
superiors. As the Loeffelman V. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District, (2004)
states “her comments were not part of a lesson plan being conducted by Teacher […]Thus,
because Teacher's comments did not address a matter of public concern, but rather a matter of
private concern, they are not entitled to First Amendment protection” (Loeffelman V. Board of
Education of the Crystal City School District). Her remark was discriminative and of private
concern. She did not state it to help out her peers or school. Griffin simply was mad and released
an expression of hate. Hate is a strong word and cannot be underestimated. She may not be like
the Ku Klux Klan, but their intentions was to intimidate people. In Pickering V. Board Of
harmony among coworkers is presented here.” It does not matter what color the principal and
vice principal; Griffin still caused a commotion within her colleagues. Racism is not a joke.
Griffin needs to be dismissed from a predominantly black. Her being there will continue tensions
with her students and colleagues. She raised a personal attack on all black people, and therefore
needs to be brought upon the consequences of her violation. In Pickering’s case “public
Artifact 2 7
employment has a duty of loyalty to support his superiors in attaining the generally accepted
goals of education and that, if he must speak out publicly, he should do so factually and
accurately” (Pickering V. Board Of Education). By no means, did Griffin simply convers ate
with her superiors. Regardless of the conversation, she should have maintained discipline and not
References
Cleveland Board of Education V. Loudermill 1985. (n.d.). Retrieved July 14, 2016, from
http://caselaw. findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/532.html
Loeffelman V. Board Of Education Of The Crystal City School District 2004. (n.d.). Retrieved
Pickering V. Board Of Education 1968. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2016, from
http://caselaw.findlaw. com/us-supreme-court/391/563.html
Virginia V. Black 2003. (n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-
supreme-court/537/465.html