1

Hailey Peck

EDU 210-1005

Portfolio Artifact #2
 2

Principal and assistant principal Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers, assigned to a

predominantly black high school, are having a discussion with Ann Griffin, a white tenured

teacher. During a heated conversation with the principal and assistant principal, Ann Griffin

stated that she “hated all black folks.” This caused some obvious anger from the African-

American principal and vice principal. It also caused many negative reactions from both white

and black colleagues. The principal, Freddie Watts, recommended dismissal based on his

concerns of her ability to both treat students fairly and her competency as a teacher.

The court case Mt. Healthy v. Doyle of 1977 is one case that deals with the constitutional

right to freedom of speech. In this court case, an untenured teacher named Doyle informed the

disc jockey at a local radio station in Cincinnati about a memorandum on teacher dress and

appearance. The disk jockey then published the information as a news article. Other “disruptive”

incidents were also on Doyle’s record, including arguments with other employees and

questionable conduct towards students. Doyle’s contract was not renewed, not because of his

discussion of school policy with the disc jockey, but because of his other problems with the

school district. Doyle’s discussion with the disc jockey was protected by his first amendment

rights and, if that had been the reason for his contract not being renewed, he would have won his

case against the school district.

Although the court case of 1969 Tinker v Des Moines is pertaining to student free speech,

it can still be used as an argument for teacher free speech. In this court case, several students

organized a protest of the Vietnam War in which they wore black arm bands to school. The

school warned all the students that if they continued to do this, they would be suspended. The

Tinker children continued to wear the black arm bands and were suspended. Their parents filed a

suit claiming their children’s freedom of speech was being violated and won. The court ruled for
 3

the students, stating that “students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house

gates.” Like students, many can argue that, as long as the speech is not threatening, a teacher

claiming they “hate all black folks” are exercising their right to freedom of speech and cannot be

punished.

One court case that can be used in the favor of principal Watts is Bethel School District v

Fraser of 1986. This court case involved Matthew Fraser, a high school student who delivered a

speech nominating a fellow student of elective office. The speech was made during school hours

and included terms of an elaborate and explicit sexual metaphor. Before the speech, the student

had discussed the speech with several teachers and was told it was inappropriate. The court ruled

in favor of the school district for suspending the teen. The Fraser case was not like the Tinker

case in the sense that the Fraser case did not include freedom of speech to express a political

viewpoint.

The court case Adler v. Board of Education in 1952 pertains to Feinberg Law, in which

public teachers who partake in specified “Communist” organizations are disqualified from

teaching in order to “protect the children” from communist influence. This law was deemed

constitutional by the Supreme Court, giving the school district the right to inquire into teacher’s

associations to determine their fitness and loyalty. It was reasoned that the attitudes of young

minds towards society is shaped by their teachers.

Based on the information from these different court cases, I am lead to believe that, in the

case regarding Ann Griffin, the principal will get what he wants in dismissing her. The hate

speech portrayed by Griffin is not used in a way of political symbolism, but in a way of

inappropriate and negative influence on young minds. The argument can be made that the
 4

teacher’s hate toward “black folks” can be deemed racist and discriminatory. It can be the cause

of unfair treatment in children and other coworkers.

5
 6

References

Historic Supreme Court Cases. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2016, from

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/edlaw.htm