Running head: TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

Angelique Cameron

College of Southern Nevada

TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Abstract

This paper is a brief summary of a fictional case involving a principal, his assistant principal, and

a tenured teacher. The teacher’s name is Ann Griffin. The principal and his assistant are both

African-American, and the tenured teacher is white. Ann Griffin said, “I hate all blacks”. Some

people would find her words very offensive and others would feel it was her right to say what

she said, based off of the first amendment. The possible rulings of this fictional case will be

discussed as well as arguments from several cases.

TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

There have been all kinds of controversial cases throughout educational history, and one

type of case that could be seen as controversial involves the first amendment rights of a tenured

teacher. The case mentioned in this paper is about a Caucasian teacher speaking to the African-

American principal at her school. Some people might consider her speech inappropriate, but

others may think it was her constitutional right to say what she wanted to say. Ann Griffin stated,

“I hate all black folks”, while in a meeting with her African-American superiors. The school she

worked at was primarily African-American, which could make the working environment of the

school problematic.

According to Underwood and Webb (2006), teachers have the right to express their views

on matters of public concern without fear of retaliation. On the other hand if the speech is

disruptive or personal the teacher could be disciplined (Underwood & Webb, 2006). The courts

attempt to balance the rights of the teacher against the harm caused to the school. Will the speech

undermine the effectiveness of the working relationship between the teacher, the teachers

superior or the coworkers (Underwood & Webb, 2006)?

In regards to Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) Fighting words are

those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the

peace (Hudson, 2003). In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court found for New

Hampshire because his words were considered violent. In Griffin v. Board of Education the

teacher stated, “I hate all black folks”. Those words could incite a riot within the school and it

could also cause a disturbance amongst coworkers and students if they were aware of the words

being said, which could be considered a breach of peace.

TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

Hudson (2006) states, “There is multi-step process that is applied to a case to determine

the first amendment rights of the teacher. First, the courts review manner, time, and delivery of

the speech. Second, they examine and assess whether the speech would impede proper

performance of classroom duties or could interfere with the regular operation of the schools in

general”. In Griffin v. Board of Education the statement could possibly have a negative effect on

her working relationship with superiors, co-workers and her students.

In Waters v.Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) Churchill was on a lunch break, and was

talking to another employee about strategies her department head was implementing that she did

not like. Some people overheard the conversation, and went to management with their

interpretation of what she said, and based on what was said, the court found for Waters. On one

hand she did make comments that some could have construed as insubordinate, but on the other

hand she probably thought she could speak on her break without repercussions.

One similar aspect between the Churchill case and the Griffin case is that they both have

witnesses stating they said something, but there was nothing documented during the original

speech that occurred. Therefore some would say hearsay was a factor. Second, the Supreme

Court uses a series of tests to see if the speech is protected by the first amendment, and one way

to check is by notating whether the speech was a personal attack on the administrator

(Underwood & Webb, 2006).When Griffin stated, “I hate all black folks”, to her African

American superiors, they could have both felt personally attacked because they are both African

American. In the Churchill case, some of the speech was about her manager, Waters, so most

likely she felt personally attacked as well.

TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

On the other hand Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410

(1979) is a case with a different outcome. The teacher, Givhan, expressed concerns to her

superior in private. The courts found in favor of the plaintiff. This is similar to Griffin v Board of

Education. The similar aspect is that it was a discussion that was held in the privacy of the

teachers superiors office, and that the conversation may have been misconstrued (Jernigan,

2008). The difference is that in the Givhan case the teacher was speaking of a prejudice she felt

was affecting her in regards to office politics of the school, and in the Griffin case the teacher

said something possibly offensive to her superiors, co-workers and students. The courts have

said that a discussion in the privacy of an office between employee and management can still be

protected speech under the first amendment (Jernigan, 2008).

Furthermore there was a controversial case in the early 1970’s that was quite thought

provoking. The case of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S.15 (1977) reflected a man who wore a

jacket that had vulgar words expressing his feelings toward the Vietnam War. California stated

that the jacket could have created a problem for him or anyone else who could have been

offended by the words. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling, stating that words were not

aimed at anyone specifically, and that there was no evidence of any violence that occurred from

seeing the jacket (Hudson, 2011).

In Griffin v. Board of Education, Griffin stated something highly offensive to her

superiors, but the words were not directly aimed at them. Griffin did not address her superiors by

name, or state anyone else in the staff by name, when she made her speech. Many people could

have been offended by the speech, but the Supreme Court states that a person is entitled to

expression, and a person’s rights can still be upheld regardless of how offensive the speech is

(Hudson, 2011).
TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

In conclusion, there is a lot of missing information, so it was hard for me to make a

decision even with the numerous cases I have reviewed. I decided to find for the Board of

Education because there seems to be more cases that would find Griffin in the wrong. I do not

know what else was said in that meeting, but if she stated that, it could create an uncomfortable

relationship between her and her superiors. If what she said spread throughout the school, it

could cause a riot of some kind. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, his words were found violent.

The courts find fighting words to be words that incite violence or breech the peace (Hudson,

2003). I feel the words Griffin stated could possibly do both in the school that she works.

Lastly, in the case of Waters v.Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) Churchill basically bad

mouthed her superior. She had an open discussion where others could hear her. I feel that anyone

who openly says derogatory statements about their superiors could run into trouble. Griffin stated

something that could be very offensive to her superiors. The courts find that they cannot interfere

with grievances between employers and their employees, and if a person says something

disrespectful to their supervisors, the employer has the right to discipline them.
TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7

References

Hudson, D. L., Jr. (2003). First Amendment Center. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/personal-public-expression

Hudson, D. L., Jr. (2006). First Amendment Center. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/personal-public-expression

Jernigan, M. J. (2008). Education Law. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from

http://usedulaw.com/

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Welcome to LII. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/

Waters v. Churchill. (n.d). Oyez. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from

https://www.oyez,org/cases/1993/92-1450