Running head: TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Portfolio Artifact 2: Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

Marilyn Gonzalez

Dr. Isbell

EDU 210

College of Southern Nevada

September 23, 2017

TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Portfolio Artifact 2: Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

Ann Griffin, a white tenured teacher at a predominantly black high school, raised

concerns among her colleagues when word leaked on a heated conversation she had with

principal Freddie Watts and assistant principal Jimmy Brothers, who are both African-American.

During this exchange with both administrators, Griffin stated that she “hated all black folks”.

The resulting kerfuffle has raised questions as to whether or not Griffin is able to engage with her

students fairly and free of discrimination, and whether or not her judgment of African-Americans

makes her unfit to remain in her position. Principal Watts has recommended that Griffin be

dismissed on these grounds. The question in this case is whether Griffin’s right to free speech

and right to due process supersedes the administrator’s right to dismiss her.

The first case in favor of Griffin right to free speech is that of Harris v. Victoria

Independent School District (1999). In this case, decided by the Fifth Court of Appeals, Dwight

Harris and his colleague Gene Martin were transferred to different campuses in the 1994-95

school year because of their speech. On December 8, 1995 Harris and Martin spoke up during a

meeting at Victoria High School, raising concerns about the the school’s principal, Melissa

Porche, and calling for her to be replaced. This incident is the culmination of raising tensions and

concerns about Porche’s competency. As elected faculty members of the school’s site based

decision-making committee, Harris and Martin felt that raising these concerns was well within

their scope. As a result of this meeting, Harris and Martin were reprimanded by the

Superintendent and transferred to different schools. The Victoria School Board upheld this

decision, with Harris and Martin filing an appeal. The issue in this case is whether or not Harris

and Martin engaged in protected speech and whether the disciplinary action taken by the

Superintendent was in direct violation of that protection. The court reversed the school board’s
TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

decision, stating that that these teachers did engage in protected speech under the First

Amendment and that by retaliating, Brieza was violating their right to free speech. Additionally,

Brieza had no proof that Harris and Martin’s comments were disruptive to the school

environment. In Griffin’s case, the private heated exchange between her and the administrators

could be construed as that of a matter of public concern, which would qualify as protected

speech, and retaliation on the grounds of Griffin’s statement is a violation of her First

Amendment rights. In accordance with the findings of this case, “An employee's speech may

contain an element of personal interest and yet still qualify as speech on a matter of public

concern.” (Harris v. Victoria Independent School District, 1999).

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) is the second case in favor of Griffin’s right to free speech.

In this case, decided by the United States Supreme Court, Iowa students John Tinker, his

siblings, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt wore black armbands to their schools (junior high

and high school) in protest of the Vietnam War. Administrators, aware of this planned protest,

implemented a policy on December 14, 1965 stating that students who wore an armband would

be asked to remove it and if the student did not comply, he/she would be suspended. Tinker and

Eckhardt refused to remove their armbands, and were then promptly suspended and asked not to

return until they came back without the armbands. They were unable to return until after January

1st. In this case, the Supreme Court found that wearing the armbands was not a disruption to the

school environment, nor did the armband “impinge upong the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des

Moines, 1969). These students were engaging in a form of expression protected by the First

Amendment, which the school violated as well as violating their right to due process under the

Fourteenth Amendment. Pursuant to the findings of this case, prohibiting an expression of

opinion, without any evidence that this expression of opinion would create substantial
TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

interference with the rights of others, is in direct violation of the First and Fourteenth

Amendments. While this case focuses on the rights of students, the results of this case found that

First Amendment rights are “available to teachers and students” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). In

relevance to the case at hand, Griffin’s statement, said privately to Watts and Brothers, was an

expression of her opinion which did not violate the rights of others. Additionally, dsmissing her

in retaliation for expressing her opinion is a violation of her right to due process under the

Fourteenth Amendment.

The first case against Griffin’s right to free speech is Connick v. Myers (1983). In this

case, decided by the United States Supreme Court, Assistant District Attorney Sheila Myers

prepared and distributed a questionnaire in objection of her proposed transfer to a different

section of the criminal court. This questionnaire contained questions regarding “transfer policy,

office moral, the need for a grievance committee, the level of confidence in supervisors, and

whether employees felt pressured to work in political campaigns” (Connick v. Myers, 1983).

Myers was shortly therafter terminated on the grounds that she refused to accept her transfer and

that the questionnaire was “an act of insubordination” (Connick v. Myers, 1983). Both the

District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Myers, until Connick appealed

to the Supreme Court by way of certiorari. The Supreme Court overturned the Fifth Circuit’s

decision, stating that Myers’ questionnaire, while containing an element of public concern, was

predominately speaking on matters of personal interest, which is not protected speech under the

First Amendment. Myers was speaking not as a citizen interested in matters of public concern,

but rather as an employee in matters of personal interest. Moreover, the question regarding the

level of confidence in supervisors “carried the clear potential for undermining office relations”

(Connick v. Myers, 1983). Considering the case at hand, Watts can argue that Griffin’s speech
TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

was not concerning a matter of public interest, but rather her personal opinion. Furthermore,

when word leaked about her statement, Griffin’s colleagues were bewildered and concerned.

This wave of negative reactions is an undermining of “office relations” pursuant to Connick v.

Myers.

Pickering v. Board of Educationi (1968) is the second case in favor of Watt’s right to

dismiss Griffin. This case, decided by the United States Supreme Court, concerned Marvin

Pickering who was a teacher in Township High School District 205. Pickering wrote a letter to

the local newspaper, regarding a a new tax increase proposal and criticizing the school board and

district Superintendent for their previous mismanagement of proposed tax increases aimed at

generating revenue for schools. Pickering was thereafter dismissed, after a full hearing wherein

the school board found that the letter was “detrimental to the efficient operation and

administration of the schools in the district” (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1969). Pickering

appealed this decision. The Supreme Court reversed the school board’s decision, and held that

Pickering’s dismissal was in direct violation of his rights under the First and Fourteenth

Amendment. Moreover, a teacher has the right to speak on issues of public importance without

being dismissed from his/her position in retaliation. However, this protection only extends to

speech that is not knowingly false or reckless. Pickering’s statements, while upsetting to his

administrators, was found to not be knowingly false or reckless. On the other hand, Griffin’s

statement that she “hated all black folks” was incendiary and knowingly reckless considering

that she was speaking to two administrators who were African-American and is a teacher in a

predominantly African-American school. Under this caveat, Griffin’s statement does not fall

under the scope of protected speech under the First Amendment.

TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

In this case, Ann Griffin does not have grounds to pursue wrongful termination charges.

All of the cases presented have the caveat that speech is not protected if it is disruptive to the

school environment. Freddie Watts has a strong case under Pickering v. Board of Education

(1968) that Griffin’s speech was indeed reckless, as it caused upset among her colleagues and

raised questions as to whether Griffin can remain impartial when interacting with African-

American students. These concerns also undermine “office relations” under Connick v. Myers as

Watts and Brothers are African-American, a racial group that Griffin claims to “hate”

unequivocally. Under Connick v. Myers (1983) and Pickering v. Board of Education (1968),

Griffin’s statement falls under the scope of personal interest as she was not speaking on a matter

of public opinion and is therefore not considered protected speech under the First Amendment.

Since this statement does not fall under protected speech under the First Amendment, Griffin is

not entitled to the protection granted Pickering v. Board of Education (1968). Therefore,

Griffin’s termination is not wrongful and not in violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment

rights.
TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7

References

Connick v. Myers (1983). (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2017, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/138.html

Harris v. Victoria Independent School District (1999). (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2017,

from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1078833.html

Pickering v. Board of Education (1968). (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2017, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/391/563.html

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2017, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/393/503.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

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