Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Michelle L. Quiroz
disputes the competency of Ann Griffin, a Caucasian tenured teacher, that made a racist remark to
a couple of administrators. She stated that she, “hated all black folk” during the heated
conversation. Freddie Watts, the principal, and Jimmy Brothers, assistant principal, were the
administrators that were involved in the conversation. Watts and Brothers are both African-
American. They recommended the dismissal of Griffin based on concerns regarding her ability to
treat students fairly and her judgement as a teacher. Based off her statement, a person which claims
to hate African-Americans should not be teaching at a predominately black school, let alone any
other schools considering how diverse they are becoming. Although this statement obviously
reflects negatively on an educator, there are several important variables and possible rulings in this
case; one of which being that she is already tenured. This paper will explore several cases which
are similar in nature, that both support and oppose Griffin’s case.
3
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
There could have been many other solutions or responses she could have said during a
heated conversation. Instead, she chose to make a racist generalization about an entire group of
people. Take into consideration that a lot of the administration is African-American, including her
employer. Griffin more than likely made the administration uncomfortable, and obviously question
concern that students would be discriminated or treated unfairly due to the color of their skin, even
if she didn’t mean what she said. Her position requires her to speak and write in front of a class,
full of students that are part of an ethnicity which she claimed to hate. It’s very understandable for
administrators to have concerns; that statement was prejudice. High standards are held for
educators inside as well as outside, and failure to maintain them will lead to disciplinary action.
They are role models. There’s a need for a safe and orderly environment, especially being an
educator.
Before action is taken, a tenured teacher is entitled to due process prior to dismissal. They
must have a reason for dismissal, notice of dismissal, hearing, or summary of charges.
Recommending a tenured teacher for dismissal with failure to provide notice or due process is a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of Perry vs. Sindermann the College’s Board
of Regents accused Sindermann of insubordination for criticizing school policies publicly on the
radio. The board failed to provide an adequate reason for dismissal, or a hearing, which is a direct
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. The court concluded that a teacher cannot be
In similar instances, the case of Pickering v. Board of Education also violated Pickering’s
right to freedom of speech. He wrote a letter criticizing school policies to the Editor at Lockport
4
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Herald. The Board of Education felt that the public letter he wrote was “detrimental to the efficient
operation and administration of the schools”, but his letter was protected under the First
Amendment, even though it was publicly expressed. Their reasoning for his dismissal didn’t have
enough justification; the information he released was not false, but opinionated (391 US 563, 1968).
Griffin’s statement was not public, therefore it cannot interfere with daily duties or school
operations, unless her statement was released. Her classroom conduct is a matter of concern
because of her supposed spite against African-Americans, but perhaps the spite was only against
In the case of Givhan v. Western Line, Givhan was dismissed for petitioning school
policies regarding desegregation. Her petition began as private conversation with the principal,
which was an unwilling listener. Givhan’s contract was not renewed for her “petty and hostile”
accusations to the principal, which was determined to be untrue. She claimed that her dismissal
was purely racist and in violation of the First Amendment. She was later reinstated after further
review, although she did have a slight history of outbursts with staff (439 US 410, 1979) . With this
decision it was ruled that private rather than public forums do not lose their First Amendment
protections. Instead, the speech must be evaluated to determine if it impedes the proper
performance of daily duties, or if it interferes with the schools’ regular operations. It is still
unknown what the exact contents of Ann Griffin’s private conversation between the administrators
were that triggered her unprecedented response, but she is protected under the First and Fourteenth
Amendment. The school board must justify an exact reason for dismissal, and there must be a
history of incidents. Note, the employer’s must have the same decision regardless of the conduct.
There must be other reasons for dismissal other than saying she, “hated black folk”. There is no
5
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
information on whether she physically expressed her hatred. If the board is unable to provide
Other variables to consider are the amount of teachers being lain off. There lacks
information about other teachers being terminated in Griffin’s case, but if there were its likely that
they are not tenured teachers. Luckily for griffin, she is tenured so she has the right to a hearing.
In the case of Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, Fred Doyle was an employee at Mt. Healthy City School
District Board of Education for five years, so I assume he was tenured. Doyle had a history of
inappropriate instances with regard to students, but the main reason for dismissal was a comment
he made to the radio about dress code. It became news for the station, and a month later the district
recommended that the school board not renew his contract, along with nine other teachers. Doyle
brought up a federal question and took it to action for refusal to renew his contract and the violation
of his freedom of speech. Although the court declared all of the incidents occurred, he was still
Although the 1st Amendment of the Constitution grants and protects freedom of speech,
there can be certain restrictions and limitations in the workplace. Just because Griffin is a tenured
teacher does not mean that the 1st amendment will protect her from a statement like “I hate all
black folk”, especially when the majority of her students are African-American. In the case of
Garcetti vs. Cabellos, it was determined that in most instances speech is only protected as a private
citizen, not during official duties. Cabellos was a district office attorney. He was reviewing a case
and found inconsistent information and serious misinterpretations and a notified the attorneys.
They refused to dismiss the case, and Cabellos testified against false statements. The office
retaliated against him for siding with the defense, so Cabellos claimed they were violating his
freedom of speech. Qualified immunity was not available to the defendants because Ceballos had
6
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
been engaged in speech that addressed matters of public concern and was thus protected by the
First Amendment (547 US 410, 2006). Griffin shouldn’t have made a statement like that during
working hours, or on the premises period. If an employer has high standards for its employees
regarding limitations and responsibility, they are obligated to discipline. This is usually part of the
Generalizing an entire race or ethnic group the way Griffin did is not only disrespectful,
but against the Civil Rights act of 1964. This act protects people against discriminatory or prejudice
remarks based on race, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. Unfortunately, this isn’t enough
to dismiss Griffin or even testify against her. Technically she is protected by the First and
Fourteenth Amendment. If this slanderous statement is the only record of misconduct and
insubordination, not only would she be reinstated but the school board would be obligated to pay
Griffin off. In my opinion she is ignorant and irresponsible, but that doesn’t make what she said
illegal. In this case the only resolution would be for her to take responsibility for her own actions.
The only rational disciplinary action that could be taken could be a suspension, but even then its
Resources
Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., & Brizee, A.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-473
Oyez. (January 9, 1979) Gavhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District. Retrieved from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/77-1051 yez.org/cases/1976/75-1278
Michael J. Jernigan (December 18, 2015) Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District.
School-District
Oyez. (April 19, 1976) Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle. Retrieved from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1278
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-36
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510