You are on page 1of 7

1

TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Michelle L. Quiroz

College of Southern Nevada


2
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Abstract

A high school with a predominately African-American population of students and staff

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

her competency to teach a large population of African-American students. It became a large

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

terminated due to a few disagreements in opinion or pride (408 US 593, 1972).

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

the two administrators and she expressed herself wickedly.

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

enough evidence Griffin will have to be reinstated.

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

entitled to reinstatement (429 US 274, 1977).

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

job description for educators: censorship.

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

violating the First Amendment.


7
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Resources

Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., & Brizee, A.

(2010, May 5).General format. Retrieved from

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Anthony M. Kennedy (2006) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GARCETTI

v. CEBALLOS. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/

Oyez. (May 30, 2006) Garcetti v. Cabellos. Retrieved from

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.

Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Givhan-v-Western-Line-Consolidated-

School-District

Oyez. (April 19, 1976) Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle. Retrieved from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1278

Oyez. (June 29, 1972) Perry v. Sindermann. Retrieved from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-36

Oyez.(November 6, 1967) Pickering v. Board of Education. Retrieved from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510

You might also like