Artifact #2

Artifact #2
EDU 210-3003
Erin Gliddon
College of Southern Nevada

Artifact #2

2
Artifact #2
EDU 210-3003

In this case African-American Principal Watts and Assistant Principal Brothers are
assigned to a predominately black high school. A white tenured teacher, Ann Griffin, was
having a heated conversation with the two administrators. In this discussion she stated that
she hated all black folks. When co-workers heard what she had said, both black and white
colleagues had negative reactions. Principal Watts recommended dismissal based on her
ability to treat all students fairly, her judgment, and competency as a teacher.
The main thing about this case is that what she stated was covered under the First
Amendments freedom of speech. While that may be true for regular citizens, she was
speaking as a teacher and what she had said may or may not be protected expression. On the
other side the principal may have cause for dismissal even though she is a tenure teacher. She
could possibly dismissed for incompetency, or her possible lack of ability to teach students
fairly.
The case to support the Principle and Vice Principle side is Pickering v. Board of
Education. If applied the balancing test used in this case, I believe that she should be
dismissed because her expression had a negative effect on two of the three reasons a teacher
could be dismissed (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968). With her comment she
jeopardized her relationship with her Principle, Vice Principle and many of her colleges
based on their reactions to the offending comment. Also, her comment could possibly
interfere with her teaching effectiveness not only in the future but it brings into question
about her effectiveness in past school years.

Artifact #2

Based on Ann Griffins comment the Principal of her school wanted her to be dismissed
on her ability to treat all students fairly, her judgment, and competency as a teacher. The
Supreme Court case Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle created the Mt. Healthy test
(Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 1977). The test puts the burden on the teacher to
show that the conduct is constitutionally protected. Ann Griffin needs to show that her
comment does not show incompetency or a lack of fairness and equal judgement to all of her
students.
On Ann Griffins side, Supreme Court case Garcetti v. Ceballos expression related to
official job description is not protected (Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006). This also means that if it
is not job related then it is protected speech, though it does not matter where the expression
takes place. So when Griffin made her statement was she speaking as a private citizen or as
an employee?
Also on the teachers side the Supreme Court case Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated
School District, this case was ruled as long as the expression pertained to matters of public
concern and constitutionally protected (Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated S.D., 1979).
Griffins statement is a matter of public concern, and so what she said is constitutionally
protected. She also has the right to free speech both as a teacher and a U.S. citizen (U.S.
Const. amend I).
I think that the tenure teacher should be dismissed because of her comment. The balance
test was heavily weighed against the teacher. She not only jeopardized her relationship with
her co-workers based on their reactions to the comment, but she also brings into question her
effectiveness and fairness in the classroom towards all students. Then, her main case is based
if she can prove if what she said was considered private speech.

Artifact #2

4
References

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Retrieved from

do fhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=391&invol=563
Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). Retrieved from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=429&invol=274
Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979). Retrieved from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=439&invol=410
Garcetti et al. v. Ceballos, No. 04-473. (2006). Retrieved from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-473
U.S Const. amend. I. Retreieved from http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html