Artifact #2: Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Artifacted #2
Teachers Rights and Responsibilities
Cody Wilcox
9/19/2015
EDU 210 1001

Artifact #2: Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

In a case regarding the potential termination of Ann Griffin, a public school teacher and
thus a public employee, over her discriminatory statements regarding African-Americans, in the
presence of Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers, two African-American administrators. This case
is a matter of whether Griffin, a public school teacher and thus a public employee, is protected by
the First Amendment in this situation. There have been many cases brought before the courts
regarding the matter of First Amendment rights in the termination of public employees that must
be considered.
Perhaps the most important case in support of Griffin is Pickering vs. Board of Education
(1968). Marvin Pickering, a teacher working for the Township High School District
corresponded with the local paper. Pickering intended to expose the Township Board of
Educations inappropriate use of funds in regards to the budget allocation for educational and
athletic purposes. Subsequently, Pickering was terminated for publically expressing his negative
views regarding the school board. The case between Pickering and the Board of Education
eventually found itself before the Supreme Court, who ruled in favor of Pickering. The court
determined that Pickerings First Amendment rights were violated, ruling that a public employee
can express views regarding public issues without fear of termination.
Ironically, one of the cases that may support Ms. Griffin is one that centered on a teacher
fighting against what she thought were discriminatory practices. In Givhan vs. Western Line
Consolidated School District (1979), a Mississippi public school teacher, Ms. Bessie Givhan,
adamantly believed that the school district was attempting to implement new practices that
would bring about the return of segregation in their local schools. Givhan insistently met with
her principal to complain about the policies. In the end, Givhans principal discouraged the board

Artifact #2: Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

to give her a new contract. Givhans case finally reached the Supreme Court who ruled in her
favor, stating her private meetings with the principal were well within her constitutional rights.
Loeffelman vs. The Board of Education of the Crystal City School District (2004) is eerily
similar to the situation of Ms. Griffin and it does nothing to help her defense. During the 2002-3
school year, Ms. Loeffelman was asked by one of her students about her views regarding
interracial couples. Loeffelman almost instantly answered her second grade student, stating that
she was totally against the concept of interracial couples. Loeffelman, with the full knowledge
that there were multiple biracial students present in her classroom, continued on to state how she
thought interracial couples should be fixed so they cannot have children that will grow up to be
racially confused. Loeffelman was placed on paid administrative leave for her comments and
eventually dismissed by the district. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the boards decision
to terminate Loeffelman as her statements did not address a public concern. Neither do those of
Ms. Griffin.
A more recent case that may that may further damage Ms. Griffins cause is Garcetti vs.
Ceballos (2006). In this case Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney with the Los Angeles
County District Attorneys office had his career derailed as a result of coming to the aide of the
defense. The defense brought a search warrant they believed to be falsely administered to
Ceballos attention. Ceballos investigated the affidavit and came to the same conclusion as the
defense, asking for the case to be dismissed. Subsequently, Ceballos was the subject of several
retaliatory actions by the District Attorneys office, then headed by Gil Garcetti. The Supreme
Court ruled against Ceballos, claiming he was not under the protection of the First Amendment

Artifact #2: Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

as he acted as a public official rather than a private citizen. Similarly, meeting with school
administrators as a teacher, Ms. Griffin acted as a public official and not a private citizen.
It is quite evident, on the basis of the most modern rulings regarding this matter that
Watts is fully in his right to recommend the termination of Ann Griffin. Griffin, was acting as a
public official and was not addressing a public issue. Griffins actions have created a hostile
atmosphere among her colleagues and have brought her fairness towards African-American
students into question. If Ms. Griffin challenged her termination in court she would not have
much success.

Artifact #2: Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

References:
LOEFFELMAN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CRYSTAL CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT. (n.d.). Retrieved September 19, 2015, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-ofappeals/1109760.html

Garcetti v. Ceballos. (n.d.). Retrieved September 19, 2015, from

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-tocohen/freedom-of-the-press/garcetti-v-ceballos/

GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOL. SCHOOL DIST., (1979) No. 77-1051. (n.d.).
Retrieved September 19, 2015, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/439/410.html

PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, (1968) No. 510. (n.d.). Retrieved September 19,
2015, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/391/563.html