Running head: ARTIFACT #2

Artifact #2

Brandon Monson

Professor Herington

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT #2 2

Jimmy Brothers and Freddie Watts are African American administrators at a

predominantly black high school. Ann Griffin is a white tenured teacher who, during

a heated conversation stated that, She hated all black folks. The word got out

about what Ann said and her colleagues, both black and white, had negative

reactions. Principal Freddie Watts recommended Ann be dismissed from her

position based on concerns about her ability to treat children fairly and without

bias. This paper will explore examples of similar cases that argue in favor of the

defendant and in favor of the plaintiff and then determine a probable outcome.

In Pickering v. Board of Education the Supreme Court (PICKERING v 2016)

ruled unless the public expression undermines the effectiveness of the working

relationship between the teacher and the teachers superior or co workers, the

teachers ability to perform assigned duties, or the orderly operation of the schools,

such expression may not furnish grounds for reprisal. Well, in fact Anns comments

did have a negative effect on the relationship between her and her co-workers.

Therefore, Ann should be held responsible for her speech and the court should rule

in the favor of Brothers and Watts.

In Bethel School District v. Fraser (BETHEL v. 2016) a student was

suspended for a speech given that contained content that caused disruption to the

school. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in the favor of the school board and

upheld the suspension of the student; the policies of the school did not violate the

first amendment right and therefore the punishment was not unconstitutional.

While the Bethel case involves a student and not a teacher, it still shows that any
ARTIFACT #2 3

speech that causes a mass disruption or disruption amongst peers in school, can and

most likely will lead to some form of punishment.

In contrast, some cases suggest Ann was unconstitutionally fired. In Board of

Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (BOARD v. 2016) a non-tenured teacher was given

no reason for not being offered a 2nd contract. The teacher figured he was being

punished for speaking ill of the administration, but he could not prove this. In a

dissent by Justice Stewart, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment

does not require an opportunity for a hearing prior to the nonrenewal of a non-

tenured teacher's contract. Ultimately, this could be the difference in Anns case that

leads to her victory. Ann is a tenured teacher and has the right to a hearing. The

school board also has to have real reasons for firing a teacher; the school board

cannot fire Ann without solid evidence of wrongdoing. A teacher cannot be fired for

hearsay even if that hearsay leads to disagreement amongst co-workers.

In Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (GIVHAN v. 2016) the

principal and a teacher were talking privately and the teacher expressed concern

about a policy leading to segregation. The principal recommended the teacher not

be rehired and the teacher filed that his or her 1st and 14th amendment rights were

violated and won. This case presents serious evidence that Ann may win her job

back. Similar to Anns case, the school board could not provide enough evidence that

the teacher would be fired regardless of the comments made (Mt. Healthy test). The

school board also said that the principal had invited the teacher in to talk about

their concerns, therefore the teacher was protected because the principal asked the

teacher to speak about it. The lack of evidence presented by the school board led to
ARTIFACT #2 4

the teacher being reinstated, although it did take twelve years for this to come

about.

After reviewing all of these very intriguing cases (and many more) I have

come to a conclusion. If I were the judge (in this case I am) I would rule in favor of

Brothers and Watts. I make this ruling for the main reason that the Anns co-

workers and superiors could no longer work with her. You are no longer protected

under the first amendment if your speech causes a mass disruption with your

colleagues. The principal and co-workers of Ann voiced their concerns and wanted

Ann fired. Ann also was not solicited for these comments and no one asked her to

speak about her feelings on black folks. Furthermore, Ann is teaching in an all

black school (I know you said this is not a race case) and her judgment for being

unbiased (whether she has a good track record or not) may be skewed by her

prejudice. If Ann were to keep her job I would have to question my understanding of

our judicial system.

ARTIFACT #2 5

References:

BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 v. FRASER, Retrieved September 25, 2016, from

http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-361/02-361-pet-

app.html

BOARD OF REGENTS v. ROTH. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/564.html

GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Retrieved

September 25, 2016, from http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/

briefs/02-361/02-361-pet-app.html

PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, Retrieved September 25, 2016, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/478/675.html
ARTIFACT #2 6