Artifact #2 Teachers Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact #2

Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Courtney Zedaker

College of Southern Nevada

September 23, 2017

Artifact #2 Teachers Rights and Responsibilities 2

Principal, Freddie Watts, and assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers, are African-American

administrators in a predominately black high school. During a heated conversation with both

men, a white tenured teacher, Ann Grifiin, said she hated all black folks. Word of this

discussion got around to her fellow colleagues, both black and white, stirring up negative

reactions. Freddie Watts stated the concern of her treating students fairly and her overall

competency as a teacher. He recommended dismissal.

The first case in favor of the principals decision is Loeffelman v. Board of Education of

the Crystal City School (2004). A student asked the teacher her view on interracial relationships,

the teacher stated, interracial couples should be fixed so they cannot have children (58). The

Board of Education terminated a teachers contract after said teacher made unprofessional,

discriminatory, and inappropriate comments regarding interracial people. The court upheld the

Board of Educations decision. Similarly in Anns case, the comment was personal and related to

several students in her classroom. The behavior creates friction and doesnt allow the student to

feel comfortable in that hostile environment. Students have the right to feel accepted and not

discriminated against in the classroom, as well as colleagues shouldnt have to work with

someone who makes rude statements about them.

The second case in favor of the principals decision is Pickering v. Board of Education

(1968). In this particular case a teacher was let go for expressing his personal opinions on

matters of public concern.. Although the court ultimately overturned the dismissal of this

particular teacher, this case brings to light a few key components of free speech for teachers. The

Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pickering because his statements were not directed at people he

normally worked with, nor that there was any disruption to the operation of the school
Artifact #2 Teachers Rights and Responsibilities 3

(Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 49). In contrary, Anns statements were directly said to her

superiors and offended several of her colleagues. Her actions were basis for dismissal.

Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) will be my first case to argue against the principals decision.

This case touches on state employees right to free speech and if they were acting as a state

employee at the time that the discrepancy took place. Anns comment was in a private

conversation with colleagues and might have been misconstrued. Also, she was not acting as a

state employee when the comment was made.

The second case to argue against Mr. Watt is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

Community School District (1969). Students wore black armbands in protest to the war. The

court stated that the only way their opinion would not be covered under the first amendment is if

they did it clearly out of spite. This case stated that students and employees have free speech

rights in school. However, it can be overruled if the speech will cause material or substantial

disruption. Anns comment fits perfectly into this case as she was expressing her opinion under

free speech. She did not state that she was going to harm any one, or even that she was unable to

work with or teach African-Americans.

As a tenure teacher, Ann Griffin is given protection for continued employment with the

district unless there is good and just cause for her dismissal. Anns remark to her colleagues

generated negative reactions across the school. Being the population of the school is

predominately black, her statement brings up concern for her competency to remain a teacher. I

believe the principal is justified in his decision and action to terminate her employment and my

decision is that he was right to do so. Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City

School (2004) and Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) both shed some light on why he

principals decision to terminate her tenure contract. Based on past court cases, her remarks were
Artifact #2 Teachers Rights and Responsibilities 4

of personal nature out of hate, and would affect her relationship with students and colleagues.

Mr. Watts had to take into consideration her ability to treat all students fairly regardless of her

personal opinions about race.

Artifact #2 Teachers Rights and Responsibilities 5

References

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).

Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District, 134 S. W. 3d 637 (2004).

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

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teacher's Rights. In School Law for Teachers (pp. 48-49).

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.