PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 1

Portfolio Artifact #2

Amy Benson

CSN EDU 210

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 2

The Scenario:

Principal Freddie Watts and Assistant Principal Jimmy Brothers are the administrators at

a predominately black high school. During a conversation with Ann Griffin, a tenured teacher

who happens to be white, emotions escalated and Ann Griffin made the statement that she,

“Hated all black folks.” When her statement was revealed, it caused negative feedback by her

colleges both black and white. Principal Freddie Watts recommended her dismissal due to

concerns on her ability to treat students fairly, and her competency as a teacher.

Pro Support:

In this case, Ann Griffin was using her freedom of speech to voice her opinion. The

question here is whether or not her statement would be protected under the freedom of speech

clause in the constitution. Even though Ann Griffin is a tenured teacher, the school district has

the right to discipline her if they consider her speech to be disruptive and would negatively affect

her abilities as a teacher and her respect for her authority figures, which in this case happen to

both be black. Her statement was one of purely personal concern which is not protected under

the 1st Amendment as it was a personal attack on not only her administrators, but students and

colleges as well. In the Supreme Court Case Bethel School District # 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S.

675 (1986), the court held that school officials may prohibit speeches that are vulgar, lewd or

plainly offensive. Although this was a case about student speeches, I would assume educators

would be held to at least this same standard and Ann Griffin’s public statement was clearly

offensive.

In another court case Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), the Supreme Court

reversed the Fifth Circuit Courts ruling that Myers questionnaire she made public as a public
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 3

employee, touched on personal concern rather than public and negatively affected the relations

and operations of the district attorney’s office. (Underwood, Webb 61) Therefore, her 1st

Amendment right of freedom of speech was not protected as her speech on the questionnaire was

ruled as disruptive to her place of employment. One could argue that Ann Griffin’s statement

definitely caused a backlash amongst her administrators, colleges and students. This would

present a strong case for the school district to proceed with Principal Watt’s recommendation to

dismiss Ann on the account that her personal statement would destroy the effectiveness of her

working relationships, as well as undermine her ability to perform her duties as a teacher.

Con Support:

On the other hand, a tenured teacher has rights protecting them continued employment

unless the district has “good and just cause” for dismissal. (Underwood, Webb 36). If this was an

isolated incident in which this teacher let her emotions get the best of her, is that considered

“good and just cause”? In the Supreme Court case Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S.

563 (1968), the court overruled the dismissal of teacher Marvin Pickering, stating that teachers

do have the right to make critical public comments on matters of public concern. The court ruled

that unless Pickering’s public comment negatively affected the working relationship between

him and his colleges and/or superior, then he was protected under the 1st Amendment right of

freedom of speech (Underwood, Webb, 48).

Teachers with tenure have more rights and their employment is protected under their

contract. Doesn’t every teacher have the right to their own opinion? Furthermore, does making a

statement like the one Ann Griffin did mean that she is not a competent teacher? As stated in the

text there is a procedural due process when it comes to disciplining a teacher. If Principal Watts

didn’t follow procedure for the dismissal of Ann Griffin including a pretermination meeting to
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 4

allow her to dispute the behavior in question and give her an opportunity to respond to the

charges, then regardless, her employment is constitutionally protected. This was the result in the

Supreme Court case Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill 470 U.S. 532 (1985).

Although Loudermill lied on his job application, the board of education did not adhere to the

procedural process in his termination. This mistake cost the board of education the case and the

right to terminate Loudermill’s employment (Underwood, Webb 65).

My Opinion:

In my opinion, Principal Watts and Assistant Principal Brothers have right under the laws

and court cases that have proceeded this incident, to recommend Ann Griffin be dismissed from

her position at that high school. I am basing my opinion on the result of the Connick v. Myers

court case, but also the information that I have obtained in reading Chapters 3 and 4 of the text,

and specifically the law on protected speech. It was obvious to me that Ann Griffin’s statement

was her personal feelings, which were both attacks on her administrators and colleges

(Underwood, Webb, 49). The 1st Amendment of freedom of speech specifies what type of speech

is protected and personal concern does not fall under that blanket of protection. I also feel that

her statement which had already caused negative reactions, would become a snowball effect once

her statement got out to all of the students and parents representing this high school and lead to

more division amongst her and the school. As long as the administrators adhere to the procedural

policies, I believe they have a strong case in the dismissal of Ann Griffin.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #2 5

References

• Assembly. (2006). Retrieved June 15, 2015, from

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=35

• Connick, District Attorney In And For The Parish Of Orleans, Louisiana v. Myers. (1983,

April 20). Retrieved June 15, 2015, from

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/connick.html

• Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Legal Framework for the Public Schools. In School

law for teachers: Concepts and applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill

Prentice Hall.