Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Artifact #2
Nicholas Vona
September 7, 2017
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 2
high school. She has made a racist remark about her feelings toward African-Americans to the
principle and vice principle of the school, who also happen to be African-American. The teacher
has received negative reactions from her colleagues once they heard about the remark she
made. Consequently, Principle Freddie Watts has recommended Ann Griffin’s dismissal, citing
concerns regarding her ability to treat students fairly, judgement and competency as a teacher.
Clark v. Holmes (1972) will be the first case in arguing for Principle Watt’s decision to
dismiss Ann Griffin. In the case of Clark v. Holmes (1972), a non-tenured teacher counseled a
overemphasized sex in a health course; counseled students with his office door closed; and
belittled other staff members in discussions with students. The court ruled against the non-
tenured teacher and the decision to not rehire him was upheld. There is a legitimate interest to
the state that prevents the teacher from being able to speak about anything he chooses. The
necessity to maintain discipline and a harmonious work environment among coworkers, and the
need to encourage a close and personal relationship between the employer and his superiors,
where that relationship calls for trust and confidence are two examples of legitimate interests.
The teacher’s right to free speech was overcome by the University’s interest as an employer. In
the case of Ann Griffin, her, free speech interest would not supersede her responsibilities to the
Hesse v. Board of Education of Township High School (1988) will be the second case in
arguing for Principle Watt’s decision to dismiss Ann Griffin. In the case of Hesse v. Board of
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 3
Education of Township High School (1988), teacher David Hesse claimed that the defendants
retaliated against him after he exercised his freedom of expression. In the end, the court ruled
against Hesse and in favor of the Board of Education of Township High School. Hesse taught in
the defendant’s school district for over a decade as a tenured teacher. He had received a
substantial amount of negative evaluations a far back as 1978. Hesse did receive some positive
reviews as well, but the overwhelming majority were negative. His contention came after he was
transferred in 1985 to traveling teacher status. Also, Hesse claimed he was required to submit
daily lesson plans and was forced to undergo excessive classroom evaluations. The court found
that it was clear Hesse manifested a sense of animosity and bitterness toward his superiors,
evidenced by his personal attacks against various school officials in many letters he wrote to
them. Hesse’s record showed many examples of how his personal animosity toward school
officials were a disruption to the learning environment and created a hostile work atmosphere.
Out of all the letters and comments made by Hesse, only one of his comments were determined
to be matters of public concern. Speech that involves personal concern and personal attacks, as
opposed to public concern, is not protected. In Hesse’s case, his comments were not protected
by the first amendment. In relation to the case of Ann Griffin, her comments were also hostile
The first case in presented in defending Ann Griffin’s position is Pickering v. Board of
Education (1968). In the case of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), the Supreme Court
ruled that the school had violated Pickering’s rights to free speech after dismissing Pickering for
publicly criticizing the school board and superintendent’s actions regarding a school tax levy.
Pickering’s comments in the letter were basically a criticism on the School Boards handling of
funds, more specific the allocation of funds between academic and athletic programs. The Board
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 4
dismissed Pickering following the publishing of the letter, claiming that Pickering’s statements
were false and that they damaged the reputation of the administration and Board members.
Pickering’s letter was in fact protected by the First Amendment. No evidence was
brought forth of any actual damages caused from Pickering’s criticism. Furthermore, Pickering’s
comments were not detrimental to the school and they were simply a matter of personal opinion,
not a personal attack. Ann Griffin was also dismissed for arguing with and criticizing her
The second case in arguing against Principle Watt’s decision to dismiss Ann Griffin is
Hecht v. National Heritage Academies, Inc. (2016). In this case, Craig Hecht, a white teacher,
had been terminated for making a racial joke to another teacher. The teacher claimed that the
school violated the Michigan Civil Rights Act by firing him. Mr. Hecht told another teacher that
the white tables in the room were better than the brown tables, and that the brown tables should
be burned. Upon review, the court ultimately ruled Mr. Hecht was unfairly treated, and he
should not have lost his job as a result of making the admittedly racially charged comment.
Hecht was discriminated against because other non-white employees had made similar jokes in
the past and received no discipline for their actions. Furthermore, black employees regularly
engaged in racial banter without repercussion. There were some distinctions between racial
comments made by Mr. Hecht and his black colleagues. However, evidence showed Mr. Hecht’s
race played a role in the decision to terminate him. The school did have a zero-tolerance policy
against racial stereotypes. However, since it was proven that his race played a role in the
decision to fire Mr. Hecht, it showed that the zero-tolerance policy was unequally enforced. In
relation to Ann Griffin being dismissed, she happened to be the only individual that was
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 5
disciplined for the argument she had with two other faculty members who were both African-
I am supporting Principle Watts’ decision to dismiss Ann Griffin after making the
racially charged comment that she hated all black folks. The First Amendment would have
protected the teacher if she was merely upset and made comments of public concern, such as
criticizing general policy matters or curriculum. Similar to Clark v. Holmes (1972), Ann Griffin
should have realized that there was a legitimate interest to the state that prevents her, as a
teacher, from speaking out about any matter she wants. Her comments were clearly of a personal
concern as opposed to a public concern, and they would have been successful in destroying the
effectiveness of working relationships between herself and her colleagues. Personal attacks on
administrators, such as telling two black colleagues that she hated all black folks, is not a form of
protected speech within employment context, and is not protected by the First Amendmnt. Just
as the court found David Hesse’s letters and comments in Hesse v. Board of Education of
Township High School (1988) to be a disruption to the learning environment and created a
hostile work atmosphere, it’s reasonable to believe that Ann Griffin saying she hated all black
folks to her black superiors of a majority black school in which she taught would create similar
negative effects.
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 6
References
https://openjurist.org/474/f2d/928/clark-v-holmes
Hecht v. National Heritage Academies, Inc., 890 N.W.2d 868 (2017). Retrieved September 9,
2017. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-supreme-court/1744001.html
Hesse v. Board of Education of Township High School, 848 F.2d 748 (1988). Retrieved
courts/F2/848/748/291624/
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/391/563.html
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper