6/1/2017 Artifact 2

EDU 210

Stacey Ramos
[COMPANY NAME]
 To put oneself in another’s shoes is a great feat. It is easy to pass judgement quickly and
harshly, but it is much harder to meditate and think from the point of view of someone else. That
is what I feel this assignment is all about. We are given the scenario about a teacher who says
something racially insensitive in the heat of an argument. While speaking in a “heated
conversation” with two school administrators, both of whom are African-American, Ann Griffin,
a white teacher, states that she “hated all black folks.” This conversation was discussed among
the school and her colleagues, regardless of color were upset. The principal later recommended
her dismissal. Would the results of her outburst have been different if she were not a white
woman? I shall be discussing the pros and cons of this scenario to better understand the law and
the point of view of all parties involved.
The first case that I will be discussing is the first example that is on the pro side of the
scenario. Two teachers were transferred to another school after “publicly [criticizing] the plan to
improve students’ performance.” (Underwood & Dean, 2006) They were transferred without
reason except extenuating circumstances. They were given no further explanation or hearing and
were forced to fight in court stating that their free speech was violated. This case is pro the
scenario because these teachers were dismissed or transferred in this case after directly
confronting the principle of their school.
Another court case which questions the rights of the teacher and what is considered First
Amendment protection is Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District.
In this case, Jendra Loeffelman made insensitive racial comments, not unlike Ann Griffin,
however she made these comments to her students, not in a private meeting with administrators.
“When a student asked her view on interracial relationships, Ms. Loeffelman responded that she
opposed them. She added that interracial couples should be ‘fixed’ so they cannot have children,
who are racially confused. Her class included biracial children.” (Underwood & Dean, 2006) The
school board terminated her based on these statements. She later appealed the decision of the
school board but the decision to terminate her was upheld. “Teacher has not shown by clear and
convincing evidence that the decision of the Board is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or an
abuse of discretion nor has she shown that the decision violates a constitutional provision.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.” (Loeffelman V. Board of Education of
the Crystal City School District, 2004) This case is even closer to the scenario, as they were both
insensitive comments made about people of color.
In a landmark court case where the judge sided with the teacher, Bessie Burnley Givhan
sued the Western Line Consolidated School District when they fired her for retaliation because
she spoke up. This wasn’t a victory, however, as the school board appealed and won. However,
this appellation was later overturned by Associate Justice William Rehnquist, who stated,
“[public free speech cases] do not support the conclusion that a public employee forfeits his
protection against governmental abridgement of freedom of speech if he decides to express his
views privately rather than publicly.” (L., 2006) This case is semi-comparable to the scenario
because both are cases where constitutional protections are being questioned. Was Ann Griffin
using speech protected by the First Amendment? Or was this a case of hate speech?
 The next case I’m going to discuss is Pickering V. Board of Education. In this case, Mr.
Pickering “was terminated after writing a letter to the newspaper severely criticizing the
superintendent and school board over their handling of school funds.” (Underwood & Dean,
2006) He was fired from the school district. The Circuit Court overturned the dismissal, stating
that his actions were his right under the Freedom of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Even
though his statements were inflammatory they were found to be true and he is allowed to express
his opinions. This is another example of the School Board being in the wrong after a termination,
and being on the con side of the scenario.
After reviewing these court cases I believe that this scenario would end up in a negative
outcome for the school. The reason I believe this is because I had to scour many cases to find one
that didn’t ultimately end up in the teachers’ favor, regardless of what they said. In this case the
teacher was speaking in confidence and not to students or outside the safe space of the office in
which the meeting was being held. I believe corrective action should be taken with the teacher in
order to remind her of what constitutes appropriate and professional behavior, but I do not
believe that if she were to be dismissed it would hold up in court, merely for the fact that she was
stating an opinion and not threatening African-Americans or threatening someone directly. This
follows suit among the court cases I reviewed, specifically Pickering V. Board of Education.
While Mr. Pickering was not terminated because he said something racist, he was terminated
because he publicly shamed the superintendent and school board. Even though what Mrs. Griffin
said was extremely prejudicial and wrong, she said it in a private setting and it is essentially her
word against the Principal and Assistant Principal. She said something in the heat of passion and
while it was morally reprehensible, it is a matter of free speech.
References

L., H. J. (2006, June 8). Teacher Taught Miss. Schools a Free Speech Lesson. Retrieved from First
Amendment Center: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/teacher-taught-miss-schools-a-
free-speech-lesson/

Loeffelman V. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District. (2004, February 24). Retrieved from
Find Law: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1109760.html

Pickering V. Board of Education. (2017). Retrieved from FindLaw: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

supreme-court/391/563.html

Underwood, J., & Dean, W. L. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Columbus: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.