Running Head: Artifact #2 1

Artifact #2

Kendal Kerbrat

College of Southern Nevada

Assignment #2 2

Does administration have the right to dismiss a teacher based off of a statement made in a

conversation? Ann Griffin, a white tenured teacher, works with administrators Principle Freddie

Watts and assistant principle Jimmy Brothers, both African-American, at a predominantly black

high school. During a heated conversation between the individuals, the two administration and

Griffin, Griffin stated that she “hated all black folks”. After word of the conversation and

Griffin’s statement leaked throughout the school, negative reactions came from both black and

white fellow colleagues. With concern of her ability to treat students fairly, her judgment, and

competency as a teacher principle Watts recommended that Griffin be dismissed. Does

administration have the right to dismiss Griffin, or is Griffin being treated unfairly?

Based off the Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) case the administration had the

right to dismiss Griffin since her comment is not protected speech. By stating that she “hated all

black folks”, directly attacks not only both her principle Freddie Watts and assistant principle

Jimmy Brothers but also most of the school’s population. Speech that is opposed on matters of

public concern that involves personal concern is not protected by her freedom of speech. Her

comment personally attacked administration, teachers, and students.

Board of Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis v. Walpole (1975) case also supports

the administrations reasoning for allowing Ana Griffin to be dismissed. As stated in the case, that

a teacher facing termination hearing by the school is not entitled to a formal warning or

discovery. Administration is not required to give any discovery of a termination hearing to the

teacher. They have the right to let Griffin be dismissed without any warning of a hearing that

may take place.

In support of Ana Griffin not being dismissed case Melzer v. Board of Education of the

City School District of the City of New York (2003). In the case it states that if the teacher’s
Assignment #2 3

membership or in this case opinion was unknow would the negative employment action have

taken place. Meaning that, if the heated conversation had never taken place, and Griffin had

never stated the comment she made, would the administration be questioning her ability the way

they are now. Principle Freddie Watts and assistant principle Jimmy Brothers changed their view

of Griffin after hearing her statement. Their primary motivation in dismissing Griffin was the

comment made, that was only made because of a heated conversation that took place.

The Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985) also supports teacher Ana

Griffin’s case. In the case it states that when protected it is essential that there is notice and an

opportunity to be heard before decision are made. In this caser the administration decided that

dismissal of Ana Griffin would be best without giving her the opportunity to explain herself and

her reasoning for the comment. Because of what was said in a heated conversation, Griffin was

looked at negatively by administration and staff, but was not given a second chance to redeem or

explain what was said before deciding that dismissal was the best option for all.

In my opinion, Ana Griffin should not be dismissed. With more reasons and evidence

providing that she was not given an equal chance. Griffin was judge for a commit that was not

given the opportunity to elaborate and or explain before treated negatively by administration and

staff before it was decided that she would be dismissed by principle Freddie Watts and assistant

principle Jimmy Brothers. My opinion is backed up by Melzer v. Board of Education of the City

School District of the City of New York case.

Assignment #2 4

References

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

Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis v. Walpole, 420 U.S. 128 (1975)

Melzer v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 196 F. Supp. 2d 99 (2003)

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