Running head: Portfolio #2 Ann Griffin v.

Board of Education 1

Portfolio #2

Ann Griffin v. Board of Education

Cassandra Rasmussen

College of Southern Nevada

Sun. March 31, 2019

 2

Treating everyone equally is a priority taken very seriously by school administrators and

anyone in the educational field. During an intense conversation with two administrators Ann

Griffin (a tenured teacher) expressed that she “hated all black folks”. Word of her opinion spread

around to faculty and staff. At that point, her competency as a teacher was called into question,

including whether or not Ms. Griffin should remain at her post as an educator. This is due to

whether or not Ms. Griffin could properly execute the duties of her job to be an effective

educator for all races. Additionally, this suggestion was made without any mention of a hearing,

in order for Ms. Griffin to present her side of the situation.

The first case presented in favor of the teacher continuing her career as an educator is

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979). In this case, Bessie Givhan, a

teacher in Mississippi’s Western Line Consolidated School District, had many conversations

with the principal, in private. Ms. Givhan indicated that some of the school practices were

“racially discriminatory.” She was later informed that her contract with the school would not be

renewed, in (as she believed) an alleged retaliatory action. Ms. Givhan sued, alleging that her

First Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the teacher in

this case. Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979) successfully supports the

case that the First Amendment rights of Ann Griffin were violated. Ms. Griffin expressed her

opinion to two of her administrators, presumably in a private conversation. Allowing word to

spread around the school and using that so-called “public opinion” as a way to justify dismissal

would violate Ms. Griffin’s First Amendment rights. Within the case of Givhan v. Western Line

Consolidated School District (1979), Ms. Givhan’s conversations with the principal were private,
 3

and not renewing her contract because of what she said in a private conversation is a violation of

her First Amendment rights.

The second case presented in favor of the teacher retaining her position is Perry v.

Sindermann (1972), in which Robert Sindermann was terminated and informed that his contract

would not be renewed, on the basis of insubordination. Mr. Sindermann was not given a hearing

of any kind, as is the policy for tenured teachers. And while Mr. Sindermann technically did not

have tenure from the institution for which he worked immediately prior to this circumstance, this

situation was considered to be one in which Mr. Sindermann had de facto tenure, due to the

amount of years he worked with a previous institution and that he was previously co-chair of a

department. Mr. Sindermann alleged that he was fired because he was in a public disagreement

with the Board of Regents, in regard to their policies. He alleged that his termination was a

violation of his First Amendment rights, and that he should at least be granted a hearing. In the

end, the court granted Mr. Sindermann a hearing to determine if his dismissal was related to the

comments he had made, and therefore a violation of his First Amendment rights. This case is an

example of denying a tenured teacher a hearing and First Amendment rights violations. Ms.

Griffin was a tenured teacher and was not given the ability to have a hearing to explain her side

of the matter. Just like with Perry v. Sindermann (1972), Ms. Griffin was allegedly dismissed

because of her personal opinions. And, she too was not given a hearing, despite her tenured

status.

The first case presented in favor of the school district is Loeffelman v. The Board of

Education of the Crystal City School District (2004). In which, Jendra Loeffelman was

terminated for violating board policies. Ms. Loeffelman taught 8th grade and when asked her

opinion on interracial couples by a student, Ms. Loeffelman stated that she was “totally against
 4

it.” She additionally said that a female (in an interracial couple) should be “fixed” and interracial

children are “dirty”. Ms. Loeffelman argued that her comments were protected by the First

Amendment and that she did not intentionally violate board policy. However, the board

presented the contract between the school district and Ms. Loeffelman, which outlined the

conditions and expectations of her employment. Included in her contract was an expectation to

follow board policies. Board policies clearly outlined four policies the board felt were violated.

The first board policy denounced discrimination on the basis of race. The second board policy

violated was the comments were not impartial part of discussion with the class, but rather her

personal opinion. The third policy violated was the expression of her personal views/beliefs. The

fourth policy violated was the derogatory nature of the teacher’s comments, enhanced by the fact

that children present in the room were categorically the subject of Ms. Loeffelmans statements.

The decision to terminate Ms. Loeffelman was upheld, and it was determined that the First

Amendment did not grant protections for her statements. In regard to Ann Griffin’s case,

Loeffelman v. The Board of Education of the Crystal City School District (2004) serves to

illustrate how making derogatory comments about race can violate the policies set forth by the

school. If there were such policies set in place at the time of Ms. Griffin’s comments, then she

has less leeway in making her case of a First Amendment violation.

The case Beilan v. Board of Education, School District of Philadelphia (1958) is the

second case presented in favor of the school board. In this case, Herman A. Beilan was a teacher

with a 22-year history and was allegedly dismissed due to his failure to answer questions about

his association with the Communist Party. Mr. Beilan was called into the superintendent’s office

and was subsequently asked about his loyalty, in regard to his past and present affiliation with

the Communist Party. Mr. Beilan asked for time to consult with an attorney, which was granted.
 5

After consulting with said attorney, Mr. Beilan still declined to answer the superintendent’s

questions. When given proper warning that a refusal to answer questions may result in the

termination of his position (stating that the questions are relevant to determine competency and

fitness to be an effective teacher), Mr. Beilan still declined to answer any questions. A hearing

was held, and Mr. Beilan did not testify on his own behalf (he also had no lawyer), so he was

terminated, citing incompetence. Mr. Beilan later sued, stating that the dismissal violated his

First Amendment rights. The courts upheld the results of the hearing, stating that Beilan was

fired for refusing to answer questions, not because of his association with a Communist group.

This case, Beilan v. Board of Education, School District of Philadelphia (1958), relates back to

the situation with Ann Griffin because her racially motivated comments now have her

administrators questioning her competency and effectiveness as a teacher, just as Mr. Beilan’s

superintendent did with him. If Ms. Griffin’s administrators take this situation to a hearing, there

will need to be a determination into whether or not she can be an impartial and effective teacher

to her non-white students.

My decision in this case is in favor of the school board. While Ann Griffins (and by

extension, all individuals) First Amendment rights are meant to be protected, the First

Amendment does not protect from certain specific circumstances. Under Loeffelman v. The

Board of Education of the Crystal City School District (2004) and Beilan v. Board of Education,

School District of Philadelphia (1958) the teacher’s competency and effectiveness as an educator

was deemed incapacitated based on their specific circumstances, setting precedent that Ann

Griffin’s competency and effectiveness as an educator is also impaired by her personal beliefs.

Therefore, the board would be correct if their decision is to remove Ms. Griffin from the

classroom, along with her tenure status.

 6

References

FindLaw's Missouri Court of Appeals case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2019, from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1109760.html

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2019,

from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/439/410.html

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2019,

from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/357/399.html

Perry v. Sindermann. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2019, from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/593

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.