Running head: ARTIFACT #2 TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES 1

Artifact #2

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Janette Briones

College of Southern Nevada

December 15, 2018

ARTIFACT #2 TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES 2

Abstract

Ann Griffin is a white tenured teacher in a predominantly black high school. During a

heated discussion with the principal and assistant principal, she stated that she “hated all black

folks.” Her statement leaked and received negative reactions, which led to the principal

recommending her dismissal. In this essay, this scenario will be compared with the cases Givhan

v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. and Pickering v. Board of Education to support the

dismissal of Ann Griffin.

ARTIFACT #2 TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES 3

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Ann Griffin, a white tenured teacher, was having a conversation with two African-

American administrators, whom were the principal, Freddie Watts, and assistant principal,

Jimmy Brothers. Their conversation turned heated and Ann Griffin stated that she “hated all

black folk.” Word leaked of her statement, in the predominantly black high school, and caused

negative reactions from both black and white colleagues. Freddie Watts recommended dismissal

based on concerns regarding her ability to treat students fairly and her judgement and

competency as a teacher.

The first case to support the dismissal of Ann Griffin is Givhan v. Western Line Consol.

School Dist., 439 U.S 410 (1979), in which Givhan was terminated from her teaching position

because of “a series of private encounters between petitioner and the school principal in which

petitioner allegedly made ‘petty and unreasonable demands’” in a manner deemed inappropriate.

(Givhan v. Western Line, 1979) The court concluded that “saying that to afford public employees

the right to such private expression ‘would in effect force school principals to be ombudsmen,

for damnable as well as laudable expression’” and that “private expression of one’s view is

beyond constitutional protection.” (Givhan v. Western Line, 1979)

The second case to support the dismissal of Ann Griffin is Pickering v. Board of

Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), in which Pickering was terminated due to sending a letter to a

local newspaper commenting on the boards proposed tax increase. The board determined that his

letter was “detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the school of the district”.

(Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968) The court stated that the speech in question should have

“a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of
ARTIFACT #2 TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES 4

public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the

public services it performs through its employees.” (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968)

Referencing the cases Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. and Pickering v.

Board of Education, Anna Griffin’s dismissal would not violate her rights. Anna Griffin’s

statement is considered a private expression and according to Givhan v. West Line would not be

constitutionally protected. Also, her statement would not be protected because it was not on

matters of public concern.

ARTIFACT #2 TEACHER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES 5

References

Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U.S 410 (1979)

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