Running head: SCHOOL PRINCIPAL V.

WHITE INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENT Chaidez

1

Artifact Two: A White Teacher’s Comments

Jose Chaidez

College of Southern Nevada

Education 210
 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL V. WHITE INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENT Chaidez
2

What hurts more, words or actions? An interested case happened when a white instructor

named Ann Griffin had a tough conversation with her school principal Freddie Watts and

assistant principal Jimmy Brother; both descendants of African-American culture. The school

where they work, and Griffin’s comment came up to the surface, happened in a predominantly

black high school. Griffin made the comment that she “hated all blank folks,” after her intense

conversation with Watts and Brother. With such comment, Griffin was dismissed from her job as

the school’s principal came up with objections that Griffin was going to have problems with fair

treatment to her students, judgement, and competency in her job’s duties. From the following

four cases, there will be enough evidence to prove who was right in their perspective decision.

First, let’s start with the case of Brown v. Chicago Board of Education (7th Cir2016) that

support school’s principal Watts. In this court case, Chicago Board of Education was dismissing

the instructor Lincoln Brown for using racial words and/or phrases in front of students. Brown

was reading a note that was been passed between students who were using the word “nigger” and

decided to use the moment to teach a lesson to the whole class. The school principal Gregory

Mason was listening to the lesson by Brown and the principal decided to suspend him. During

court, it was stated that Brown was protected under the First Amendment; stating that public

employees’ speech is constitutionally protected. However, the court stated that it depends

“whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” It was clearly that

instructor Brown was not speaking as a citizen, but as a teacher and was suspended from his job.

Brown v. Chicago Board of Education (7th Cir2016), supports the school principal Watts,

because the instructor Griffin similarly did not make a comment on a public concern and as a

public citizen. Griffin was under her title’s duties of a teacher when she stated that she hated

black people.
 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL V. WHITE INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENT Chaidez
3

Another case that supports the decision from school principal Watts is Jane Doe v. Jane

Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2017). In this particular case, an under-age student

was suing the Los Angeles Unified School District because a teacher made a racist comment

towards her culture. It was not the first time the instructor Steven Carnine made a racist

comment. One day, Carnine stated that everyone hated Abraham Lincoln because he was a

“nigger lover,” following by getting close to the African American student Jane Doe and saying

close to her ear, “Isn’t that right?” There were a majority of white students when instructor

Carnine made such comment. Also, Doe stated in court that Carnine was mad because her father

complained to the school officials about other racist comments from Carnine. From one of

History period class, Carnine stated that “Michael Brown was a thug and he got what he

deserved,” and also, “Black people are judged for not being smart because they are not smart. A

lot of them are just athletes.” Michael Brown was an 18 years old African American who was

shot by a policeman in Ferguson, Missouri. Instructor Carnine was seeking for protection of his

comments under the First Amendment but was denied by the court. Carnine stated that he

deserved “immunity as a school official.” The court decided that the comments of instructor

Carnine were directed as racial discrimination and was rejected and Los Angeles Unified School

District had to pay a big amount of money to Jane Doe to settle the claims. Doe v. Los Angeles

Unified School District (2017) supports school principal Watts as he was racial discriminated by

instructor Griffin’s comment compared as instructor Carnine’s racial discrimination comments to

student Doe. Such comments are stated to discriminate and therefore, they do not have protection

from the Constitution.

One case that supports school teacher Griffin is Hecht v. National Heritage Academies

(2016). In this case, instructor Craig Hecht made a racial joke about a table to the school library.
 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL V. WHITE INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENT Chaidez
4

Hecht is a white instructor who stated he preferred white tables over brown tables, because white

tables were better. Also, Hecht continued by saying that brown tables could be burned. In other

words, Hecht was trying to say that white people were better, and he admitted when he was

asked. Hecht was fired from his job. However, Hecht stated that the school violated the MCL

37.2202(1) of the CRA. Under the protection that Hecht was seeking, it is stated that an

employer cannot hire or fire a person based on race. Also, Hecht stated that other African

American employees said similar racial jokes, but are not dismissed from their positions because

they are African Americans. The court decided that Hecht provided enough evidence to prove

that his Civil Right Act was violated by the school. Instructor Griffin could be also be involve in

a case where she said a racial statement that can be said by African American employees, but

would not be fired. The principal violated Griffin’s Civil Right Act.

Another case that supports Griffin’s comment will be the Pickering v. Board of Education

(1968). In this case, Pickering wrote a letter with non-proved statements of a beaten tax increase

by the Board of Education and the superintendent. The Board of Education stated that the letter

was going to “damaged the professional reputations of its members and of the school

administrators, would be disruptive of faculty discipline, and would tend to foment controversy,

conflict and dissension among teachers, administrators, the Board of Education, and the residents

of the district,” and other factors of similarity. An outcome of the case was the dismiss of

Pickering from his job. However, the letter was protected under the First and Fourteen

Amendment because Pickering had comments of a public interest as a citizen about public

schools. However, the Board of Education never showed evidence of all the damage the letter

was “creating” and therefore the court decided that Pickering was fired with no evidence of such

damages. School principal Watts fired instructor Griffin without evidence that she is going to
 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL V. WHITE INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENT Chaidez
5

have problems with fair treatment to her students, judgement, and competency in her job’s

duties. Also, where is the evidence that Griffin said that she “hated black folks”? Watts needs to

prove his claims to take Griffin to court to dismiss her from her position as a teacher. Without

due process of law and evidences, Watts cannot dismiss Griffin.

Therefore, I think Griffin was wrong for making her comment on hating black people. It

did not matter that she had a heated conversation with the school principal Watts and assistant

principal Brother. Griffin is a professional teacher and she had to act as such. Also, her comment

was done with a racial discrimination towards African Americans and was stated as an instructor,

not as a citizen commenting about a public interest. My answer comes from the case of Brown v.

Chicago Board of Education (7th Cir2016). Lincoln Brown used the letter been passed around in

his class by the students with the word “nigger” in it to teach a lesson, but he was under his title’

duties that prohibits such actions. An outcome from Brown actions was his dismissal and Griffin

should be too.
 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL V. WHITE INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENT Chaidez
6

References Page

Brown v. Chicago Board of Education, 15-1857 (7th Cir. 2016)

Hecht v. National Heritage Academies, Inc., 886 N.W.2d 135 (Mich. 2016)

Jane Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 448 C.D (2017)

Pickering v. Board of Education, 510 U.S. (1968).