Portfolio Artifact #2 1

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #2

Shelby R. Olson

College of Southern Nevada

Portfolio Artifact #2 2

Abstract

Ann Griffin, a caucasian teacher in a predominantly black high school overstepped a

verbal boundary while conversing with principal Freddy Watts and assistant principal Jimmy

Brothers. As their conversation escalated, Griffin stated that she “Hated all black folks”. This

statement soon negatively affected her relationships with her coworkers as well as motivated a

recommended dismissal by Watts. He questioned whether or not Ms. Griffin could teach her

students fairly and without prejudice.

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #2

Anne Griffin’s Argument

Firstly, one must remember that there is no way to know the entirety of the conversation

had by Mr. Watts, Mr. Brothers and Ms. Griffin. One can only speculate the context of what was

said and why. Ms. Griffin could’ve been speaking of a place of prejudice, or perhaps she was

misconstruing concern. It is possible that this was simply a misguided attempt to voice her

concern regarding something of public importance. In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S.

563 (1968), the supreme court ruled that an educator retains his rights to free speech when

pertaining to matters of public importance, thus appealing her dismissal. Additionally, since the

conversation took place among administration without children present, Griffin’s right to free

speech is protected under the first amendment, as outlined in the Givhan v. Western Line

Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979).

Watts and Brothers’s Argument

It should go without saying that educators must be non prejudice and unbiased toward

their students. Ms. Griffin’s statement was racist and inappropriate. In response to Griffin’s

claim to the first amendment, Garcetti v. Cabellos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) states that public
Portfolio Artifact #2 3

employees no longer hold the right to free speech when it ties into their work duties. Thusly, it

can be argued that since Ms. Griffin works in a predominantly black school, her work is

undoubtedly affected by her prejudice. Furthermore, in Brown v. Board of Education, 824 F.3d

713 (7th Cir. 2016), a teacher was suspended due to the use of a racial slur in an educational

context. In this scenario, it was clearly not an educational setting, plus it held a negative

undertone as opposed to a well-meaning lesson.

Final Opinion

I believe that the court would ultimately rule in favor of Watts and Brothers because

Griffin has an extremely weak case. It is obvious that her remark was prejudice and hateful, not a

matter of public concern (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968). Additionally, even though

public employees can express their opinions to their superiors, it can not pertain to their job

duties, such as interacting with African Americans (Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School

District,1979) (Garcetti v. Ceballos 2006). Lastly, in Brown v. Board of Education, 824 F.3d

713 (7th Cir. 2016), it is proven that in these times our schools are sensitive to racial biases and

prepared to retaliate against it, even if there was no purposeful ill intent.
Portfolio Artifact #2 4

References

Brown v. Board of Education, 824 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2016)

Garcetti v. Cabellos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979)

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