Portfolio #2 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Portfolio # 2

Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Jordan Marzka

College of Southern Nevada

February 12, 2020

PORTFOLIO #2 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Freddie watts and Jimmy brothers are principal and assistant principal respectively and

are both African American. They both are administrators at the same school which is

predominantly black. At the school a teacher by the name of Ann Griffin who has tenured got

into a heated conversation with the two men. As the conversation progressed, she stated that she

“hates all black folk” and counited after this. When word got around about her statement not only

did it cause negative reactions among colleagues both black and white, but the principal himself

also recommended dismissal based on concerns regarding her ability to treat students fairly and

her judgment and competency as a teacher. Given what Mrs. Griffin has said can she be

removed?

Pickering v. the Board of Education (1968) will be the first case used to argue that Miss

Griffin did nothing wrong. The case in question had a teacher criticize the school board and

superintendent actions regarding a school tax levy and a letter to the editor published by local

newspaper. The board dismissed the teacher. The supreme court found the school had violated

the teachers right to free speech. Now this is not exactly what Mrs. Griffin did, but it does relate

to her first amendment right of free speech. Principle Watts should not be able to reprimand or

even fire her due to a single incident within a heated argument.

Connick v. Myers (1983); Waters v. Churchill (1979) Is the second case I will use to

defend Mrs. Griffins action. Both court cases state that even if expression does involve a matter

of public concern, it is still not protected, if it seriously, reasonably, or significantly undermines

the teacher’s ability to perform his or her duties. This outburst that Miss Griffin had did not

reflect her teaching habits and/or her career as a whole. Thus, this should not reflect on her being

able to be fired because it was not a public meeting or affair within a classroom or with people

other than the administrators present. Also, What about Mrs. Griffin’s implied fundamental
PORTFOLIO #2 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

rights? Although the Constitution does not mention the right to privacy it has been deemed to be

so basic and fundamental to individual freedom that it is assumed. Many situations are covered

under this such as procreation, marriage, child rearing, and certain activities within the home. So,

when Mrs. Griffin made her comment between her and an administrator that is a private moment.

For a conversation she had in private to get “leaked” and for her to be held for it goes against her

right to privacy.

Stroman v. Colton County school District (2003) is the first court case I would like to use

to go against Miss Griffin. The case states that a teacher is to have professional behavior. By

shouting at her employers that she hates black folks this does not carry a professional behavior.

Furthermore, the school cannot in good mind have a member of its faculties show biased to a

certain group of people based purely on their skin color.

Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. (1979) Is the second case I use to go against

Mrs. Griffin. It reached a similar conclusion of pickering v. board of education but also stated

that as opposed to speech on matters of public concern, speech that involves purely personal

concern is not protected. Examples of such on protected speech include personal attacks on

administrators, board members, and/or other teachers, also it does not protect against grievances

and complaints relating to individual personnel actions. This shows that Mrs. Griffin used a

personal attack against principal watts and assistant principal Brothers’ as they had an argument.

As the argument escalated, she shouted at them “I hate all your black folks,” and this directly

correlates with the court case stating that she cannot personally attack an administrator.

My decision in the case is in favor of principal watts and assistant principal brothers.

Mrs. Griffin was clearly in the wrong for shouting at her administrator that she hates black

people. This directly goes with the Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. (1979) court
PORTFOLIO #2 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

case that states that personal attacks against administrators is not protected in a workplace.

Furthermore, just like the Stroman versus Colton County school District (2003) case Mrs.

Griffin’s personal behavior was not professional in any way, shape, or form and thus she is

subject for termination.

PORTFOLIO #2 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

References

Connick v. Myers, 461 US 138 - Supreme Court (1983)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12292534138488546769&q=Connick+v.

+Myers+(1983)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1

Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 US 410 - Supreme Court 1979

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15315495495267237014&q=Givhan+v.

+Western+Line+Consol.+Sch+Dist.+(1979)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1

Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 US 563 - Supreme

Court 1968

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16997195768089298466&q=Pickering+v.

+the+Board+of+Education+(1968)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1

Stroman v. Colleton County School Dist., 981 F. 2d 152 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1992

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9307381949155466690&q=Stroman+v.

+Colleton+County+school+District+(2003)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education.

Waters v. Churchill, 511 US 661 - Supreme Court 1994

PORTFOLIO #2 TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3521929082371837035&q=Stroman+v.

+Colleton+County+school+District+(2003)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1