Portfolio 2

Portfolio 2 Tenure and the First Amendment 1
Artifact #2
Tenure and the First Amendment
Sarah Ashworth
College of Southern Nevada
September 14, 2016

One day, at an unknown location, there was a disagreement between two administrators
and a teacher. The two African-American administrators were principal Freddie Watts and
assistant principal Jimmy Brothers whom were employed for a mostly black high school. The
white tenured educator was Ann Griffin. In this conversation where we do not know of which the
context was, Ann had made a comment that she “hated all black folks.” When co-workers heard
of this matter they all were affected negatively no matter their race. The administration
recommends dismissal due to the belief that she may not treat her students fairly and may have
issues with judgment and skill.
The first case presented against Ann and for her termination is Loeffelman v. Board of
Education of the Crystal City School District (2004). In this case a tenured teacher, Jendra
Loeffelman, was asked by a student during class her opinion on interracial relationships to which
the educator replied, “Oh, that’s an easy one. I’m totally against it.” With further questioning
from the student she continued with, “Well, then they should not have children.” Others from the
classroom have testified further that she made remarks towards mixed raced children being
“racially confused” and “dirty”. Loeffelman clearly knew she had at least one biracial student in
her classroom and continued to make these remarks. While she flexed her rights for the First
Amendment and stating she did not willfully break Board policies, the Board ultimately ruled for
her tenured contract to be terminated.
Case two against Ann Griffin is Chavis v. Clayton County School District (2002). In an
ironic twist, this case has two African-American males whom plotted against a white female in
their school. To terrorize her they sent in a tip to the School Board that she had been trading
sexual acts for grades with at 16-year-old black male student. While the white female won her
case due to insufficient evidence, the fact that there could be known racism in the school is an
issue. Since Ann had openly admitted to “hating all black folk” she automatically becomes a risk
for discrimination, racial targeting, and hateful actions.
The first case in favor of Ann is Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) “A
prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to
avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” In this case there was a passive protest against the
Vietnam war with students wearing black arm bands. While words were not spoken, they had
their rights in the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to carry on this display.
Since in this instance we do not know the basis of the words exchanged between educator Ann
and administrators Freddie and Jimmy, it is possible her words were taken out of context. If they
were to use her words to assume that she may treat a student unfairly it is as just as her
expressing her opinion on any matter just as is their rights in the First Amendment.
The second case in favor of Ann is Adams v. The Trustees of the University of North
Carolina Wilmington (2011). In this particular case Michael Adams is an educator with many
exemplary marks towards his career. After 25 years of teaching he converted to a new religion.
With the new religion Adams began sharing his beliefs and thoughts about the world. When he
applied for a promotion to professor, he was denied. The decline was in fear of “potential
discrimination” subsequently he filed against them for religious discrimination. Ultimately, the
Board granted in favor for his title of professor and deemed his expressions to colleagues as a
rightful act of the First Amendment as his views have not affected or been reflected in his
teachings. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that what Ann Griffin may say to co-workers will be
reproduced in her classroom.

Since most of the students at her assigned school are of African-American race, her
comment would be leading us to believe that she may treat them unfairly in the classroom
Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District (2004). While we do not
know the discussion she was having with her administrators and the basis of the argument, she
was speaking to her bosses. They (the Board) have right to believe that she cannot keep those
opinions at home if she cannot keep it from her own bosses. The other unknown is the location
of this conversation. While she could argue that if it was not on school grounds that it would be a
First Amendment right for her to voice her views Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) it
still does not excuse the fact that she expressed said views to her African-American
administrators. In this case I believe the board would rule for Ann Griffin’s termination of
tenured contract and not allow her to work in any other schools. As an educator the number one
interest is the students and the Board often reflects that.

References
ADAMS V. THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
WILMINGTON (2011) (n.d) Retrieved September 15, 2016
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1562438.html
CHAVIS V. CLAYTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT (2002) (n.d)

Retrieved September 16, 2016
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1400555.html
LOEFFELMAN V. BOARD OF EDUACTION OF THE CRYSTAL CITY SCHOOL

DISTRICT EIGHTH CIRCUT (2004) (n.d) Retrieved September 15, 2016
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1109760.html
TINKER V. DES MOINES SCHOOL DISTRICT US SUPREME COURT (1969) (n.d)

Retrieved September 16, 2016
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/393/503.html
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall

Portfolio 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Portfolio 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Portfolio 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Portfolio 2 Tenure and the First Amendment 1

Tenure and the First Amendment

College of Southern Nevada

September 14, 2016

issues with judgment and skill.

her tenured contract to be terminated.

for discrimination, racial targeting, and hateful actions.

reproduced in her classroom.

interest is the students and the Board often reflects that.

CHAVIS V. CLAYTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT (2002) (n.d)

LOEFFELMAN V. BOARD OF EDUACTION OF THE CRYSTAL CITY SCHOOL

TINKER V. DES MOINES SCHOOL DISTRICT US SUPREME COURT (1969) (n.d)

You might also like