Running head: Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Artifact #2

Evelyn Hernandez EDU-210 Nevada School Law

College of Southern Nevada

Abstract

This abstract explains in detail about the case of Griffin v. Watts. A white tenured high school

teacher and her consequence for such hatred comment about “all black folks.” Along with Watts,

an African-American principle assigned to that school, and the actions he took to recommend

Griffin’s dismissal. Also, analyzing in depths about the Constitutional Amendments and Federal

Laws (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, procedural due process, etc.) that govern this situation.

There are several laws that protect Griffin’s right to freedom of expression only if speaking as a

private citizen or if expression is pertaining to matters of public concern and not pursuant to

official job duties. However, based on legal principles, prospect dismissal for cause of

incompetency may pertain her case and granting her termination. Previous experienced “pro”

and opposing cases will be used to determine the final findings of this scenario.

Keywords: Griffin v. Watts, white high school teacher, black principle, hate comment,

consequence, dismissal, Constitutional laws, Amendments, previous cases, final judgement

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Artifact #2

Mrs. Ann Griffin is a white tenured high school professor who teaches in a primarily

black school. While irate in a bitter confrontation with two school officials, she furiously

declared that she “hated all black folks.” It did not take much time for both black and white

colleagues to begin feeling negative tensions amongst each other soon after her statement was

released. Freddie Watts, the assigned African-American school principle took immediate action

and urged for Mrs. Griffins dismissal based on her ability to treat all students equal regardless of

ethnicity and her judgement and competency as a teacher.

Constitutional Amendments and Federal laws

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution stipulates that administrators, teachers, and

noncertified personnel are protected from arbitrary dismissals by contractual agreements. The

most preciously guarded of these liberties are contained in the First Amendment’s protection of

speech, press, assembly, and religious liberties. First Amendment guarantees teachers the

freedom of speech when speaking out on public concerns. However, many challenges continue

to exist when deciding if the statement was made as a private citizen or speaking pursuant to an

official job duty.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which has been adopted since 1868, is the most widely

invoked constitutional provision in school litigation since it specifically addresses state action.

The Fourteenth Amendment is based on two important clauses; the Equal Protection Clause and

the Due Process Clause. The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall “deny to any

person within jurisdiction, the equal protections of the laws.” Which basically means that all

people should be treated the same. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education, African
Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities 4

American students were not treated equal as white students. This clause has been significant in

school cases involving discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, and ethnic background.

The Due Process Clause is vital for school litigation. For instance, before a tenure teacher

is dismissed, the teacher must be afforded certain procedural rights. Tenure statutes and

employment contracts establish a property interest entitling teachers to full procedural protection.

Beyond the basic constitutional requirements of appropriate notice and an opportunity to be

heard, state laws and school board policies often contain detailed procedures that must be

followed. Failure to provide these additional procedures, however, results in a violation of state

law.

Pro Scenario Case

As a tenure teacher, Griffin does not have a history of school discriminatory accusations

made against her by students, parents, nor school personnel. Based on the Mt. Healthy case,

unless sufficient grounds of evidence and incidents have been filed against Griffin over a period,

then school board may vote not to renew her contract. However, without proven evidence of

prior discrimination, an employer may not use race as a factor in making employment decisions.

School officials may not penalize or otherwise discriminate against Griffin for proper execution

of her First Amendment rights. Burden will be placed against School Board to show

preponderance evidence of Griffin’s own opinion affecting her competency as a teacher.

Equivalent to the Pickering case, Griffin is entitled to protected speech by merit of the

First Amendment rights considering that her expression is made as a private citizen and not

speaking as an employee pursuant to official job responsibilities.

Con Scenario Case

In affiliation to the Givhan case, Griffin’s expression towards “all black folks” is made

pursuant to personal grievances rather than public concerns. Her hatred opinion is not protected

by the First Amendment because it was expressed privately to both school administrators and

because there is no Constitutional right to “press even good’ ideas on an unwilling recipient.”

According to the Garcetti principle, if the expression was not made pursuant to official

job duties, or if the expression does not relate to a matter of public concern, considering its

content, context, and form, then it is established that Griffin’s expression pertains to a private

grievance, so the Constitutional inquiry ends and the employee can be disciplined.

Conclusion After analyzing the two parties and considering both statements, I base my

findings on public educators’ constitutional rights defined by the judiciary about free expression.

As a high school tenure teacher, Griffin represents the leading example to students and other

colleagues. When in the hated altercation with the two administrators, Griffin’s hatred statement

against “all black folks” automatically applies to the Givhan case, pertaining to a private

grievance. Related to the Garcetti principle, the constitutional inquiry ends and Griffin can be

disciplined. Dismissal is urged because just like she caused tensions against black and white

colleagues, her perspective will also affect her rapport with students, including her own teaching

methods, grading procedures, classroom management and professional relationships.

References

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal rights of teachers and

students (Third ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Givhan v. Western Line Cons. Sch. Dist. 439 U.S. 410 (1979). (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017,

from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/439/410/case.html#F1