A2 3mhowie

Assignment 2
Teacher’s Rights
Mackenzie Howie
College of Southern Nevada

Ann Griffin, a teacher who is white, got into a heated conversation with two
administrators at the school she works in. Freddie Watts, principal, and Jimmy Brothers,
assistant principal, were both a part of this conversation, and are both African American. As
things got tenser, Ann Griffin was heard to say she “hated all black folks.” The comment got out
and was greeted with negative reactions from most colleagues, regardless of their race.
As a result, Freddie Watts, principal at Griffin’s school, recommended her dismissal
based on her views, saying she would not be able to treat all of her students fairly, and that this
casts a great doubt on her competency as an educator. This paper will provide support for
Principal Watts’ decision and support for Ann Griffin’s return to teaching. Each side will cite
two court cases in support.
Students are sent to school to learn. Ann Griffin made an inflammatory statement in the
presence of her peers. While this may have insulted the people who heard it, she did not say it in
front of her students and there was no proof of previous prejudiced behavior towards her pupils.
In 1949, a former priest became vocally anti-Semitic. He gained a large following after his views
were published in newspapers. There were clashes between fans and enemies and the priest was
arrested during one of these altercations. The Supreme Court ruled he was not to be imprisoned,
because his speech did not present any danger (Terminiello v. Chicago, 1949). This was during
and post-World War II, when tensions were most high for anti-Semitic speech. And his speech
was protected. Today, Ann Griffin gives her views to peers, no violence follows, and her job is at
risk. Before 1950, the Supreme Court said everyone has a right to free speech; a right to voice
their opinions. Following the notion that Griffin was speaking with coworkers and peers, not her
students, in 1961, Marvin Pickering made his opinion heard on a subject that did not relate to
race at all, but related to the way he saw things working within the school. The Court voted that
he had the right to voice his opinion and not be dismissed by the school, as that would infringe
upon his freedom of speech. He, like Griffin, shared his opinion with adults: peers and
coworkers, and this was protected by free speech. This case took years to get through, settling 7
years later. Although the school board chose to dismiss him, it was deemed he should keep his
job (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968).
In support of Ann Griffin being dismissed for saying she “doesn’t like black folks:” this
is a clear case of an educator’s personal views conflicting with their responsibility to their
students. If Ms. Griffin is making the statement that she doesn’t like people because of their skin
color, this could definitely affect the way she grades or even views her students, preventing
learning from happening. Her speech should remain free, but it is also disruptive and should
therefore end with her dismissal (Stroman v Colleton County School District, 1992). The way
Ann Griffin spoke with her peers and possibly could be speaking with her students is cause for
termination because it could also put a roadblock in relationships required for work (Underwood
& Webb, 49).
I feel the courts should rule that Griffin should be dismissed. It seems like her views
could obviously interfere with her work and her relationships with students. However, based on
the first two court cases cited, specifically Terminiello, I do not believe the courts would side
with her dismissal. What she said, she said to peers, not to students. And in writing this paper, I
found more court cases supporting “freedom of speech” than cases that protect students from
potentially racist adults in their lives. If the Supreme Court could rule on the side of anti-
Semitism (even as free speech) so close to the Holocaust, I don’t see why this woman stating she
doesn’t like a certain race would be a cause for dismissal.

Ms. Griffin would also probably not face dismissal because of Brandenburg v. Ohio. This
case states that unless someone is spewing hate speech with the intent to cause violence, it is still
free speech. Because Griffin did not push her views on her students and no violence came from
her views being shared, I doubt they would be able to fire her from her job. However, if more
information came from Ann Griffin’s statements causing discomfort for students or possibly
inciting violence, there could be some recourse for her. There would need to be more follow up
on the case.
References
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968)
Stroman v Colleton County School District, 981 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1992)
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1 (1949)
Underwood, Julie & Webb, L. Dean. (2003). School Law for Teachers.
Columbus, Ohio: Pearson.

A2 3mhowie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A2 3mhowie

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

A2 3mhowie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 2

College of Southern Nevada

As a result, Freddie Watts, principal at Griffin’s school, recommended her dismissal

two court cases in support.

job (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968).

& Webb, 49).

doesn’t like a certain race would be a cause for dismissal.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)

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

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1 (1949)

Columbus, Ohio: Pearson.

You might also like