Artifact #3 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Artifact # 2

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Gia Shafer

College of Southern Nevada

September 23, 2017

Artifact #3 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities
2

Ann Griffin, a white tenured teacher, stated during a heated conversation with two

African-American administrators at a predominantly black high school that she “hated all black

folks.” When her statement leaked it caused negative reactions among colleagues, both white and

black. The principal recommended dismissal based on concerns regarding her ability to treat

students fairly and her judgment and competency as a teacher. The question in this case is

whether Ann Griffin should be dismissed as her principal recommended.

The fist point in why Ms. Griffin should be dismissed is due to her generalized racial

statement. In the case of Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District. A

student asked Ms. Loeffelman if she was for or against interracial relationships and replied she

was against it. Some of her other comments were “interracial couples should be fixed so that

they cannot have children and that mixed children are racially confused and dirty.” She was

aware of at least one biracial student in her classroom at the time comments were made. The

school district intended to move for termination of Ms. Loeffelman’s indefinite contract with the

Board. If Ms. Loeffelman can emotionally spew hatred with two grown men, imagine what

damage she can do in a classroom full of young minds.

The second reason why Ms. Griffin should be dismissed is the affect her statement had on

her colleagues. As the scenario states her statement caused negative reactions among colleagues,

both white and black. According to the case of Fales v. Garst. Ms. Fales publicly complained

about the proper care and education of special education students in a public forum. Like Ms.

Griffin’s scenario, when applying the Pickering balance test, both cases result in the plaintiff’s

statement bringing disharmony and negatively impacting their colleagues.

Artifact #3 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities
3

The first reason Ms. Griffin should retain her position relates to the Demers v. Austin

case. The Plaintiff prepared and circulated a pamphlet that was not protected under the First

Amendment because its content did not address a matter of public concern. Demers argues that if

he wrote and distributed the plan, Garcetti’s holding does not extend to speech and academic

writing by a publicly employed teacher. This case is parallel with Ms. Griffin’s statement that

was made during an argument with administrators and not on a public forum or made around

children.

The second reason Ms. Griffin should retain her position relates to the case of Perry v.

Sindermann. Sindermann was a teacher at sever state college schools in Texas under one-year

contracts. In 196 his contract was not renewed and Sindermann implies it was due to his

disagreements with the policies of the Board of Regents. The outcome of this case protected

teachers who have attained de facto tenure, the teacher is entitled to due process prior to

dismissal by the school district. This case is parallel with Ms. Griffin as she is a tenured teacher

and has rights.

This scenario is multifaceted. It involves racial slurs, freedom of speech issues, upheaval

of staff, and dismissal of cause for a tenured teacher. Based on the evidence and lack of evidence

provided, I believe the court will side with Ms. Griffin retaining her position. The principal failed

to provide evidence of dismissal for cause. As in Perry v. Sindermann tenured teachers are

protected. There is not enough information in this scenario to assume Ms. Griffin is a raciest and

her teaching style is a direct threat to students. The principle fails to give a written or oral

dismissal and list charges against her, rather he is recommending dismissal based on a “concern”.
Artifact #3 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities
4

You cannot terminate employment based on a concern, that is like saying I am “concerned” you

are going to commit a crime, so I am going to arrest you before you commit a crime.
Artifact #3 Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities
5

References

FindLaw's Missouri Court of Appeals case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2017,
from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1109760.html

FindLaw's United States Eighth Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2017,
from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1365460.html

FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2017,
from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656028.html

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23,
2017, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/593.html