Running head: ARTIFACT 2 1

Artifact 2

Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Seidy Portillo

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT 2 2

Artifact 2

Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

In this case the defendant is Ann Griffin, a tenured high school teacher made a negative

comment while talking to two administrators. The problem is that she exclaimed, “I hate all

black folk!” amidst an intense discussion to her two black administrators, in a school that has a

large population of black students. The principal suggested her dismissal. Her statement was let

out and her coworkers and students of all races, were troubled by it. Those who are bothered by

it are the plaintiffs.

The constitutional amendments that govern this instance are the First;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of

the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of

grievances

and Fourteenth;

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of the laws

Court cases that will be analyzed for this are: the 1968 Pickering v. Board of Education, the 1977

Mt. Healthy School District v. Doyle, and most importantly, the 2006 Garcetti v. Ceballos case.

The administrators took Griffin to court, because they felt legitimately concerned for

their students, and that she might be racist and discriminatory towards black students. She argued

in court that her speech was protected by her guarantee of the first amendment. Furthermore, it
ARTIFACT 2 3

was a private conversation between three adults, while no students were around. Griffin was able

to use the Pickering v. Board of Edu. Case to defend herself. Stating that her teaching

effectiveness, performance, nor relationship with students would be jeopardized because none of

her students heard her say it. However, according to the defendants, her claims did have the

ability to harm her relationships with coworkers, superiors, and interfere with the management of

the school.

The defendants argued that regardless of whether anyone heard it coming out of her

mouth, the word got out, and they would not deny it if asked. As such a statement made the

administrators hostile towards Griffin. The Mt. Healthy v. Doyle ruling was used to support their

claim of her statement lacking professionalism, and that her actions were enough of a cause for

her to be dismissed. Applying the Pickering balancing test, what she said did impair her

relationship with those around her at school, and her teaching effectiveness.

Conclusion

Griffin was not speaking as a private citizen because she was on school grounds, speaking to

administrators. This fact leads to the Garcetti v. Ceballos case being used.

If the expression is made pursuant to official job responsibilities, it is not protected, and it

is thus unnecessary to establish that the expression pertains to a private grievance or has a

negative impact on agency operations (237).

Griffins protections as a teacher under Pickering are not applicable because it was related to her

official duties. Once it is proved that her expressions were made pursuant to her official job

duties, then there is no more constitutional inquiry because she can be disciplined. If such a

statement was made by a student, they would have repercussions, so there is no reason why a

teacher should be excused. If students first amendment rights can be limited at school, then so
ARTIFACT 2 4

should the educators. Especially because they are supposed to maintain professionalism, be a

good influence, and positive role model. I definitely would not feel comfortable if my teacher

was racist towards me, and I’m sure no one else would either. Saying “I hate all black folk”

could lead students to fearing that she will act erratically when angered, or simply discriminate

because of a person’s skin color.

ARTIFACT 2 5

References

McCabe, N.H, McCarthy, M.M, Eckes, S.E. (2014) Teachers Substantive Constitutional Rights.

Legal Rights of Teachers and Students (pp.233-255). Bloomington, Indiana. Pearson

Education.

U.S. Constitution Amendment 1

U.S Constitution Amendment 14