Running head: TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Mareli Castañeda

College of Southern Nevada

Abstract

Ann Griffin is a teacher at a mainly all black high school. During a heated conversation with two

administrators she stated she “hated all black folks.” Due to her poor comment the principal

dismissed her. There are two cases that support the scenario: Mt. Healthy City Board of

Education v. Doyle and Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District. In the Mt.,

Healthy City Board of Education case a teacher behaved inappropriately toward students and he

also called a radio station regarding a proposed staff dress code. The next pro case is Givhan V.

Western Line Consolidated School District. In this case a teacher expressed her belief that the

school district’s practices and policies were racially discriminatory. There are two cases that do

not support the scenario: Pickering v. Board of Education and Garcetti v. Ceballos. In the

Pickering v. Board of Education, a school teacher complained about the board’s handling of past

proposals and allocation of funds favoring athletics over academics. Now, in the Garcetti v.

Ceballos case, an employee of LA’s Attorney’s office found that a sheriff misrepresented facts in

a search warrant affidavit. Personally, the principal in the scenario made the right choice in

dismissing the teacher for a racist comment because that should not be tolerated. Therefore, I

support his choice in her dismissal.

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Two African-American administrators by the names Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers

are assigned to administer a mainly all black high school. Ann Griffin, a school teacher had a

heated conversation with them and stated she “hated all black folks.” This caused negative

reactions among colleagues. The principal recommended dismissal based on concerns and

treating students fairly and her prudence and competency as a teacher.

In this particular case the teacher Ann Griffin, stated that she “hated all black folks.”

Under the First Amendment, Ann Griffin is protected, in my opinion, because she has freedom of

speech whether positive or negative. However, it affected her since it caused negative reactions

among colleagues both black and white. The principal recommended dismissal based on

concerns regarding her ability to treat students fairly and her judgment and competency as a

teacher. Even though she is protected under the First Amendment, I agree with her being

dismissed because it is true even if you have freedom of speech you must be careful with what

you state. After all, she did portray racism. I believe this case has similarities with the Mt.

Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle. As Patten (2015) explained, Fred Doyle was a teacher

and employee of the Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education in the years 1966-

1971. Later, he was chosen leader of the Teachers’ Association. Doyle was additionally involved

in various incidents starting in 1970 where he allegedly acted inappropriately toward students

and other staff individuals. In February 1971, Doyle passed on the substance of an inward

reminder with respect to a proposed staff clothing regulation to a Cincinnati radio station. Then

in March, the administrator of the school district suggested that the board not renew Doyle’s

contract. The board expressed that Doyle showed an “absence of respect in taking care of

professional matters,” and referred to both the call to the radio station and the disgusting
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

behaviors Doyle made toward the students. In my opinion I feel that Mt. Healthy City Board of

Education v. Doyle relates to the scenario because both teachers displayed a lack of

professionalism, and both Doyle’s call to the radio station and Ann Griffin’s statement whether

or not it was negative it is still freedom of speech and protected under the First Amendment.

The next case I feel that supports the scenario is the Givhan v. Western Line

Consolidated School District (n.d). This case involved Bessie Givhan, a teacher in Mississippi’s

Western Line Consolidated School District. In the 1970-71 school year, she had a few private

discussions with the principal expressing her belief that the school district’s practices and

policies were racially discriminatory. The school board authorities fired her for practicing her

First Amendment rights to speak freely. At the point when the case was heard before a federal

district court, school authorities claimed that Givhan, during her gathering with the principal,

was “insulting” and “hostile” and made “petty and unreasonable demands.” That and other

confirmation was expelled by the court, which decided that Givhan’s right to speak freely had

been disregarded, and it requested her reestablishment. In any case, then the fifth circuit court

appeals, however, turned around for the board. Referring to Supreme Court point of reference, it

held that on the grounds that the teacher’s expression was private, she was not protected under

the First Amendment. Now, this case supports the scenario in the fact that they both have

racially discriminatory situations. In the scenario, Ann Griffin is actually making the racist

comment and in this case Givhan is saying that the school district’s practices and policies are

racially discriminatory. They also support each other by expressing their freedom of speech.

Pickering v. Board of Education (n.d) is the case I feel does not really support the

scenario because in this case Marvin Pickering, a teacher, composed a letter to the editorial

manager at the Lockport Herald whining about a recently defeated school board proposition to
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

expand school charges. The letter complained about the board's treatment of past proposition and

distribution of assets favoring sports over scholastics. The school board felt the letter was

"impeding to the productive operation and organization of the schools" and selected to fire

Pickering's work. Pickering sued in the Circuit Court of Will County claiming his letter was

discourse ensured under the First Amendment. The court decided for the school board and the

Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. This case does not support the scenario because it did not

win under the First Amendment and it does not relate to the scenario.

Garcetti v. Ceballos (n.d) is the last case I believe does not support the scenario. Richard

Ceballos, a worker of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, found that a sheriff distorted

facts in a court order affirmation. Ceballos informed the lawyers prosecuting the case coming

from that capture and all agreed that the sworn statement was faulty, however the D. A’s. office

declined to reject the case. Ceballos then told the barrier he trusted the affirmation contained

false proclamations, and protection advise subpoenaed him to affirm. Looking for harms in

government region court, Ceballos asserted that D.A.s in the workplace countered against him

for his collaboration with the resistance, which he contended was ensured by the First

Amendment. The locale court decided that the head prosecutors were ensured by qualified

insusceptibility, however the Ninth Circuit turned around and ruled for Ceballos, holding that

qualified resistance was not accessible to the respondents on the grounds that Ceballos had been

occupied with discourse that tended to matters of open concern and was in this way secured by

the First Amendment. This particular case definitely does not support the scenario because we

are talking about a search warrant affidavit being misrepresented which does not relate to the

scenario, as well as this case was actually protected by the First Amendment.
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

Overall I am pro with this scenario because I feel like the teacher portrayed racism and

the high school where she was teaching at was mainly an all-black school. Therefor a comment

like hers stating she “hated all black folks” should not be tolerated. I would have taken the same

action the principal did and recommended dismissal. Now the teacher might feel like she could

have been off the hook because of the First Amendment so she might have sued the school for

her dismissal. However just like the Pickering v. Board of Education case the court will probably

rule in favor with the school board and Supreme Court. So, her case may not win under the First

Amendment.
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7

References

Garcetti v. Ceballos. (n.d.). Retrieved, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-473

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District. (n.d.), from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/77-1051

Patten, J. V. (2015, December 18). Mt. Healthy City Board v. Doyle, from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mount-Healthy-City-Board-of-Education-v-Doyle

Pickering v. Board of Education. (n.d.)., from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510