Running head: PORTFOLIO #2

Portfolio #2: Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Danielle Pertile
EDU210
09/12/2015
Dr. Ce Isbell

PORTFOLIO #2
2
Introduction
In an argument with her two African-American superiors, Principal Freddy Watts and
assistant principal Jimmy Brothers, tenured teacher Ann Griffin used the phrase I hate all black
folks. Griffins use of this remark spread through the mostly-black school and caused outrage
amongst the other teachers and administration, no matter the race. Because of this slander,
Principal Watts did not believe Griffin was fit to teach or that she could treat African-American
students fairly in her classroom. Principal Watts has recommended Griffins dismissal from the
school.
Griffins Side
Griffin can argue that her dismissal violated her first amendment right to free speech.
Because the remark in question was not made in the classroom, Griffin could argue that her
comments were made on her own time and about a public concern. In the case of Pickering v.
Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pickering even though he criticized the
school board regarding a tax levy, because he had spoken on a matter of public concern
(Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968).
Another case that could be mentioned by Griffins side is Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District. The case itself is not entirely similar to Griffins case,
mostly because it concerns students rather than teachers, but it is centered on First Amendment
rights and freedom of speech. The important takeaway from this case as far as Griffin is
concerned is the quote from Justice Abe Fortas: "It can hardly be argued that either students or
teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse
gate" (Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist., 1969).

PORTFOLIO #2
3

The School Districts Side

While Griffins side would argue First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, the school
board could argue that it was hate speech, and that because it caused outrage and anger among
other staff members, it was disruptive to the school. The ACLU states that outside a classroom,
Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless
it can be demonstrated that the teachers speech created a substantial adverse impact on school
functioning (Free speech rights of public school teachers, n.d.). Her remark had already caused
a substantial disruption in the daily operations of the school, and could further create problems
when it came to how Griffin treated her students of non-white race.
In the case of Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District, a
teacher had made hateful remarks about interracial marriage and biracial children. These remarks
were said in her classroom, with all of her students (including at least one biracial student)
present. The Court decided that the teacher was not speaking of a matter of public concern
(which is protected by the First Amendment), but rather a private opinion, and sided with the
Boards decision to terminate her employment. The circumstances of this case differ slightly
from Griffins, in that the students were involved in this case, but the Courts differentiation of
public concern and private opinion is an important argument for the school district
Another relevant case is that of Reitmeyer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review. In this particular case, sixth grade science teacher, Reitmeyer was dismissed on the
grounds of distributing a joke sheet to coworkers that included jokes that were vicious and
racist in nature. From the case: Racism is an evil which a decent society cannot tolerate. The

PORTFOLIO #2
4
school district has a right to expect that its teachers will not engage in racist conduct of any
type. (Reitmeyer v. Unemp. Com. Bd. of Rev. 1992.) The Court sided with the Board of Review
based on the school districts right to have standards of behavior for their employees. The same
issue is at the center of this case: a teacher used hateful speech while at school, and the teachers
use of that speech became known to other faculty members, causing a disruption.
Final Decision
The court should side with the school administrators in this case. In Griffins argument
cases, neither Pickering v. Board of Education or Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School District give any indication that hate speech is in any way protected. Both instances of
protected speech in these cases are matters of public concern, while stating that one hates all
black folks is purely a personal opinion, and one very likely to disrupt daily activities at the
school.
On the contrary, both Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School
District and Reitmeyer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are cases in which a
teacher was dismissed because of some kind of discriminatory or otherwise hateful speech, and
the court upheld the decision to dismiss. Even as a tenured teacher, her hate speech falls under
immorality, which is grounds for dismissal.

PORTFOLIO #2
5
REFERENCES
Free speech rights of public school teachers (n.d.). In The American Civil Liberties Union of
Washington State. Retrieved from https://aclu-wa.org/news/free-speech-rights-publicschool-teachers

Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District, 134 S.W.3d 637, 646 (Mo.
Ct. App. 2004).

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

Reitmeyer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 602 A.D. 505 (P.A.

Commonwealth, 2001).

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).