TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Adrian E. Duarte

College of Southern Nevada

TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Adrian Duarte

Dale Warby

EDU 210

Date (06/09/2018)

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Advocates for both teacher and civil rights may wonder where the line is drawn between

ensuring that personal beliefs are respected and equitable, while also ensuring that educational

institutions remain an anti-discrimination, harassment-free, safe-haven for students, parents,

teachers and staff, and administrators. For one, the United States Constitution does not mention

the topic of education, and the rights of all education matters are reserved to the states, as stated

in the Constitution’s tenth amendment. Should an individual be allowed to work in a school

setting if he or she holds prejudice views or beliefs? Does holding these views deter from

creating a fair and equal educational environment in-and-out of the classroom, or will a specific

group of students be deliberately targeted? In the proposed case, Mrs. Griffin, a white tenured

educator, was found to hold hateful views towards those who are black, including her supervisors

and the students at the predominately black high school she taught at, stating that she “hated all

black folks.” Although I grant that all Americans deserve the right to freedom of expression in

accordance to our country’s Constitution, I still maintain that all education institutions should be

judgement, prejudice-free establishments.

With the incorporation of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment zero tolerance policies

many state Department of Education and school districts have adapted and put in place for both

students and district employees come many obstacles when an infringement upon unalienable
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

rights ensues. As presented in Mrs. Griffin’s case, she expressed an opinion about a protected

class, which in some way was utilizing her First Amendment right. Contrarily, despite whether

or not there be a district policy that prevents this language, federal law has established that

disruptive speech including that against a protected class such as race, age, color, national origin,

and religion, be prohibited and is not protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, Author

Julie Underwood of School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications (2006), defines

unprotected speech in an educational-sense as being any speech that involves “Personal

concern,” such as “Personal attacks on administrators, board members, and/or other teachers;

and, grievances and complaints relating to individual personnel actions” (Underwood, 2006, pg.

49). Moreover, a similar civil case to Mrs. Griffin’s occurred in the 2004 case of Loeffelman v.

Board of Education of the Crystal City School District. In this case, Jendra Loeffelman, an eighth

grade English teacher from the Crystal City (Missouri) School District, during her class

discussion, was asked questions from her students based on her views and beliefs of interracial

couples and whether or not they should get married and have children. Loeffelman’s response

was that she was “totally against it,” and stated that “mixed children” are “dirty” (Loeffelman v.

Board of Education of the Crystal City School District. 134 S.W.3d 637 [2004]). Mrs.

Loeffelman was placed on administrative leave, as she violated her district policies. Upon the

unfolding of evidence and student testimonies, she was terminated. Eventually, Jendra

Loeffelman appealed the decision and asked for her case to be taken to trial. During the ruling of

her trial, the court ruled that her termination was well founded, and she was not entitled to First

Amendment protection, as “Her comments expressed a private opinion regarding interracial

relationships and biracial children and did not address a matter of public concern,” while also

creating a disturbance in the school, resulting in students to feel unconformable to attend class.
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

Nonetheless, due to the ruling of Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School

District, the school might argue to support their side of the litigation, that Mrs. Griffin was in

violation of the court’s ruling, as she caused a disturbance in the school among her colleagues

both black and white, her administrators, and the students at the predominately black high school

she taught at.

Furthermore, in addition to the contention that Mrs. Griffin has violated a case law based

on her hateful language not being protected under the First Amendment, the school could also

argue that due to Mrs. Griffin holding prejudice views, she would also violate the ruling from the

1996 Connecticut Supreme Court case of Sheff v. O’Neill. Sheff v. O’Neill ensures that all

students are given a fair and equal opportunity in schools. According to a referenced state law

proposed within the Sheff v. O’Neill case, “Existence of extreme racial and ethnic isolation in

public school system deprives school children of substantially equal education opportunity and

requires state to take further remedial measures” (Sheff v. O’Neill. 134 S.W.3d 637 [1996]). Due

to her prejudice and racial views against blacks, Mrs. Griffin would be in violation of this law, as

she holds a degrading bias towards individuals of this protected class, possibly targeting them for

discipline issues or deterring them from an excelling academic setting.

For many people, one may know the context of a specific amendment, but how many

know that there are several clauses to each amendment? To Mrs. Griffin’s defense case, Ann

may argue that she has the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. In this case, Mrs.

Griffin is correct; she does have the freedom of expression, but must ensure that she is

expressing her views with discretion to the clauses of the First Amendment. The United States

Constitution’s First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of

speech” (U.S. Const. amend. I). Although Griffin may argue that she was in the right to express
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

herself in the manner she did, her use of disruptive speech in an educational institution is not

protected under the Constitution; however, Mrs. Griffin could argue that the Constitution states

that there are to be no restrictions to the freedom of speech; thus, making a valid argument.

Moreover, based on the 1972 court case Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth brought forth

by David Roth, for what he believed to be unjustifiable dismissal from rehiring of his contract

due to this criticism of the university administration, Ann Griffin could plead that she is

unconstitutionally, due to her protection from the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause,

being relieved of her duties as a tenured teacher by Freddie Watts, the school principal, for what

he believes to be her incapability of treating students fairly, and the concernment for with

Griffin’s judgement and competency as a teacher.

Moreover, Ann Griffin, being a tenured teacher, may also argue that based on the

educational case law Perry v. Sindermann, she must be provided a due process trial before a

recommended dismissal is proposed and enforced. In the court case, the court’s ruling affirmed

that Sindermann was entitled to a full trial and determined that nonrenewal of a one-year

teaching contract "May not be predicated on [a teacher's] exercise of First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights" (Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 [1972]).

The disciplinary actions that are to be taken against Ann Griffin are undeniable. In no

sense, is an educator able to hold, express, and embody prejudice views, while ensuring that a

classroom is fair, equitable, and discrimination-free. For one, students who are black are more

likely to be negatively targeted by Griffin, as she holds these views. Based on the premise of the

ruling from the case of Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District,

Ann Griffin is not entitled to First Amendment protection, as “Her comments expressed a private

opinion regarding interracial relationships and biracial children and did not address a matter of
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

public concern” (Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District. 134

S.W.3d 637 [2004]). Furthermore, the leak on her statement causes a disturbance in the school,

resulting in students to feel unconformable to attend class, and for her colleagues to feel

uncomfortable to attend work and fulfill their duties. Moreover, Griffin’s views are not ethical

and moral to be in the position of an educator at a predominately black high school. The 1996

Connecticut Supreme Court case of Sheff v. O’Neill ensures that all students are given a fair and

equal opportunity in schools (Sheff v. O’Neill. 134 S.W.3d 637 [1996]), and while Griffin may

argue that she has the freedom of expression, this does not ensure that she will be creating a

nondiscriminatory, unbiased, and egalitarianism environment for all students in schools,

including those of all colors and backgrounds.

TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7

References

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth. 408 U.S. 564 (1972).

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

Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972).

Sheff v. O’Neill. 134 S.W.3d 637 (1996).

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

U.S. Const. amend. I