Teachers’ Protection Under the First Amendment

Teachers’ Protection Under the First Amendment

Reagan Harrison

Education 210

College of Southern Nevada

Teachers’ Protection Under the First Amendment

There have been many court cases questioning the extent of teachers’ rights to freedom of

speech. It was granted to all citizens by the First Amendment but when it relates to teachers, will

their freedom of speech jeopardize their ability to educate students. If there were a court case in

which Anne Griffin, a white tenured teacher, told Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers, her

principal and assistant principal, respectively, that she “hated all black folks” how would the

court rule. Would they say that Griffin had to right to say so under the First Amendment or

would they agree with Watts and Brothers and say that those sort of comments prove that she

would be unable to treat her students fairly? Looking back on older court cases may help the

court in this case decide what the fate of Anne Griffin will be.

If the court thought that Anne Griffin should stay in her current position they could look

at Tinker V. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) and Garcetti V. Ceballos (2006) as

justification. In Tinker V. Des Moines Independent School District three students, John Tinker,

Mary Beth Tinker and Chris Eckhardt, accompanied by their parents are suing the school district.

The three students got together and decided to wear black armbands to school in protest of the

ongoing Vietnam War. They were asked by faculty to remove the armbands, when they said they

would not they were suspended. They then sued the school district saying they had the right to

freedom of speech and expression. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court who ruled

against the school. They said that “students and teachers don’t shed their constitutional rights to

freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate”. If the court looking at the Griffin

case thought about this they would say that Griffin had the right to freedom of speech even if her

superiors do not agree with her statement. Griffin would therefore not lose her certification and

remain in her position.

Teachers’ Protection Under the First Amendment

In Garcetti V. Ceballos no one is a teacher or educator but they are public employees, as

are teachers. In this case a public employee spoke out against his superiors. Soon after he made

his statement he was released from his position, resulting in a court case. In this case the court

created a two-step program for deciding if a public employee is within the bounds of the First

Amendment. The first step is deciding if the employee has spoken out as a citizen with public

concerns. If they have not then they are not within their rights and are therefore subject to

dismissal. The court then must decide if the employee’s statement negates the state’s efforts in

maintaining efficiency. If their statements do cause problems within the state then again they are

subject to dismissal. If the Griffin case followed this they would say that Griffin was speaking as

an individual citizen because she did not say, “All teachers/educators hate all black folks.” She

only spoke about her which would not cause any issues the state’s efficiency. She would keep

her position.

On the other hand there have been rulings where the court decided that educators have

over-stepped their rights and should lose their positions. Two examples are Adler V. Board of

Education (1952) and Anderson V. Evans (1981). Adler was a teacher who revealed that she was

a part of a Communist group. She was fired and eventually retaliated against the Board of

Education with a lawsuit. The Supreme Court ruled against Adler. They said that teachers’

associations will have an effect on their fairness in the classroom and their ability to educate.

They also said that teachers have an impact on the way young people will shape their minds and

view society. When asked if this was denying Adler’s right to free speech they said that the

teacher is not denied their rights that are simply choosing between voicing their opinions and

remaining in their work positions. So if the Griffin case used this as a reference she would be
Teachers’ Protection Under the First Amendment

fired because she was polluting children’s’ minds and choosing her opinions over her current

work position.

In Anderson V. Evans a white tenured teacher named Evelyn Anderson who taught in a

mostly black school said hateful things about black people following her daughter being

assaulted and robbed by a group of young black people. She also forcibly terminated her

teaching aide, who was also black. Soon after Anderson was terminated herself. When the case

want to court, the court ruled against Anderson. In this decision they also created a two-step

decision making tool for future cases relating to this topic (almost opposite the one created in

Garcetti V. Ceballos). This program said that, “a balance must be struck between the interest of

the employee as an individual and public interest served by the employer.” In the Griffin case

they would say that Griffin’s individual interests would not outweigh the public interests that her

school and administrators have to uphold. She would be terminated.

Out of all of these cases Anderson V. Evans has the most similarities to the Griffin case.

The other cases have similarities but have some down falls when they are compared. In Garcetti

V. Ceballos the downfall would be that no one is a teacher. Yes, they are public employees but it

is different when the person is working with young people. In Tinker V. Des Moines Independent

School District the freedom of speech in question is of the students, not the educators. Lastly, in

Adler V. Board of Education the teacher was simply a member of an offensive group, she did not

say offensive things while on her school campus. Based on all of this the court in Griffin’s case

would probably rule that Griffin could be terminated because she had over-stepped the protection

of the First Amendment.