Scribd
Upload
47 views4 pages

Running Head: Case Scenario 1

A tenured teacher, Ann Griffin, was dismissed by the principal for making a racial comment that "she hated all black folks." The principal decided this was grounds for dismissal because it may impact her ability to treat students fairly at the predominantly black high school. This summary supports the principal's decision, as the teacher's speech was not protected under precedents like Tinker and Bethel, which allow restrictions of speech that causes disruption or invades the rights of others. While Griffin claims her right to free speech was violated, precedents like Pickering only protect speech on matters of public concern, not a private racist statement. Therefore, the principal's dismissal of Griffin for her racially insensitive comment was justified.

Uploaded by

api-458486566
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views4 pages

Running Head: Case Scenario 1

A tenured teacher, Ann Griffin, was dismissed by the principal for making a racial comment that "she hated all black folks." The principal decided this was grounds for dismissal because it may impact her ability to treat students fairly at the predominantly black high school. This summary supports the principal's decision, as the teacher's speech was not protected under precedents like Tinker and Bethel, which allow restrictions of speech that causes disruption or invades the rights of others. While Griffin claims her right to free speech was violated, precedents like Pickering only protect speech on matters of public concern, not a private racist statement. Therefore, the principal's dismissal of Griffin for her racially insensitive comment was justified.

Uploaded by

api-458486566
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Running Head: Case Scenario 1

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities:

Case Scenario (Artifact2)

Jasmine Vazquez

College of Southern Nevada


Case Scenario 2

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities: Case Scenario (Artifact2)

Can a principle fire a teacher for making a racial comment? In this scenario, a tenured

teacher, Ann Griffin made a statement that she “hated all black folks.” The principle of the

school where she works at, decided to dismiss her because of the comment and that she may not

be able to treat her student fairly, since she works in a predominantly black high school.

A court case that supports the principle’s decision is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

Community School District (1969), this court case stated that students and school officials are

protected under their fist amendment right if the statement they make does not "materially

disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." This

states that freedom of speech is protected but only if the action does not disrupt the school flow

nor invade the freedom of the people around them. In this scenario, Ms. Griffin statement caused

negative reaction and disrupted the workflow of the school.

Another court case that supports the principle is Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser,

the court stated that students and school officials are prohibited from vulgar and lewd speech that

"advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools.” Schools and classrooms must have a

balance with the society’s interest and the student’s appropriate behavior. In this scenario Ms.

Griffin statement was ill mannered, rude, to the students and school. Her statement caused a

disruption at the school and also disrupted the trust that the school and teachers have built for the

students.

On the other hand, Ms. Griffin is exercising her first amendment right. This is shown in

Pickering v. Board of Education, (1968) teachers right to freedom of speech. This court case

established the principle that teachers are still citizens and are protected under the freedom of

speech and cannot be dismissed for their statement. In this case Ms. Griffin is stating that she is
Case Scenario 3

protected under the first amendment freedom of speech therefore the school board wrongfully

dismissed her.

Another case that supports Ms. Griffin is, Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School

District, (1979) which states that public employees do not forfeit their First amendment because

they communicate privately. Even though her statement was made in front of the principle and

her vice-principle, she is still protected under her first amendment adhere to Givhan v Western

Line Consolidated School District (1979). Therefore Ms. Griffin is stating that her statement is

protected under her freedom of speech and even though she did not say her statement publicly

she is still within her right to make a statement and not be fired.

My opinion is that the principal’s dismissal of Ms. Griffin is justified. In Pickering v.

Board of Education, (1968) concluded that a person is protected under the first amendment if

they “spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” In this case, Ms. Griffin spoke privately

to the principle and vice-principle and the statement she made was not a public concern. Ms.

Griffin’s statement also caused a disturbance with the school and students trust. Therefore,

Pickering’s rule does not apply to her situation.


Case Scenario 4

Reference

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979)

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

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503 (1969)

You might also like