RunningHead:TEACHERSRIGHTSANDRESPONSIBILITIES

KathleenMyers
April3,2014
NVSchoolLaw
PortfolioAssignment#2
TeachersRightsandResponsibilities


TEACHERSRIGHTSANDRESPONSIBILITIES

InthescenariowehaveaTeacher,Principal,andVicePrincipalwhohaveallegedlygotteninto
anargument.Wedonotknowwhattheargumentwasaboutorwheretheargumenttookplace.
Therearenootherwitnesseswhoseenorheardtheargumentbesidesthethreeinvolved.The
Principalisknowntoberunningamostlyblackschool,hehimselfisAfricanAmericanalongwiththe
Viceprincipal.Thethirdpersoninvolvedisateacherwhoisawoman,whoisalsowhiteandwhoisa
tenuredteacher.Thewhiteteacher,Ms.Griffin,isaccusedofsayingIhateallblackfolksduringthe
argument.Theprincipal,Mr.Watts,isrecommendingMs.Griffinbedismissedbasedonthefactthat
henolongerbelievessheiscapableofperformingherduties;becauseofthefactthatamajorityof
herstudentsareblack.
StartingwithMs.Griffinsside,whatweknowisthatsheisoutnumberedandaccusedof
beingracistbasedonsomethingshesaidandshealsoisatenuredteacher.Becauseofthefactthatit
isnotknownwhatthealtercationwasaboutitcannotbesaidifitwasregardingpublicconcernor
not.NeverthelessMs.Griffinisatenuredteacherwhoisguaranteedemploymentunlessthereisgood
andjustcausefordismissal.Justbecausetheprincipalrecommendsdismissalitisonlya
recommendation,theschoolboardhastoultimatelydecideandtenurecannotbetakenaway
withoutdueprocess.
Alsoinregardtodueprocesstherewouldhavetobesomekindofinvestigationintothe
altercationtouncoveranyotherdetailsbecauseitcouldbeconstruedashearsay.Justlikeinthecase
LoeffelmanvBoardofEducation2002wheretheteacherclaimedthatsomestudentstwistedher
words,shealsohadachancetoexplainherrationale.Inthisscenariothereisapossibilitythatthe

principalwassettingherupforlackofabetterwordandshedidnotsayanythingofthesort.Thereis
achanceshewasdislikedbecauseofthefactthatshewaswhiteandtenuredinthismostlyblack
TEACHERSRIGHTSANDRESPONSIBILITIES

community,butthisisjustspeculation.Itishardtoimagineawhitewomanteacherwhoistenured
teachinginamostlyblackareatodislikeallblackfolks;otherwisewhywouldsheteachthereatall?
Itisfrustratingtonotknowanymoredetailsofthealtercationormorehistoryabouttheteacheror
theprincipal,suchastheirrelationshipand/orpastincidents.
Movingontothenextsideoftheprincipal,Mr.Watts,whoclaimsthatMs.Griffinisunableto
performthenecessarydutiesofherjob.Hethinkshercommentsandthefactthatthemajorityofher
studentsareblackisaconflictofinterest.WhatMs.Griffinsaidabouthowshehatesallblackfolks
isofapersonalnature.AccordingtothecaseLoeffelmanvBoardofEducationofCrystalCity2002,a
teachercannotsimplysaywhatevershewishes.JustlikeMs.Griffin,thecasewasaboutateacher
whowasaccusedofsayingdiscriminatoryremarksrightinclasstoherstudents.Unlikethatteacher,
Ms.Griffinwasnotinclass,buthadsaidherremarksrighttotheprincipalandviceprincipal
themselves.
Anothercase,PickeringvBoardofEducation1968,wasaboutateacherspeakingoutwithhis
opinion.UnlikeMs.GriffinhoweverPickeringsubmittedhispersonalopinioninwritinganditwasin
factanopiniononpublicconcern.ItisunknownwhetherMs.Griffinwasspeakingonapublicmatter
orpersonal.ButthePickeringcasespecificallyimpliesthatthefirstamendmentprotectsateachers
opinionaslongasitisonamatterofpublicconcern.Ms.Griffinscommentwascertainlynotonany
publicmatter.Itisnotknownwhetherheropinionwassaidafterspeakingonamatterofpublic
concernthenshegotsoheatedshespewedthosenastywords.Butregardlesswhatsheallegedlysaid

wasapersonalattackontheprincipal,viceprincipal,andeverystudentwhoisblack.Thenthereisthe
matterofthefactthatherremarkscausednegativereactionsamongcolleaguesbothblackand
white.Inthe

TEACHERSRIGHTSANDRESPONSIBILITIES

PickeringvBoardofEducation1968caseitspecificallyimpliesthatfreedomofspeechisnot
protectedifitunderminestheeffectivenessoftheworkingrelationshipbetweencoworkers.
Inconclusion,ifIhadtojudgethiscasesolelyontheinformationgivenandnothingelseI
wouldhavetoruleinfavoroftheprincipal,Mr.Watts.Ms.Griffinwasclearlycommitting
discriminationwithherhatespeech.Whethershewastenuredornotmakesnodifferenceshecould
bedismissedbasedoninappropriatenessandunprofessionalismalone(LoeffelmanvBoardof
education2002).Alsobecauseofthefactthatwhatwassaidcausedstrainthroughouttheentirestaff
ofmixedraceteachers.Ifwhatwassaidwasinfacttruethentheprincipalhastherighttomoveto
dismissal.IfMs.Griffinindeedhatesallblackfolksshehasnobusinessteachingataschoolwith
mostlyblackstudents.
SinceIdonotknowwhattheargumentwasaboutIamgoingtoassumeitwasaboutschool
matters.Ifinfactateacherwashavingaworkrelatedconversationwithtwoothercoworkersthere
isnoreasontoattacktheirintegrityand/orcompetence(PickeringvBoardofEducation1968).Soas
thejudgeIwouldmovetodismissMs.Griffinbecauseofthefactthatherabilitytoperformassigned
dutieshasbeencompromised.Andalsobecausesheunderminedtheeffectivenessofworking
relationshipsbetweencoworkersandsuperiors.(PickeringVBoardofEducation1968).

TEACHERSRIGHTSANDRESPONSIBILITIES

References

LoeffelmanVBoardofEducation2002.UnderwoodJ.andWebbD.
SchoolLawforTeachers
.Pearson
EducationInc.

PickeringVBoardofEducation1968.UnderwoodJ.andWebbD.
SchoolLawforTeachers.
Pearson
EducationInc.