RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #2

Christina Flatley
Artifact #2
Nevada School Law 210
Professor Herington
April 15, 2016

Artifact #2

Abstract
This artifact will be exploring the rights and responsibilities regarding a teachers actions. There
are two sides regarding both the teachers and the school administrations perspectives . Each
side will provide perspective to what is happening. In the final paragraph it will reach a final
verdict, and it will determine whether the teacher is dismissed or not.
Keywords: rights, responsibilities, teacher, administration, perspective, verdict, case,

Artifact #2

Believe it or not words can have a detrimental effect on the ways certain people teach.
Ann Griffin, a white teacher learned this lesson the hard way when she verbally expressed her
highly negative opinions on black people in a predominantly black high school. Social uproar
has taken force in both sides of the white and black communities. Now the question is what will
become of the teachers fate in future teaching? In order to find out we need to see both sides of
the case argument to make a final verdict.
For the administrations side, we will look at the case of Pickering v. Board of Education
(1968). What this case provided was that, teachers have a First Amendment right to air their
views on matters of public concern (Cambron-McCabe et al., 2014). However, Ann Griffins
statement was more of a private than public concern. Furthermore the Pickering Balancing Test
needed to evaluate if the individual, jeopardized classroom performance, relationships with
immediate supervisors or coworkers, or school operations (Cambron-McCabe et al., 2014). Her
form of expression has jeopardized her relationship with her coworkers as well as the students
within her classroom.
Another case that supports the administrations side is Connick v. Meyers (1983).
According to the Courts conclusion its, the form and context as well as the content of the
expression should be considered in assessing whether it relates to public matters
(Cambron-McCabe et al., 2014). Ann Griffins manner of speech was not particularly related to
matters of public concern because it was a private and personal opinion. When the speech is not
particularly of public concern, no balancing test is necessary and the state may prohibit such
speech (Alfred, 1984).

Artifact #2

For the teachers perspective, we will look at the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). In
this case it ruled, that public employees do not have a First Amendment protection for speech
issued as part of their official duties (Hudson et al., 2009). Ms. Griffin, however, was speaking
as a citizen instead of an employee. When she conversed with principal Freddie Watts and
assistant principal Jimmy Brothers, she was simply exercising her First Amendment rights to free
speech. If she cannot exercise her freedom of speech,it may imperil academic freedom in public
colleges and universities, whose teachers necessarily speak and write pursuant to official duties
(Hudson et al., 2009).
The second case that can support Ms. Griffins argument is Mount Healthy School
District v. Doyle (1977). For this case the Court determined,that if an independent cause exists
for which a school employee may be terminated, the public expression claim cannot prevent the
teacher's termination from their job (Bathon et al., 2010). She was speaking out as a public
citizen, but with a different manner of expression. Nonetheless, there are some people out there
that believe that this case violates the First Amendment regardless. And that, the plaintiff should
be entitled to whatever compensatory damages that he/she can prove are attributable to the First
Amendment itself, excluding any damages attributable to job loss (Nahmod, 2000).
Overall, there has been a verdict that has already been reached. While the defendant may
have had her reasons for freedom of speech, it was her very same speech that jeopardized
relationships with her school district. Due to her actions there has been a rift between both black
and white colleagues. In order for the school district to function completely, all kinds of people
need to unite and work together as a whole. Therefore, Ms. Griffin can be officially dismissed
despite her exercising First Amendment rights.

Artifact #2

References
Alfred, S. (1984, Winter). Connick v. Meyers: Narrowing the Free Speech Right of
Public Employees. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
http://lp7lc5er8n.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004
Bathon, J. M., & Brady, K. P. (2010). Teacher free speech and expression in a digital age:
A legal analysis. National Association of Secondary School Principals.NASSP Bulletin, 94(3),
213-226. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.csn.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853644048?account
id=27953
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., Thomas, S. B., & McCarthy, M. M. (2009).
Legal rights of teachers and students (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Hudson, D. L., Jr. (2009). Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). In J. R. Vile, D. L. Hudson, Jr., &
D. Schultz (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (Vol. 1, p. 504). Washington, DC: CQ
Press. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library.csn.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2143300577&sid=su
mmon&v=2.1&u=las55353&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=157bd870ac40e036c63efb1d227abde
4
Nahmod, S. (2000, Winter). Mt. Healthy and Causation-in-Fact: The Court Still Doesn't
Get It! Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
http://lp7lc5er8n.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004

Artifact #2