Artifact #2 Teachers’ Right and Responsibilities 1

Artifact #2

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Anabel Mandujano

EDU 210

College of Southern Nevada

February 10, 2018

 2
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Right and Responsibilities

In this scenario, Freddie Watts is the principal and Jimmy Brothers the assistant principal

and are both African American. Anna Griffin who works in the same workplace as Watts and

Brothers. Griffin is a white teacher and who is protected under tenured, she stated to Jimmy and

Freddie that she does not like African American people in a conversation. The word spread in

school it causes problems between African American and white who are colleagues, the principal

fired Anna. Watts became concern that she also treated her students unfair because of their race

and he also fired her due to her unprofessional as a teacher.

The first case that will be discuss is Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a case on

educational segregation, in this situation African Americans students were not protected under the

14th Amendment, during that period. How the scenario case relates to the Brown v. Board of

Education, so Anna was unequal fair to her co-workers and probably to her students that were

African American, Watts immediately fire Anna because discrimination is against in schools.

Although, she is a tenure teacher I do not believe that is a good moral as a teacher because you are

setting your students to be a good moral and goals in their life.

The second court case will be about Lau v. Nichols (1973) in San Francisco schools

provided English for Chinese students, who do not speak English. Schools denied students to be

involved in public students, this violated Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According

to Find Law article “on the ground of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity

receiving federal financial assistance” (2018 FindLaw). This means that it discriminated against

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and this school did get money from federal fund. A summary about

this case San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) had approximately 2,900 non-English

speaking students from China. A student named Kinney Kimmon Lau in the early 1970s filed a
 3
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Right and Responsibilities
law suit because the unified school district violated under the Fourteenth Amendment of equal

protection clause. Alan Nicholas was the president of school board at time. Lau v. Nichols (1973)

relates to the scenario because a person did treated students unfairly in schools ground based on

their culture. Just like how Anna could have discriminated against African American students.

Both of cases are the similar it discriminated students unconstitutional but have different situations.

A third court case that relates to the scenario will be Gutter v. Bollinger (2003). This

situation occurred in University of Michigan Law School when Barbara Gutter a white student

Michigan with a 3.8 grade point average (GPA) and a good score in her Law School Admission

Test (LAST). Gutter felt that the university had discriminate against her, according to Find Law

“predominant factor giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater

chance admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups” (FindLaw

2018). What this means is not of all students are getting accepted, that there are more chance for

students who are in a minority group to be accepted in University of Michigan Law School. In the

case of Gutter v. Bollinger, this case violated under the Fourteenth Amendment of Title VI of Civil

Rights Act of 1964. Gutter was reject because the university is more interesting in diversity than

students who have good grades. This case relates to the scenario because it involves discrimination

and I am for Gutter, she should have gotten in to the school in the first place It should not have

matter to the school what race was Gutter. Anna and the university would both use discrimination

against people.

A fourth court cases that relates to the scenario will be Irving Independent School District

v. Tatro (1984) in this an eight-year-old was with a defect known as “spina bifida” (FindLaw2018).

A summary about this case is Amber Tatro who had health issues, by the age of three- year- old

Irving Independent School District made a special education program for Amber. She also needed
 4
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Right and Responsibilities
clean intermittent catheterization (CIC), but Irving Independent School District rejected the

request of Amber parent’s. Amber’s parents filed a law suit against Irving Independent School

District. It violated against Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and violated the

Rehabilitation Act, this case relates to the scenario because the school district did not protect

Amber, but not just Amber any students who has disabilities. The Supreme Court decided that the

district should have a clean intermittent catheterization (CIC). This case is like the scenario

because they Watts did the

In conclusion, I am for the principal because Anna Griffin should not have treated her

colleagues unfairly. Anna is a white tenured teacher, although she is protected under tenured.

Freddie fired her immediately after an incident occurred, between her, Watts, and Brothers. Her

actions affect her teaching career. The four court cases that are relevant to the scenario are the

following; Brown. Board of Education (1954), Lau v. Nicholas (1973), Gutter v. Bollinger (2003),

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984). All these cases, had a lot of different situation,

but all cases are like to the scenario because most case have discrimination or if students are being

treated differently. This assignment helped me to understand a lot of more information about court

cases.
 5
Artifact #2 Teachers’ Right and Responsibilities

References

Brown v. Board of Education (1954). NO. 10. 2018.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/347/483.html

Gutter v. Bollinger et al., (2003). NO 02-241. 2018.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/539/306.html

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984). NO 83-558. 2018.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/468/883.html

Lau v. Niccholas (1974). NO. 72-6250. 2018

0caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/414/563.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education.