Running head: RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

A Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Arleesia Herrera

College of Southern Nevada

RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

A Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Ann Griffin is employed as a tenured teacher at a predominately African-American

School. The Principal, Freddie Watts, and Vice Principal, Jimmy Brothers, are also African-

American. Ann Griffin, who is white, got into a disagreement with the two administrators and in

the heat of the moment stated that she “hated all black folks.” News of the argument quickly

spread to other faculty members and it was not well received by either black or white colleagues.

Principal Freddie Watts questioned Ms. Griffin’s ability to treat her students equally and provide

a fair education free of bias. Based on his concerns after her statement, Mr. Watts recommended

dismissal.

A Teachers’ Responsibilities

A teacher is responsible for providing an equal, quality education to their students. A

teacher is responsible for being a role model to her students and professional colleagues. A

teacher is responsible for creating a learning conducive environment. Similarly to Ms. Griffin, in

the case of Leoffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District (2004),

Leoffelman failed in her responsibilities as a professional. Leoffelman was asked her opinion of

interracial relationships by a student and stated that she was not only against interracial

relationships, but couples who do choose to engage in such a relationship should be “fixed” as to

not have “racially confused children” (Leoffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City

School District, 2004). This case is similar to that of Ms. Griffin’s because both made racially

charged discriminatory remarks, neither statement address a matter of public concern as set by

Connick v. Myers (1983) and both caused a disruption to the school/work environment, effecting

students and staff. In Leoffelmans’ case, the courts ruled in favor of the School Board, finding

the Board did have the authority to terminate Ms. Leoffelman. The court stated the schools right
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

to “free from race-based discriminatory speech outweighs any First Amendment right that

Teacher may have to express her private opinion regarding interracial relationships and biracial

children to her students” (Leoffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District,

2004). This sets a precedent for Ann Griffins case in that the school she is employed at has a

right to “free from race-based discriminatory speech” that outweighs her right to free speech.

Another case to consider is Munroe v. Central Bucks School District, 2014. A teacher in

Pennsylvania, Ms. Natalie Munroe, had started blog where she spoke of her personal life such as

her children, food and movie reviews, and her yoga classes. However, there were several

occasions where she had spoken of the students in her class and their parents. She referred to

some of her students as “jerk,” “rat-like,” “dunderhead,” “whinny, simpering grade-grubber with

an unrealistically high perception of own ability level” and “frightfully dim”, while the parents

were “breeding a disgusting brood of insolent, unappreciative, selfish brats” (Munroe v. Central

Bucks School District, 2014). Eventually Ms. Munroe’s blog was discovered by students and

quickly circulated through various social media outlets and in school halls. Needless to say, the

comments made by her damaged her relationship with her students and their parents and caused

a disruption to student learning. The principal stated the school environment “was so incendiary”

that the administration “thought we're going to have a riot or a sit-in or worse.” (Munroe v.

Central Bucks School District, 2014). The school district decided to fire Ms. Munroe and she

sued the school district under the pretense that is violated her right to Free Speech under the First

Amendment. The court sided with the school boards’ decision to fire Ms. Munroe, stating that

her speech was not protected. Ms. Griffins’ speech and attitude towards African-Americans, also

creates a disruptive learning environment and like Ms. Munroe’s isn’t protected.
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

A Teachers’ Rights

Teachers are United States Citizens and as such enjoy the rights of being a citizen.

Namely, the first amendment guaranteeing United States citizen the right to free speech, free

press, freedom of religion and the right to peaceably assemble. The most notable case for free

speech that concerning teachers is Pickering v. Board of Education (1968). Marvin Pickering

publicly questioned his school districts use of funds, stating they were disproportionately being

used toward athletic programs over academic ones. The Will County, Illinois School Board

found his comments to harmful to the goals and efforts of the school and ended Mr. Pickerings’

employment. The courts emphatically rejected the idea the teachers give up the First Amendment

rights to free speech with the caveat that there is a “balance between the interests of the teacher,

as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an

employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees”

(Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968). What this means for Ms. Griffin is that she does not

give up her rights as a citizen when she steps onto school grounds.

The case of Ms. Brigitte Geiger and Ms. Sharon Jones advocates for Ms. Griffin to

continue teaching. Ms. Geiger and Ms. Jones were physical education teachers. They were over

heard by two students having a conversation in the locker room and had assumed they were

alone. The two students reported that in the conversation Jones said, "[t]hese Negroes think

they're [expletive] tough [expletive]," and Geiger responded, "Yeah, that's what they are. They're

[expletive] Negroes, Negroes, Negroes, Negroes." (Brigitte Geiger and Sharon Jones v Board of

Education of the Township of Mount Olive, 2015). The two teachers were fired for these

comments. The New Jersey State of Appeals Court did state that while the “conduct was

unbecoming” of a teacher, firing them was “too harsh” a punishment compared to similar cases
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

in their district. In three other cases where teacher had used inappropriate, racially charged, or

homophobic language none had gotten a suspension longer than 120-days. The court ordered that

the teachers be re-instated.

Ruling

The teacher, Ms. Ann Griffin, clearly made a “public display of discrimination” as

outlined by Underwood and Webb (2006). Use of such strong language, “hate”, does not foster a

learning or working conducive environment. If these statements were made of anger and do not

in fact reflect that views of the teacher, then at the very least it demonstrates poor judgement on

the teachers’ part. Similarly to Ms. Munroe’s case, intention does not negate responsibility and

good judgement. Ms. Griffins’ immediate reaction to opposition was to make a racially charged

blanket remark against “all black folks”. This undermines the goals of school institutions as a

place to make children ready to function in and contribute to society. If this statement was

intentional, then Ms. Griffin has no place in education. Leoffelmans’ case demonstrated that

schools are place that should be free of discrimination and race-based discrimination does hinder

a teachers’ ability to be effective. Hating all black folks would be incredibly detrimental to her

ability to teach, even if it were not a predominately black school. She would not be able to

provide an equal education, her expectations of her students would be low, resulting in low

performance and her relationship with her students would be non-existent. Either way, if she said

this out of anger or intended it, she should be terminated immediately. The classroom should be a

place free of hostility and hate.

 RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

References

Connick v. Myers (United States Supreme Court. April 20, 1983).

Docket NO. A-1409-13T2 [Brigitte Geiger and Sharon Jones v Board of Education of the Township

of Mount Olive] (Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division November 18, 2015).

Leoffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District (Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District, Division Five. February 24, 2004).

Munroe v. Central Bucks School District (United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. September

4, 2015).

Pickering v. Board of Education (United States Supreme Court. June 3, 1968).

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.