Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tina Johnsen
A case has been brought before the court involving the dismissal of Ann Griffin, a white
tenured teacher. The high-school principal that recommended her dismissal did so based on
concerns regarding her ability to treat students fairly as well as her judgment and competency as
a teacher. These concerns arose from negative reactions from staff to a leaked statement that was
made during a discussion with the school administration. Ms. Griffin made the statement that she
hated all black folks during the heated discussion with principal Freddie Watts and assistant
principal Jimmy Brothers, both African-American. This situation should be looked at from both
According to the administration, the teachers dismissal was warranted because of the
fact that, after the statement leaked, she was viewed as no longer able to treat her students fairly
as the high school was predominantly black. In the case Melzer vs. Board of Education, 336 F.3d
185 (2003), the court upheld a teachers dismissal on the opinion that his actions were
potentially disruptive to the school operations and undermined his effectiveness as a teacher.
Ann Griffins comment clearly made the staff uncomfortable and it would not be fair to the
students to place a teacher that advocates such a view in a position of authority above them.
under the First Amendment, the court must determine if the speech in question is protected or
not. As a result of the case Pickering vs. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), there is now a
set of questions, the Pickering Balancing Test, which helps the court determine if the speech in
question should be protected under the First Amendment. The most pertinent question is whether
the statement made by the teacher was of private of public concern. Obviously, the phrase was of
purely personal concern, a personal attack on the administrators, staff, and students of the high
school, and it would not protected under the First Amendment. As in a similar case, Loeffelman
FREEDOM OF SPEECH 3
vs. Board of Education, 134 S.W.3d 637 (2004), the court agreed because the teachers
comments addressed a matter of private concern, not of public concern, the board had authority
to terminate her employment without violating her rights under the First Amendment.
On the flipside of this case we have the teacher making a statement of her own beliefs.
There was nothing threatening in its context and no action was insinuated. In the case R.A.V. vs.
City of St. Paul, 505 US 377 (1992), the courts ruled an ordinance invalid based on the First
Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it
disapproves of the ideas expressed. Just because it is not nice to hate all black folks doesnt
mean the court has authority to pick a specific side of the debate.
Another point that can be mentioned is that the statement in question was leaked. Prior to
the teachers private comment being made public, her judgment and competency did not seem to
be in question as well as her colleagues comfort level of her and her fairness to the students. Had
this unfortunate statement, made in a stressful situation, not been made public, the issues that
caused her dismissal would not have existed. In a loose interpretation of Mt. Healthy vs. Doyle,
429 US 274 (1977), the court needed to determine if they would have reached the same decision
if it had not considered [the respondents] phone call. The administration could be viewed as
leaking the statement to create an unsettling environment in retaliation for the teachers
comments.
Now that both sides of this case have been researched, I conclude that the court would
rule in favor of the administration. Although the comment from Ms. Griffin was made in a
private meeting, it was still made. It was not in regards to a public matter, so it would be viewed
as a comment not protected by the First Amendment. If the courts used the Pickering Balancing
Test, they would conclude that 1) Ms. Griffin was not speaking on matters of public concern, 2)
FREEDOM OF SPEECH 4
her statement was the motivating factor for her dismissal, and 3) the disruption of the normal
operation of the school and the effectiveness of working relationships outweighed the teachers
interests (Hudson Jr., 2002). With that, the speech is not protected and the administrations
References
Hudson Jr., D.L., (2002). Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech. First Amendment
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/FirstReport.PublicEmployees.pdf
Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District, 134 S.W.3d 637 (2004).
court-of-appeals/1109760
Melzer vs. Board of Education, 336 F.3d 185 (2003). Justia US Law. Retrieved September 9,
from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1278
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Oyez. Retrieved September 9, 2016, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 US 377 (1992). Oyez. Retrieved September 9, 2016, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-7675
Underwood, J. & Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education Inc.