Griffin v.

Watts

Yasmin Reyes
Artifact 2
NV School Law
Griffin v. Watts
This is the case of Griffin v. Watts. To summarize, Griffin was partaking in a

conversation with Watts (the Principal), and the Assistant Principal, Mr. Jimmy

Brothers. The argument became heated and Griffin, (a Caucasian teacher, with

tenure) made a comment about “hating all black folk.” Understandably, the

administrators were quite offended by the comment. Mr. Watts is now calling for the

dismissal of Ms. Griffin; the basis of this concern stemming from fear that the

wellbeing of her students was now in jeopardy. Considering that this particular

school is predominantly African-American, his concerns are not unjust.

Firstly, there are moral obligations the school has to protect their students’

civil rights. They are also liable for the actions of their employees. That being said, a

teacher in Minnesota was suspended with pay for making racial remarks and

segregating his students(1). The parents of the students were furious that this man

was not fired. Ultimately, they ended up suing the school for not taking the situation

more seriously and not enacting a proper punishment. So as you can see, the school

must consider the consequences of allowing this sort of prejudice to carry forward.

Not only for the welfare of the students, but for the welfare of itself as well.

Tenure is a privilege bestowed on deserving, dedicated teachers. It is a

wonderful security net for educators. But as this is not a right, there can be calls for

dismissals. Dismissal can occur due to three reasons: teacher exhibits immorality,

the teacher is incompetent, or lastly due to insubordination(2). Highlighting

immorality, Ms. Griffin’s comments can be considered immoral on the basis of

Griffin v. Watts

racism. By her making that comment, she admitted her hostility toward “the black

folk”. For this reason it is safe to assume that she would not treat her African-

American students with the respect they are entitled to. And in the end, she should

be dismissed of her tenure and her job.

Of Course, Ms. Griffin should not have made such heinous comments, but

something needs to be taken into consideration. Many times, when emotions are

running high from both sides of the argument, things can be said but not meant. Ms.

Griffin had worked at the school long enough to receive tenure. This meaning, she

completed the probationary period without incident. If she was in fact, going to

discriminate against her African-American students, surely she would have begun to

do so much sooner. And since Ms. Griffin’s actions did not align with the words she

spoke in a private conversation, she is protected under the first amendment. In

Pickering v. Board of Education(3), the court overturned the dismissal of a teacher

for criticizing the school board and superintendent under rights of free speech, and

that the teacher’s comment did not affect the day to day operations of the school.

Now, Ms. Griffin has also refrained from disrupting day to day operations. Therefore,

she is not liable for termination.

A case in Mount Olive, New Jersey, saw the suspension of two teachers for

racial slurs(4). The defendants, Ms. Geiger and Ms. Jones were initially dismissed for

calling African-American students “Negroes”. But two years later their appeal was

overturned. Ruling that the PE coaches were guilty of “conduct unbecoming” a

teacher. Instead of dismissal, the charge was reduced to 27 months of suspension,

with 10 of those months being unpaid. So Yes, Ms. Griffin certainly conducted

herself as an intolerant bigot rather than an educator, but ultimately she hasn’t

endangered any students or staff.

Griffin v. Watts

Conclusively, I believe that Ms. Griffin most certainly did a disgusting and

shocking thing for a teacher. As a teacher who works at a predominately black

school, she should be able to identify the everyday struggles they must face

already, The last thing they need on top of that is a teacher who considers them

less than what they are. Although, I find her actions ignorant, I do not believe she

should be fired. After all, this was a private conversation between her and the two

other administators. She obviously did not intend to hurt any of her students. If that

were the case she would have said it to them. But that is not to say that she should

not be punished. A suspension and transfer to a new school, I’d say, would suffice

for a punishment.
Griffin v. Watts

References

1) www.citypages.com/new/timothy-olmsted-st-paul
2) School Law for Teachers By: Julie Underwood and L. Dean Webb
3) School Law for Teachers: by Julie Underwood and L. Dean Webb
4) www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2016/06/mt_olive_teachers_fired