Portfolio

Artifact #2

Ana Mota
Portfolio Artifact #2

Abstract

The Constitution is a document made up of rights that are given to the people. When these

rights become threatened many choose to fight in courts for a fair outcome. In this case Ann

Griffin is fighting for her Freedom of Speech and hoping to keep her position as a teacher. Using

the cases of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill and Tinker v. Des Moines Podcast Griffin

will be able to defend her position in the school. While those against her actions will use Picker v

Board of Education to fire her, believing she is not able to keep teaching effectively due to her

views on race and the problems it can cause the school.

1
Portfolio Artifact #2

Ann Griffin, a white teacher who works in a mostly-black high school, found herself in a

dispute with the Principle and Vice Principle. The Principle, Freddie Watts, and the Vice Principle,

Jimmy Brothers, are both African American. During the argument Ms. Griffin stated that he

“Hated all Black folks”, which led many to put into doubt her capacity to teach. For this reason,

Principle Watts suggested her dismissal.

In her favor Ann Griffin can use the Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill U.S

Supreme Court case which The Court of Appeals for the Six Circuit ruled that an employer can

violate an employees Due Process Right if the employee is dismissed of his or her employment

without providing them with an opportunity to defend themselves (Cleveland Board of Education

v. Loudermill, 2018). Ann Griffin should be allowed an opportunity to tell her side of the situation

and an opportunity to defend her position in the school. If she is not given this opportunity she

will be able to declare a violation to her Fourteenth Amendment. She will be able to declare a

violation to her Right of Property, in this case her right to have employment, also mentioned in

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Podcast student made a silent protest against the Vietnam war by

wearing black armbands. This caused several students to be suspended and many believed that

the students Freedom of Speech and expression was being violated. The court ruled that that the

students had the right to protest and that their freedom of Speech is protected even after

entering their school (United States Courts). Due to this outcome by the court, it should be the

same for teachers. Their Freedom of Speech should also be protected in their classroom and

around the campus.

2
Portfolio Artifact #2

In turn the U.S Supreme Court Cause Pickering v. Board of Education can be used against

Ann Griffin. In this case a teacher was dismissed for having submitted a letter to a published

editor concerning the way that the schools where using tax money (Underwood & Webb, 2006).

The court ruled in favor of Pickering because there was no false information in the letter and the

leger was not going to interfere with the responsibilities given to Pickering and with the

completion of such (Geisel, 2015). Ann Griffin’s comment will affect her functionality in her

position due to the affect it will have on her students, their parents, and her work colleagues.

Since her comment has given her a negative reaction from most in her school she will have

difficulties keeping a steady environment in her class. The school’s efficiency will be put at risk if

any form of disruption by students, parents, or faculty occurs, organized or not.

In my Opinion Ann Griffin should be held for her choice of words that can easily be taken

as racism. She should be able to defend herself but, according to Pickering v. Board of Education

she has said something that will affect the way she works and the school she works for. In our

text book we can find that “personal attacks on administrators, board members, and/or other

teacher” is not protected as well as complaints about others’ actions (Underwood & Webb,

2006). Griffin should not be teaching at the school if she feels that way towards most of the

students who attend. After all teachers are supposed to prioritize the education of the students

and not the color of their skin.

3
Portfolio Artifact #2

References
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill. (2018, September 7). Retrieved from Oyez:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1362

Geisel, R. T. (2015, April). Speaking Out on Mattersof Public Concern: The Precarious Nature of School
Administrator Speech. Education Resouce Infromation Center , 2. Retrieved from Education
Resources Information Center : https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105566.pdf

Underwood, J., & Webb, D. (2006). School Law for Teachers Concepts and Applications . New Jersey, Ohio
: Pearson Education, Inc.

United States Courts. (n.d.). Retrieved from Tinker v. Des Moines Podcast:
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-
landmarks/tinker-v-des-moines-podcast