Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Running head: TEACHER RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Teacher Rights and Responsibilities – Artifact 2

Lauren Ritzer

College of Southern Nevada


2

TEACHER RIGHTS AND RESPONSBILITIES

In this case, we see can see an issue between two principals and a teacher. Freddie Watts,

principal, and Jimmy Brothers, assistant principal, are African-American administrators assigned

to administer a predominantly black high school. Our white, tenured teacher. Ann Griffin, during

a heated conversation with the two administrators stated that she “hated all black folks.” When

this statement came out, it caused negative reactions among colleagues both black and white.

The principal recommended dismissal based on concerns regarding her ability to treat students

fairly and her judgment and competency as a teacher.

In our first case, Pickering V. Board of Education (1968), we see that a Illinois teacher of

a high school, published a sarcastic letter in their local newspaper. This paper was criticizing way

the school board and superintendent spent school funds. The board fired Pickering because the

letter contained false information. The school stated, “it damaged the professional reputation” of

administrators, and was “detrimental to the administrators of the school” Marvin Pickering

thought this was a freedom of speech, and the United States Supreme Court, agreed. The court

felt it was not direct towards people.

In our next court case, Tinker V. Des Moines Independent School District (1969).

Students, John and Marybeth Tinker, and their friends named Chris, wanted to wear wristbands

to school. The wristbands were black armbands to protest the war in Vietnam. School officials

told them to remove the arms bands. The students refused to listen to the school officials, and

were soon after suspended. The kids and parents sued the district for their First Amendment right,

Freedom of Speech. The Supreme Court sided with the students. “Students and teachers don’t
3

shed their rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” As long as it did not

disrupt class work, school activities, or invade the rights of others, this is acceptable.

The next two following court cases show us the school winning court cases. Our first one,

New Jersey V. TLO (1985). Terry was a fourteen-year-old freshman at Piscataway High School in

New Jersey. She was caught smoking in the bathroom by a teacher. The teacher questioned her

and asked to see her purse. Inside the purse was marijuana, and cigarettes. Police was then called

and Terry admitted selling drugs at school. Terry was found guilty of possession of marijuana

and placed on probation. An appeal for conviction was requested by Terry, claiming the

searching in her purse violated her Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches

and seizures”. In favor of the school, students have “legitimate expectations of privacy”. The

schools have responsibility for “maintaining an environment in which learning can take place”

Our last case, Vernonia School District V. Acton (1985). James Acton is a twelve-year-old

student at Washington’s Grade School in Vernonia, Oregon. James wanted to try out at the

football team, but they required a drug test. James parents did not want him to do the drug test,

and felt he was not required to. The school suspended James from sports for the season. In result,

James, and his parents, sued the district for mandatory testing without suspicion of illegal activity,

which would be a unreasonable search for the Fourth Amendment. The outcome was the school

district was in favor of The Supreme Court. The schools must balance students right to privacy

against the need to make school campus safe and keep others away from drugs. “Students who

voluntarily participate in school athletics, have reason to expect intrusions upon normal right and

privileges, including privacy.

I think that all of these court cases were very fair ruling. I agree with the outcome on all

of them. I am always going to side with anything that protects safety of others and self. I believe
4

there are rules and policies for a reason. I feel that something has had to happen to enforce these

rules, and it really is for the best reasoning. I believe the school is looking out for all of us in the

safety regard. Even if it is something as small as saying you shouldn’t do something required of

you.
5

References

(PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 1968)

(TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DISTRICT , 1969)

(NEW JERSEY v. T.L.O., 1985)

(VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J V. ACTON, 1995)


6
7

West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943).
8
9
10
11
12

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi