1

Spencer Cofer

EDU Portfolio Artifact #2

College of Southern Nevada

 2

In the following case we have the two administrator’s vs the teacher at the school and

basically what I have gotten is that they are trying to remove the teacher for words she

apparently spoke to the two principals she said she “hated all black folks”. This somehow

became leaked and brought forth negative reactions from most colleagues black and white and

the two administrators also were black in skin color.

Now I have found many good cases for both sides of this case but let’s start with the pros

of the school or the reasons the school could be correct and win this case. Most of the pros and

cons come up to free speech and how it is interpreted which it is in many different ways but in

this case and in the ruling of Tinker v. Des Moines just as students are not stripped of free

speech when they enter the school the teacher is not stripped of these rights either but that

teacher has to follow the rules and expectations mad by the school and administrators. This

means any breaking of these rules is then therefore up to the administrators for the school even

with the tenure the teacher has.

Also another court case that justifies what the school and administrators want to do by

dismissing the teacher is the ruling in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul where it is more

clearly stated that yes speech that is hateful cannot be monitored any speech that can invoke

some anger or action towards someone who said it cannot be considered free speech. Such as we

have here with the teacher stating she “hated all black folks” this could invoke students and

teachers of color to want to do harm so it is not free speech from what I am interpreting. Many

pros for the school but it is very hard as free speech is a very hard case for anything as it is so

broad.

Now let’s look at the cons or in other words the pros for the teachers and cons for the

school. Many of these as well as the pros for the school have to do with the interpretation of free
 3

speech. First and foremost is the obvious ruling that was stated in the case of Texas v. Johnson

which stated “even offensive speech is protected as free speech” which is very true it is still

protected as free speech in the first amendment. This is hard to make a case for though as stated

above if it invokes harm to another person or can it is not protected then so things do get very

tricky.

Another good case made for the teacher is found in the case Chaplinsky v. New

Hampshire which states to go further that offensive speech is protected as free speech as long as

it does not harm or threatening to harm anyone. As we have here the teacher clearly states that

she “hated all black folks” she does not go on to say she want to harm any black folks or plans to

harm any black folks or even threatens any black folks so therefore she is protected in what she

has said. Both cases are good and tricky to choose which right of free speech is best or makes the

most sense in this case but I have a good idea on how it should be ruled.

So after reading and looking up all these cases and learning all I can know about free

speech and what is and what is not protected by free speech my decision comes down to this. The

teacher is in no wrong and is very much so protected in her free speech to state what she did

state, however the school also is in there right to dismiss and or fire whoever they want even if

the teacher has tenure if the school has certain rules set in place which I’m sure they do or have a

contract that teachers sign talking about language and fire able or dismiss able actions. I am sure

that this type of speech is not protected in the school or teacher contract even with the teachers’

tenure and if it is then they have no basis or right to dismiss the teacher especially if she is

protected with her tenure.

 4

Reference Page

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

5
6
7
8