While the record does not show that any of the protesting students used profanity or were violent in any matter, there were comments made to them about their protest. Students were threatened for wearing the armbands, and students were threatened for not participating in the protest. A math teacher claimed that Mary Beth Tinker’s wearing of her armband practically wrecked his class. He had continuous arguments with her about the armband and his lesson was not taught the way he would have liked. These armbands did divert students’ minds from their regular lessons, making the armband protest become exactly what elected school officials and principals thought they would. The armbands took the students minds off their class work and got them thinking about the Vietnam War. Teachers are hired to teach and students attend school to learn, not to promote or protest political activity that goes on within our country.
Even though the Supreme Court sided with Tinker it was not unanimous, it was a 7-2 ruling.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting:
“Assuming that the Court is correct in holding that the conduct of wearing armbands for the purpose of conveying political ideas is protected by the First Amendment, cf., e.g., Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949), the crucial remaining questions are whether students and teachers may use the schools at their whim as a platform for the exercise of free speech--"symbolic" or "pure"--and whether the courts will allocate to themselves the function of deciding how the pupils' school day will be spent. While I have always believed that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments neither the State nor the Federal Government has any authority to regulate or censor the content of speech, I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases. This Court has already rejected such a notion. In Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554 (1965), for example, the Court clearly stated that the rights of free speech and assembly "do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
“In my view, teachers in state-controlled public schools are hired to teach there. Although Mr. Justice McReynolds may have intimated to the contrary in Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, certainly a teacher is not paid to go into school and teach subjects the State does not hire him to teach as a part of its selected curriculum. Nor are public school students sent to the schools at public expense to broadcast political or any other views to educate and inform the public. The original idea of schools, which I do not believe is yet abandoned as worthless or out of date, was that children had not yet reached the point of experience and wisdom which enabled them to teach all of their elders. It may be that the Nation has outworn the old-fashioned slogan that "children are to be seen not heard," but one may, I hope, be permitted to harbor the thought that taxpayers send children to school on the premise that at their age they need to learn, not teach.”
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting:
“I certainly agree that state public school authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities are not wholly exempt from the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment respecting the freedoms of expression and association. At the same time I am reluctant to believe that there is any disagreement between the majority and myself on the proposition that school officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions. To translate that proposition into a workable constitutional rule, I would, in cases like this, cast upon those complaining the burden of showing that a particular school measure was motivated by other than legitimate school concerns--for example, a desire to prohibit the expression of an unpopular point of view, while permitting expression of the dominant opinion.”
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
Saturday, March 28, 2009
6. My Argument
At first glance this case seems very simple and today most students or people for that matter probably don’t even understand why a case such as this went before the Supreme Court. What they fail to realize is that this case set the precedents which allows them or their children to express themselves in schools today. "A precedent is a court decision on which later courts rely in similar cases. In some instances, a court may be influenced by precedent; in others it may not.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo Pg. 5) For example I see kids today in school with various stickers on their notebooks, some supporting the troops fighting for us in Iraq, some even with catchy slogans about how Bush sucks. The point is expressing our views and beliefs in such ways have become a common place occurrence in all levels of educational facilities across this country, and this is one of the ground breaking cases which allowed this to happen.”The effects of law are felt throughout society. Indeed, some aspects of the law apply to all persons, institutions, and organizations.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo Pg. 3) Sure there has to be some common sense applied to such a ruling, obviously you can’t wear a t-shirt that displays any type of vulgar content or one that promotes disruption and violence. The hard part is always going to be how to know where to draw the line. That isn’t just the job of administrators and teachers; I believe it’s also the job of students and parents as well. “In our country, the principles and ideals that protect the individual liberty and freedom are incorporated in the Constitution of the United States (the federal Constitution) This historic document gives the federal government certain reasonable powers and, at the same time, clearly limits the use of those powers.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo Pg. 4) Maybe we should go ahead and take a look at that first amendment:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti)
For me one of the key phrases in that fantastic statement above is “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. This is what I feel is the core issue with the Tinker V Des Moines case. For me anyone has the right to express any opinion they like in a PEACEFUL manner. That doesn’t involve or include slogans or clothing attire that invoke or promote violent behavior. Again it’s about common sense, I know that can be difficult for most people today, but honestly a parent should know what his or her son or daughter is wearing to school and whether or not it is appropriate. Clearly the parents of all the children involved in the Tinker V Des Moines case were well aware of what their children were attempting to do, and I tend to agree with them that it was a PEACEFUL way for them to express themselves.
During the delivery of the opinion of the court Mr. Justice Fortas Wrote:
“First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in opinions by Mr. Justice McReynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents States from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. Statutes to this effect, the Court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. [note 2] See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [507] (1925); West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (concurring opinion); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, ante, p. 97 (1968).”
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
For me that clearly states that all students and teachers are protected by the constitution and all the rights therefore granted. So as long as the students’ peaceful protests do not infringe upon the rights of other individuals, then I cannot see how they could be punished under our current system of law.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti)
For me one of the key phrases in that fantastic statement above is “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. This is what I feel is the core issue with the Tinker V Des Moines case. For me anyone has the right to express any opinion they like in a PEACEFUL manner. That doesn’t involve or include slogans or clothing attire that invoke or promote violent behavior. Again it’s about common sense, I know that can be difficult for most people today, but honestly a parent should know what his or her son or daughter is wearing to school and whether or not it is appropriate. Clearly the parents of all the children involved in the Tinker V Des Moines case were well aware of what their children were attempting to do, and I tend to agree with them that it was a PEACEFUL way for them to express themselves.
During the delivery of the opinion of the court Mr. Justice Fortas Wrote:
“First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in opinions by Mr. Justice McReynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents States from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. Statutes to this effect, the Court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. [note 2] See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [507] (1925); West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (concurring opinion); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, ante, p. 97 (1968).”
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
For me that clearly states that all students and teachers are protected by the constitution and all the rights therefore granted. So as long as the students’ peaceful protests do not infringe upon the rights of other individuals, then I cannot see how they could be punished under our current system of law.
5. Rule of Law
This case became extremely important to not only our interpretation of civil law but also school law. It allows students to exercise their constitutional rights.
“The Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. Because wearing a black armband was not disruptive, the Court held that the First Amendment protected the right of students to wear one.
SINCE THEN
Tinker remains a frequently-cited Court precedent. In Morse v. Frederick, the Supreme Court will decide whether Tinker remains good law, and whether the First Amendment continues to protect the right of students to express controversial views that are not disruptive but may disagree with official school policy.”
(http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/29035res20070316.html)
But because of the ruling on this case, things have become a little difficult for school officials today regarding the dress code. Every year the dress code in the schools seem to be getting stricter. It started with the wearing of sports jerseys, some schools said that students were not allowed to wear them stating that they promoted gangs and violence. Quickly it moved to logos and sayings on t-shirts. If a t-shirt has a political message, can we really ban it from the dress code? For example if a t-shirt says “DRUGS SUCK”, even though it is promoting a positive message, the way it is stated is considered vulgar and offensive. But is it not in our students’ constitutional right to wear that shirt as a protest against drugs? Many schools have resorted to standard uniforms now, plain khaki pants or unripped and unfrayed jeans and a collared plain blue, red or white shirt. This case stood up for our constitutional freedoms, but it really threw a wrench into the way our school district is able to make decisions on dress code, they have to worry about violating the students’ constitutional rights.
“The Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. Because wearing a black armband was not disruptive, the Court held that the First Amendment protected the right of students to wear one.
SINCE THEN
Tinker remains a frequently-cited Court precedent. In Morse v. Frederick, the Supreme Court will decide whether Tinker remains good law, and whether the First Amendment continues to protect the right of students to express controversial views that are not disruptive but may disagree with official school policy.”
(http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/29035res20070316.html)
But because of the ruling on this case, things have become a little difficult for school officials today regarding the dress code. Every year the dress code in the schools seem to be getting stricter. It started with the wearing of sports jerseys, some schools said that students were not allowed to wear them stating that they promoted gangs and violence. Quickly it moved to logos and sayings on t-shirts. If a t-shirt has a political message, can we really ban it from the dress code? For example if a t-shirt says “DRUGS SUCK”, even though it is promoting a positive message, the way it is stated is considered vulgar and offensive. But is it not in our students’ constitutional right to wear that shirt as a protest against drugs? Many schools have resorted to standard uniforms now, plain khaki pants or unripped and unfrayed jeans and a collared plain blue, red or white shirt. This case stood up for our constitutional freedoms, but it really threw a wrench into the way our school district is able to make decisions on dress code, they have to worry about violating the students’ constitutional rights.
4. Reasoning of the Court
Justice Abe Fortas wrote for the majority. He first emphasized that students have First Amendment rights: “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” While schools certainly have the right to establish rules relating to: “the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style … or aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations.” This case does not involve any of those issues. “The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of the petitioners. There is no evidence of petitioners’ interference with the schools’ work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.”
He also cited previous cases to further solidify his reasoning:
“In West Virginia v. Barnette, supra, this Court held that under the First Amendment, the student in public school may not be compelled to salute the flag. Speaking through Mr. Justice Jackson, the Court said:
"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures--Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." 319 U.S., at 637.”
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
He also cited previous cases to further solidify his reasoning:
“In West Virginia v. Barnette, supra, this Court held that under the First Amendment, the student in public school may not be compelled to salute the flag. Speaking through Mr. Justice Jackson, the Court said:
"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures--Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." 319 U.S., at 637.”
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
3. Decesions of the Court
This case started in the US District Court where the complaint was filed, it prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent school officials and the respondent members of the board of directors of the school district disciplining the petitioners, and it sought nominal damages. After an evidentiary hearing:
”The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities.” (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
The case then went through the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court Held:
“1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth.
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.
3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments”
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.
”The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities.” (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
The case then went through the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court Held:
“1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth.
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.
3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments”
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
2. Tinker Vs. Des Moines Issues
“Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?” (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21)Do students have a constitutional right to wear armbands in school as a form of symbolic speech to protest the Vietnam War?
At first glance this case looks like typical students rebelling and disobeying the dress code, but there is more to it than that. Students were not trying to get attention or disobey; they were peacefully showing their support for a truce with Vietnam. The judgment on this case is not surprising, the District Court ruled that the school officials could tell the students what to wear and that this protest was a disturbance to the normal school day. The school district has enforced dress codes for the past fifty years, and will continue to do so. Enforcing the dress code limits the distractions, and provides students with a better education. “Family and consumer sciences professionals can play an important role in clarifying item specific dress codes related to the physical and psychological security of students.” (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ768263&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ768263) The hard question is where to draw the line. Can we literally take away students constitutional rights when they enter the school? The answer is no, we are unable to take away anyone’s constitutional rights. If the students wear an armband in silent protest, they are protected under The Free Speech Clause of The First Amendment. As long as they are not causing disturbances or interrupting a normal school day then they should not be punished. If they do cause a disturbance, can they be punished for wearing the armbands? If not, then what can the school district officials charge them with? What reasons will they give them for suspension? This case is one of many that deal with Freedom of Speech in public schools, and it certainly will not be the last. The line between freedom of speech and school officials determining dress code is a thin one. After refining and reviewing the case the Court of Appeals, decided that the students were in fact acting within their constitutional rights.
At first glance this case looks like typical students rebelling and disobeying the dress code, but there is more to it than that. Students were not trying to get attention or disobey; they were peacefully showing their support for a truce with Vietnam. The judgment on this case is not surprising, the District Court ruled that the school officials could tell the students what to wear and that this protest was a disturbance to the normal school day. The school district has enforced dress codes for the past fifty years, and will continue to do so. Enforcing the dress code limits the distractions, and provides students with a better education. “Family and consumer sciences professionals can play an important role in clarifying item specific dress codes related to the physical and psychological security of students.” (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ768263&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ768263) The hard question is where to draw the line. Can we literally take away students constitutional rights when they enter the school? The answer is no, we are unable to take away anyone’s constitutional rights. If the students wear an armband in silent protest, they are protected under The Free Speech Clause of The First Amendment. As long as they are not causing disturbances or interrupting a normal school day then they should not be punished. If they do cause a disturbance, can they be punished for wearing the armbands? If not, then what can the school district officials charge them with? What reasons will they give them for suspension? This case is one of many that deal with Freedom of Speech in public schools, and it certainly will not be the last. The line between freedom of speech and school officials determining dress code is a thin one. After refining and reviewing the case the Court of Appeals, decided that the students were in fact acting within their constitutional rights.
1. Tinker V. Des Moines Facts
In December of 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines, Iowa held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. They were meeting to discuss the Vietnam War and what they could do to protest against it. They decided to show their support for a truce by fasting on December 16th and New Years Eve. Among these decisions they also decided to wear black armbands during the holiday season. Among this group of people included Mary Beth Tinker who was a 13 year old student in junior high school, her brother John F. Tinker who was 15 years old, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt who was 16 years old.
Mr. Justice Fortas delivered the opinion to the court. The Principals of all Des Moines Schools became aware of this plan and quickly came up with a plan to discourage students from participating. They met on December 14th, 1965 and adopted a policy that stated that any student wearing a black armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if they refused they would be suspended until the student decided to return without the armband. This new policy was made clear to all the petitioners and their parents. On December 16th and 17th of 1965 seven students out of eighteen thousand wore black armbands to school. “When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.” (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21)Three of these seven included Mary Beth Tinker, John F. Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt. Mary Beth and Christopher wore their black armbands to school on December 16th, and were both suspended from school and told they could only return without the armbands. The next day John wore his armband to school and he was also suspended and told he could only return to classes without the armband. Only five of the seven students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school. They returned to school after their planned period of protest which was after New Years Day. After the suspension the school administration issued a statement listing the reasons for banning black armbands. It referred to a former student who had been killed in Vietnam with friends still in school and if any kind of demonstrations existed, it might evolve into something which would be hard to control. They stated that the policy was directed against the principle of demonstrations since, according to them, schools are no place for demonstrations and if students didn’t like the way our elected officials were handling things, it should be handled with a ballot box and not in the halls of our public schools. Mr. Tinker promptly filed a complaint on behalf of his children based on the violation of their right to free expression. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court, it prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent school officials and the respondent members of the board of directors of the school district disciplining the petitioners, and it sought nominal damages. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court dismissed the complaint. It upheld the constitutionality of the school authorities’ action on the grounds that it was reasonable in order to prevent the disturbance of school discipline. Mr. Tinker took the case to the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered the case en banc. The court was equally divided and the District Courts Decision was accordingly affirmed, without opinion. The District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Mr. Justice Fortas delivered the opinion to the court. The Principals of all Des Moines Schools became aware of this plan and quickly came up with a plan to discourage students from participating. They met on December 14th, 1965 and adopted a policy that stated that any student wearing a black armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if they refused they would be suspended until the student decided to return without the armband. This new policy was made clear to all the petitioners and their parents. On December 16th and 17th of 1965 seven students out of eighteen thousand wore black armbands to school. “When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.” (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21)Three of these seven included Mary Beth Tinker, John F. Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt. Mary Beth and Christopher wore their black armbands to school on December 16th, and were both suspended from school and told they could only return without the armbands. The next day John wore his armband to school and he was also suspended and told he could only return to classes without the armband. Only five of the seven students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school. They returned to school after their planned period of protest which was after New Years Day. After the suspension the school administration issued a statement listing the reasons for banning black armbands. It referred to a former student who had been killed in Vietnam with friends still in school and if any kind of demonstrations existed, it might evolve into something which would be hard to control. They stated that the policy was directed against the principle of demonstrations since, according to them, schools are no place for demonstrations and if students didn’t like the way our elected officials were handling things, it should be handled with a ballot box and not in the halls of our public schools. Mr. Tinker promptly filed a complaint on behalf of his children based on the violation of their right to free expression. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court, it prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent school officials and the respondent members of the board of directors of the school district disciplining the petitioners, and it sought nominal damages. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court dismissed the complaint. It upheld the constitutionality of the school authorities’ action on the grounds that it was reasonable in order to prevent the disturbance of school discipline. Mr. Tinker took the case to the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered the case en banc. The court was equally divided and the District Courts Decision was accordingly affirmed, without opinion. The District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
