This case dealt with the denial of freedom of expression (speech) which is protected by the First Amendment.
Students, John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt decided to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. When school officials learned of their plan, they implemented a policy stating that anyone who wore the black armbands to school would be suspended until they returned to school without the armbands.
The students wore the black armbands to school and were suspended on the assumption of school officials that the armbands would cause disruption and disorder. The students were allowed to return to school after New Year’s Day when the period for wearing the armbands had expired.
The court ruled that this expulsion was a violation of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech or expression. They stated that the wearing of the black armbands was “closely akin to “pure speech””. They also concluded that the school’s action was based on their fear of what might happen (disruption and disorder) rather than what really did happen.
I completely agree with the court’s decision in this case. The First Amendment clearly states our right to free speech and freedom of expression. As a future administrator, I understand the concern for possible disruption and disorder, but the key word there is possible. We cannot assume what will happen. We all know what happens when we assume things. We can only deal with the disruptions when they happen.
blogged by Tiffany
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree with the blogger and the court. These students were not disrupting school and the principal should not have threatened suspension without a hearing. This group clearly had thwir right to free speech abd their right to due process infringed upon by the principal. On my campus I will respect the student's right to free speech until it because lewd and/or disruptive to my campus. Posted by Fat Boy Slim
guilo10:
I completely agree with the blogger. It was a quiet none distruptive demonstration. The clearly did not have due process and were denied their right to free speech by their principal.
As for me I would much rather have to deal with this type of 'distruption' than have to deal with type of outbursts than vocal ones. In 1969, this was probably an extreme demonstration for the time.
posted by: kido5150
Okay I disagree with the US Supreme Court, and the blogger. I understand that nothing happened(no disruptions, distractions)... but at the time that this case took place, there were many riots. How do we know that the principal did not have the foresight to prevent a riot that might have resulted in students being harmed? We don't.
If you see a person approaching the school with a gun, do you let him come in? No. You lock the campus down and try to prevent the POSSIBILITY of something bad from happening.
Present day, do we allow students to wear gang related clothing, colors, etc? No. Why not? Based on what the court and blogger have said, we are in violation of the Free Speech Clause (1st Amendment).
The students and their parents had a choice... not to wear the armband and they could attend school. Wear it, refuse to remove it and be suspended. "Outside the classrooms, a few students made HOSTILE remarks to the children wearing the armbands, but there were no threats or acts of violence on SCHOOL PREMISES." (last full paragraph, page 367 - Alexander) Sometimes things are said and without further thought (especially from a high school student), heated words and then a physical altercation may occur.
I think that each instance needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis and that the safety and welfare of the student body, as a whole needs to be considered. I am all for a student having the right to protest, make a speech and/ have their say (without lewd comments), but I will prevent that 'freedom' if I feel like it could put the safety of my campus at risk.
I completely agree with the blogger. Although we may have many students whose views are different than our own, it doesn't make them a suspendable offense. Clearly, this was a "silent" protest, not meant to cause disruption. As administrators, we cannot live in fear. All we can do is take things as they come, and try our best to appropriately handle a situation given the actual facts of the case. We'd suspend everyone if we were always trying to prevent what might happen.
Posted by Kiska
I am in complete agreement with the blogger and the court in this manner. The student's speech in no way disrupted the school day. The principal seemed to be in a "power surge" and more concerned with his agenda. He should not have threatened suspension, and he should have provided students with their right to due process.
A silent protest of wearing black armbands, seems much more appealing to me than a campus full of students walking out in protest. This was a battle that was not worth fighting.
As a principal, we need to choose our battles carefully.
doglover
Well, it had to start sometime. The shift of power from the school to the students. I think that in 1969 it made more sense for the school to keep control over the students. Giving students a freedom of speech at this point in history is a really bad idea. Many of these students went on to college and might even have been some of those who were killed in so called PEACEFUL PROTEST. THis was a bad message to send to the students of the time and it fueled more problems than it resolved. The safety of the students and the high school campus should have taken president over a point of law.
RumRunner
Post a Comment