The Pros And Cons Of Wearing The Armbands

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the student’s plans on wearing the armbands to school. The principles decided to meet On December 14, 1965, to discuss this situation. They decided to adopt a policy that said any student that participates in wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it. If the students refused to remove the armbands, then that

Constitutional issues in this case are the student is not given his First Amendment rights and also the Due Process a Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to freedom of speech and due process are both laws that anyone should be following and anyone making a decision toward a case needs to consider these because they are apart of the amendments and rights to the people. However, in this case they ruled that Bethel High School was not wrong and didn't take away his

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

The School made a statement that said if anyone wears the armbands to school and that they will be suspended. The Tinker kids still showed up with the armbands leading to a suspension. The Tinker family of Course took this case to the supreme court since the armbands fall under the 1st amendment freedom of expression. The school argued that the armbands were a distraction to school activity and that they had a right to enforce the use of armbands to control the classroom environment. There was a testimony that the armbands did indeed affect the school. The armbands drew comments and students with the armbands were being made fun of for wearing them. A math teacher said he "Had his lesson period practically wrecked chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker, who wore her armband". If this is true it would be in favor of common good since the class can operate without any disturbance if they made the Tinker kids take the armbands off. The court did not rule this way and opted to protect the individual rights of the Tinkers. The court ruled that the evidence was not enough to suspend the Tinkers. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority,

The district court determined that the student’s First Amendment rights had not been violated. The court viewed the school paper as an extension of a journalism class. It was intended to be a learning experience, therefore must follow board rules for curriculum (Open Jurist, 2008). Laws mandate balancing the rights of the students to freedom of speech and the protection of other students to speech that is lewd, vulgar, or creates a substantial disturbance. The Supreme Court held this case differently from previous cases, such as Tinker v. Des Moines, which ruled in favor of the students (2008). Students were allowed to wear allow black armbands in a silent protest to the Vietnam War. This was not a part of the curriculum and was not found to be

John and Mary Beth Tinker were public school students in Des Moine, Iowa in December of 1965. The school directly violated and broke their 1st and 14th amendment by making them take off their armbands or get suspended until they agreed to go to school without them on. Tinkers had the right to wear the armbands and the school could not say otherwise

First, the court had to determine if the constitutional right to freedom of speech applied to students at school. Secondly, the court had to determine if the students had actually demonstrated speech. Lastly, the court had to determine to what degree did the school extinguish the students’ speech in conjunction with school’s expectations. In 1969, in a 7-2 majority vote in favor of Tinker (students), the United States Supreme Court ruled, “It can hardly be argued,” declared the Court, “that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Imber et al p83).

Justice Hugo L. Black argued against and gave a dissenting opinion from the majority. He argued the school had a right to maintain order and those armbands distracted students from schoolwork, ultimately detracting the abilities of school officials to perform duties. Additionally, concurring opinions arose from Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White. Potter argued that students are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of the First Amendment rights, and White argued that distinction between communicated words and communicated actions are what drives the majority opinion (“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District:”). In the “Tinker v. Des Moines School District” article it is written that Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” giving way to students’ First Amendment rights in the school place (“Tinker v. Des Moines School District:”). In order for a student to lose such right, the school district would now have to prove this act interfered with other students, an issue that begins to surface throughout the remaining 20th

"The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 12th, 1968 to a packed court house. The main constitutional question at hand was if a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and expression. Attorney Dan L. Johnson argued on the Tinker’s behalf, proclaiming that the students had the constitutional right, as per the 1st amendment freedom of speech and expression, to wear the black armbands as a form of symbolic speech. On the other hand, attorney Allan A. Herrick defended the school board’s actions, inciting that the prohibition of armbands was necessary to prevent and stifle any violence or disorder. The topic of discussion during the oral arguments centered largely upon whether Tinker’s protest was disruptive to the class environment. Johnson argued that the anti-Vietnam protest, although sparking some talk, was undisruptive to school, citing that there was no evidence of disruption in any of the classes. Herrick, conversely, argued that the Vietnam War was an inflammatory issue, and that armbands invoked violence, especially since a

We were told to let them talk, debate, etc. and while they warned that discussions could be emotional, we were cautioned to ‘keep it clean,’ meaning have legitimate, open dialogue, but do not let it turn into something not appropriate for the classroom (language, threats, etc.)” And this is where the Hazelwood School District got right. For school districts that surrounded the Ferguson area, the Michael Brown shooting was something that was supposed to be kept out of the classroom. Principals didn’t want students to be distracted from their learning by talking about something that happened outside of the classroom environment, but did the administration honestly believe that student’s we’re just going to let this one go? Of course not! This is where the actions of the teachers and administrators became crucial. For the students, they believed that they were getting the chance to express their thoughts and feelings about the situation that was happening, but what they didn’t necessarily notice, was that the teachers were turning this into a learning experience! That’s where Hazelwood got it right. Around this time, The New York Times published an article entitled, “The Death Of Michael Brown: Teaching About Ferguson.” The author of this article

For the last twenty eight years, China has been quickly growing into one of the largest economies in the world. China has accomplished this feat, in part, by radically changing their policies on trade and free market interactions with other countries. During this process, China has bought approximately one hundred trillion dollars of United States debt in the form of Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and Inflation Protected Securities (Amadeo). This debt has given China leverage against the United States which has enabled China to keep the value of the United States dollar high, while keeping the value of the Chinese yuan low. As the inflation of the dollar continues to negatively affect the

Chapters 2.1 and 2.2 •2.1 ◦ Vocabulary Words ◾Air Pressure-Air pressure is the force of air molecules pushing on an area. ◾Barometer-A barometer is any instrument that measures air pressure. ◦Review ◾How does the movement of air molecules cause air pressure?-The movement of air molecules causes air pressure because the movement of these molecules is what is pushing down on an area. ◾How does altitude affect air pressure?-Altitude affects air pressure by decreasing it as you move up.

Imagine picking up your child from school to find her in tears. Through her sobs she tells you that her day was spent in In-School-Suspension (ISS) for refusing to remove her head scarf, part of your family’s religious attire; I’m sure that you would be outraged. Your child’s uniform policy does not allow for any type of head gear to be worn, which left her stuck outside of the classroom and in ISS. In the words of the United States Department of Education, “A school uniform policy must accommodate students whose religious beliefs are substantially burdened by a uniform requirement (“Manual on School Uniforms”), this mandate is distributed to all public schools that want to implement or are currently utilizing a uniform policy. What the school did to your child is considered a violation of her religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A school district in North Carolina came to an out-of-court settlement after being slapped with a lawsuit due to the fact that they denied any exemptions from the uniform policy based on religion. Our great country was founded on the basis of Freedom of Religion, so why should we allow for it to be taken away because of a school board’s decision to adopt a uniform policy that does

run by school officials, that it could be controlled by them, "so long as their