In the 1960s, when the United States was at war with Vietnam, three public school students from Iowa opted to demonstrate their opinion on the issue by wearing black arm-bands to school. The three students – Chris Eckhardt, Mary Beth Tinker, and John Tinker – were to wear these arm-bands as a show of the idea that the war should end ( Perry-Hazan, 2015; Houlgate, 2017 ). However, before the students went through with the plan, the school district became aware of it and passed a no-armbands policy to stop them. Regardless, the students together with several others went ahead, knowing that they would be punished. It is important to note that some of the other students supported the war, but there were no fights reported. As a result of their action, the three students were sent home and told that they would be allowed back in school only if they agree not to wear the armbands ( Houlgate, 2017 ). When the student’s families decided to take the issue to court, it became one of the most significant cases regarding freedom of expression in the United States.
According to the students’ parents, it is not acceptable for anyone to be punished for holding strong political opinions regardless of their age. The case was serious enough to reach the United States Supreme Court, where the suspension of the students was found to be illegal ( Houlgate, 2017 ). The Supreme Court found that the students’ expression was peaceful and that their freedom of expression in a manner that is not disruptive was to be preserved by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, it was clear that the school district had acted outside the law to suspend the students.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There arises the question of whether school rules can override the freedom of expression, as stipulated by the First Amendment, especially given the fact that high school students are essentially non-adult citizens. By suspending the students, the school district’s actions implied that this is the case. However, even in a school environment, where students are required to comply with rules, freedom of speech is available for teachers and students alike. It follows that any rule that seeks to deny students of this freedom constitutes an illegality. According to the Supreme Court ruling in the case, it is not accurate that that either students or teachers ‘shed’ their constitutionally given rights to freedom of expression or speech on entering the school’s premises. In this context, wearing the armbands was considered to be equivalent to ‘pure speech’ ( Houlgate, 2017 ).
It is unlawful for any school official to ban or seek to punish students for a silent, passive expression of views unless such expressions are followed by disorder or disturbance on the part of these students. For any form of punishment to be given, there must be evidence of the students’ interference, tangible or nascent, with normal school operations or of contradiction with the rights of other students to be let alone or to be safe ( Houlgate, 2017 ). In the Tinker case, for instance, there was no evidence that wearing the armbands interfered with the schools’ work or the rights of the other students attending the schools.
The only way the school would be constitutionally permitted to prohibit or punish the students for wearing the armbands, was if they would have presented evidence that such prohibition or punishment was brought about something above the desire to evade the uneasiness and unpleasantness associated with an unpopular opinion. These guidelines are to be followed for any other freedom-of-expression-related case ( Houlgate, 2017 ). It is wrong for a school to prohibit certain forms of expression just because they are not in line with whatever is popular. For instance, in the Tinker case, it can be deduced that the school was supportive of the participation of the United States in the war in Vietnam. This can be seen in the fact that the school did not prohibit all symbols of controversial or political importance. Rather, it was only the black armbands that a few students wore to protest the involvement of the United States in Vietnam, which were prohibited.
It is important to note that the students who wore the black armbands did not represent the opinions of everyone in the schools. It follows that not all students were against the Vietnam War. In fact, some students made hostile remarks to the students wearing the armbands. Regardless, there was no fight or disruptions to normal school activities. Suppose there was a fight in the cafeteria or in a busy hallway within the schools’ premises. Such an occurrence would constitute a “substantial disruption” because fighting in such areas tends to significantly interrupt normal school activities ( Houlgate, 2017 ). However, it is important to consider the cause of such a fight. In case of a fight, the cause would not be the fact that some students are portraying an unpopular opinion. Rather, it would be brought about by other students’ failure to respect the freedom of speech and expression. Since the school district would be required to address the issue, they would be expected to prohibit such disregard to freedom and punish any instigators accordingly. Suppose further, that the party expressing themselves decide to fight back. In such a scenario, those who decide to fight back are also culpable and should suffer the same fate as those who started the fight. However, this should not be used as a basis to prohibit them from wearing the armbands since it cannot be considered to be the source of the “substantial disruption.”
References
Houlgate, L. D. (2017). Children, Parents and the State in Philosophy, Law and the Family (pp. 203-225): Springer International Publishing.
Perry-Hazan, L. (2015). Freedom of speech in schools and the right to participation: When the First Amendment encounters the Convention on the Rights of the Child: BYU Educ. & LJ , 421.
