The following question refers to the article “High School Tells Students to Remove Anti-war T-Shirt,” in Jessica Pierce, Morality Play : Case Studies in Ethics , pp. 110-112.
In Tinker v. Des Moine (1969), The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a student who refused to remove a shirt with a picture of President Bush framed with the words “International Terrorist,” stating 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” (p. 111).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Without passing judgment on the ruling (because we do not know enough about it), I would like to make a critical comment on the citation above. I do not believe that it is so hard to argue in favor of the school against the student as in Tinker . Taxpayers are willing to fund schools so that students who graduate can be good citizens and are prepared for the workforce or higher learning. Taxpayers should not be forced to support partisan politics in schools, even when it is concealed under "freedom of speech." Students and teachers are free to wear T-shirts of any kind outside of school; hence their freedom of speech as citizens is not impaired by school regulations aimed to secure a safe and civilized learning environment (Gold, 2006).
Schools, therefore, should be allowed to forbid students from demonstrating for a political cause during school hours on school grounds and they should be allowed to prohibit a teacher or a student from advocating for a political party during class time. For one, because other venues for political expression are available, it is entirely right for schools to forbid students or employees from wearing clothes calling the President of the United States, any president, a terrorist.
In another angle, I agree with the ruling of the court because teachers and state-operated education centers in the U.S. are not subject to totalitarianism. The Supreme Court was arguably correct to rule in favor of the student because branded T-shirts are a form of symbolic speech, which is arguably safeguarded by the First Amendment. This implies that the school had violated the student’s First Amendment rights by suspending him and other students because of the protests. These forms of silent protests do not in any manner impact the institution’s capacity to function normally, and thus the school violated the student’s freedom of speech (Driver, 2018).
This ruling is, therefore, a reflection of the Court's commitment to upholding liberty in the country as enshrined in the First Amendment. The judgment significantly shows that the “right to free expression” in the U.S. supersedes all government interest to keep order in schools, hospitals, and other state-operated departments. Even school-going children have their constitutional rights that should be respected by education officials and teachers. The ruling also affirms the importance of the First Amendment in protecting symbolic speech, a broad range of nonverbal communication actions, including marching, wearing branded t-shirts with social or political slogans, holding protests symbols, conducting sit-ins, and many others.
References
Driver, J. (2018). The Schoolhouse Gate: Public education, the Supreme Court, and the battle for the American mind. Knopf Publishing Group.
Gold, S.D. (2006). Tinker V. Moines: Free speech for students. Marshall Cavendish.
