Try It
You just examined two very different points of view from Supreme Court justices interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment and the topic of segregation. As you learned, people can have very different points of view about the same topic. The two justices in the previous activity wrote their opinions 58 years apart from one another. This partially explains why they held very different opinions. It is now your turn to explore different points of view.
People can have very different perspectives on the same topic.
In this activity, you will analyze court opinions written about the same court case. You will look for the justices' differing points of view and the details they use to present their opinions. The first case you will read about is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1960). In this case, John and Mary Beth Tinker of Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against American involvement in the Vietnam War. When school authorities asked that the Tinkers remove their armbands, they refused, and were suspended from school. The question before the Supreme Court was this: "Was the First Amendment right to freedom of speech violated by the school's actions?"
Read an excerpt from the majority opinion written by Justice Abe Fortas. Use the highlighter tool to highlight details the author uses to present his opinion. On the next page you will do an activity that compares the two excerpts.
Tool Tip
To use the highlighter tool, drag your mouse over the word or words you want to select. Once the highlighter appears, click a color and your selected words are now highlighted.
(You can download a PDF that includes the excerpt to highlight on paper.)
"…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…
…In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained…
…the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students… [and] 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 petitioners…
Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views…"
Justice Abe Fortas, 1969
Now read an excerpt from the dissenting opinion written by Justice Hugo Black.
"… As I read the Court's opinion it relies upon the following grounds for holding unconstitutional the judgment of the Des Moines school officials and the two courts below. First, the Court concludes that the wearing of armbands is "symbolic speech" which is "akin to 'pure speech'" and therefore protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Secondly, the Court decides that the public schools are an appropriate place to exercise "symbolic speech" as long as normal school functions are not "unreasonably" disrupted…
…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, 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…
…I think the record overwhelmingly shows that the armbands did exactly what the elected school officials and principals foresaw they would, that is, took the students' minds off their classwork and diverted them to thoughts about the highly emotional subject of the Vietnam war…
…It is a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he pleases, and when he pleases…
…I wish, therefore, wholly to disclaim any purpose on my part to hold that the Federal Constitution compels the teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students…"
Justice Hugo Black, 1969
