The case involving students and their right to wear armbands caused a spur about the implications of the first amendment rights. The differences in ruling were about the ability of the students to express themselves and the motive behind their actions. The district court ruled in favour of the school administration with claims that the action of wearing armbands disrupted discipline among students. The case was taken to the Supreme Court after the court of appeal judges failed to agree. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the students saying the wearing the armband was a form of expressing themselves through speech, which is their first amendment right.
The arguments that were raised for and against the case raised a question on the difference at which the American constitution and that of the school administration need to be applied. It is rather obvious that the when it comes to following and applying the law, the American constitution will always outstand other laws. On the other hand, there is a need for school administrations to implement laws that will instil discipline among students. Schools at high school levels mostly contain students that are under the age of eighteen. Even though all law still applies to them, their age limit and the sensitivity of the school environment makes the application of some first amendment rights a little bit tricky.
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court did not dismiss the fact that there is a need for school administrators to come up with laws to protect the welfare of the student’s body. In fact, first amendments rights are only valid to individuals as long as they do not disrupt the peace of others or infringe their rights in the process (Rappaport 34). The wearing of the armbands was interpreted differently by the Supreme Court, and hence leading to the ruling. The school administration looked at the act of wearing the armbands as a way of communicating a political message, which would likely divide the school and hence disrupting its normal learning activities.
Looking at the ruling keenly, it is clear that the judges felt that there was nothing wrong with the students expressing their political interests as long as it was done peacefully. In suspending the students, the school administration could have considered the fact that if the practice continues, students will be divided along political lines. However, at the time of their suspension and even ruling of the case, there were no cases of indiscipline reported among the students. The Supreme Court hence concluded that the school took an unfair action on the students who were peacefully expressing their interests (Rappaport 18). There was also a clash on the reason behind the armbands where they were originally worn to mourn a dead spirit. Once the action was considered to move from social to political, the school considered it a threat and hence banning it.
The essence of the law is to protect the society from injustice practices. Laws differ depending on the institution. The issue always arise when people are governed by more than one constitution and have to merge them to ensure justice. The above case proves the fact that obtaining justice is all about how the argument is made rather than the law itself. The school administration may have been right in their action but lost the case simply because they did not have a substantial argument to defend their decision.
Works cited
Rappaport, Doreen. Tinker Vs. Des Moines. StarWalk Kids Media, 2012.
