Introduction to Reading Cases for Intl Students Final Quiz 3

The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style, or deportment. Cf. Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 392 F. 2d 697 (1968); Pugsley v. Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250 S. W. 538 (1923). It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to “pure speech.”

Which of the following would be the best synonym for “problem” in the above paragraph?

Holding
Fact
Procedural history
Issue

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. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners’ interference, actual or nascent, with the schools’ work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone.

Which of the following best describes what the Court wrote in this section?

Facts of the case
The issue in this case
The holding of this case
The law governing this case

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. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949).

Which of the following best expresses what the Court writes in this paragraph?

The Supreme Court is distinguishing between the facts of Terminiello v. Chicago and the facts of our case to hold that the school violated the students’ Constitutional rights
The Supreme Court is citing Terminiello v. Chicago for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits the government from censoring speech simply because it is afraid that the speech will upset someone and applying that rule to the facts of Tinker
The Supreme Court is citing Terminiello v. Chicago for the proposition that the Constitution allows the government to censor speech in school because schools have an educational mission
The Supreme Court is citing Terminiello v. Chicago for the proposition that the District Court must follow binding precedent

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. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749

Which of the following best summarizes what the Supreme Court wrote here?

This is the issue – – when may schools limit a student’s speech?
This is the holding – – a school violates a student’s constitutional rights when it punishes the student for speech that would not materially and substantially interfere with the school’s operations
This is the disposition – – the District Court’s decision is reversed because the school could not show that the speech would materially and substantially interfere with the school’s operation
These are the facts of the case – – the school acted unconstitutionally

The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students. This is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process. A student’s rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without “materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” and without colliding with the rights of others. (512-513)

Based on this paragraph, what would the student in B.L. v. Mahanoy argue prevents her school from punishing her for her snapchat message?

This paragraph does not mention regulating student speech outside of school, during hours when school is not in session. Therefore, schools do not have the power to limit student speech off-campus.
This case is from 1969 and is no longer relevant
The students in Tinker probably cared about a war but no one cares about her message on social media.
B.L. v. Mahanoy presents distinguishable facts because a group of students were protesting in Tinker, and only one student was expressing herself in B.L. v. Mahanoy

But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason-whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior-materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Cf. Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Education, 363 F. 2d 749 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1966). (513)

How might the school district in B.L. v. Mahanoy rely on this paragraph?

The case is binding precedent, therefore, it requires the Supreme Court to apply the facts of Tinker to B.L. v. Mahanoy
The case provides that if a student disrupts a school when the student is in class, the school may restrict her speech
This paragraph suggests that schools can discipline a student for speech that takes place outside of class
This paragraph suggests that students do not have the right to free speech in schools.

If a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict, or the expres- sion by any student of opposition to it anywhere on school property except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise, it would be obvious that the regulation would violate the constitutional rights of students, at least if it could not be justified by a showing that the students’ activities would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school. Cf. Hammond v. South Carolina State College, 272 F. Supp. 947 (D. C. S. C. 1967) (orderly protest meeting on state college campus); Dickey v. Alabama State Board of Education, 273 F. Supp. 613 (D. C. M. D. Ala. 1967) (expulsion of student editor of college newspaper).

Which of the following best explains the Cf. signal in this paragraph?

The cases cited directly support the assertion that it would be unconstitutional for a highschool to prevent students from discussing a war in which the United States is involved.
The cases cited do no refer to a highschool limiting student speech, but refer to analogous cases where colleges violated the Constitution by prohibiting students from peacefully expressing themselves
The cases cited are just a few examples of where colleges violated the Constitution by prohibiting speech
These cases suggest that schools may prohibit free speech on campus

We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Which of the following best expresses what the Supreme Court wrote here?

The Court agrees with the holding of the lower court and the case is terminated
The Court agrees with the holding of the lower court and returns the case to the lower court for entry of judgment
The Court disagrees with the holding of the lower court and returns the case with an instruction to follow the law from this decision
The Court disagrees with the holding of the lower court and dismisses the case

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

Although I agree with much of what is said in the Court’s opinion, and with its judgment in this case, …

What does concurring mean here?

Justice Stewart agrees with the decision of the majority
Justice Stewart disagrees with the majority
Justice Stewart agrees with the majority but for different or additional reasons
Justice Stewart believes the District Court reached the right decision

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.

The Court’s holding in this case ushers in what I deem to be an entirely new era in which the power to control pupils by the elected “officials of state supported public schools . . .” in the United States is in ultimate effect transferred to the Supreme Court.’

Which of the following best expresses what dissenting means here?

Justice Black disagrees with the decision of the majority
Justice Black disagrees with the decision of the District Court
Justice Black agrees with the decision of the majority but for different or additional reasons
Justice Black believes the Court lacks jurisdiction

Introduction to Reading Cases for Intl Students Final Quiz 3

Introduction to Reading Cases for Intl Students Final Quiz 3

Quiz Summary

Information

Results

Results

Categories

1. Question

2. Question

3. Question

4. Question

5. Question

6. Question

7. Question

8. Question

9. Question

10. Question