their views upon the humanizing of education by wearing arm bands. No disciplinary action whatsoever was taken by the school officials against the students, although they had been instructed not to deviate from the formal graduation attire.
We perceive no threatened irreparable harm flowing from the proposed letter nor have the plaintiffs offered any evidence to demonstrate any likelihood thereof. School officials have the right and, we think, a duty to record and to communicate true factual information about their students to institutions of higher learning, for the purpose of giving to the latter an accurate and complete picture of applicants for admission.
The contention that the defendant school officials may attempt to prevent succeeding graduates from expressing their views in graduation exercises in June, 1970 or thereafter does not warrant a grant now of extraordinary relief by this Court in the form of a preliminary injunction, since the action of the school officials alleged by plaintiffs to be anticipated does not pose a threat of immediate irreparable harm. What future graduating students may do or refrain from doing neither the Court nor the defendant school officials can forecast. When such student action or inaction becomes reasonably determinable we think, in light of the present suit, that the school officials then in charge will be guided in their actions by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, supra, and any relevant interim decisions. If they fail so to do a remedy is not lacking.
The foregoing opinion embraces the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
Now, this 27th day of June, 1969,
It is ordered that the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction be, and it is, denied.