Moines court decision, and he indicated that although the decision specifically permitted black armbands, he would permit armbands of any color.
On Friday, May 8, 1970, many students were on class trips. The students not on class trips were required to attend school, but there was a high absentee rate of students not participating in the class trips. Bennett Wise, voluntarily remained home from school on that day.
On Monday, May 11, 1970, Bennett Wise returned to school wearing a third armband with the words "stop the killing". At or about 10:30 Bennett's teacher sent him to Dr. Sauers' office. Dr. Sauers requested Bennett to remove the armband, and upon his refusal suspended him until he returned without it. Dr. Sauers objected to the wearing of the armband which could have caused disruption of the educational processes in the senior high school. Bennett Wise remained out of school on Tuesday, May 12, 1970, Wednesday, May 13, 1970, when the instant suit was filed, and by agreement of counsel, he returned to classes on Thursday, May 14, 1970. On the following Monday, May 18, 1970, the school board of the Marple-Newtown School District met in regular session that evening, and a resolution was adopted as follows: "Mr. Muroff moved and Mr. Burgess seconded, that the action of Dr. Sauers and Mr. Kingsbury in suspending Bennett Wise on May 7th and May 11th be upheld, and that his suspension be terminated, effective immediately, without condition." The said resolution was adopted unanimously.
Although Bennett Wise has since graduated and the critical period long past, the case is not rendered moot because the suspensions remain a part of the school record. Plaintiff specifically asks us to order that the records of suspension be expunged.
This Court has jurisdiction in this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), (4).
The temporary restriction by the school against the wearing of the armbands with the words "strike", "rally", and "stop the killing" was not related to the suppression of "pure speech", or to the popularity or unpopularity of the ideas sought to be expressed thereby, or the administrator's view of the same. The restriction was related to the potentially disruptive situation at the school at that time. Dr. Sauers and his colleagues were interested in and had the responsibility to insure the continuing education and safety of all students. This Court will not now second guess their judgment. We feel that the limited restrictions imposed upon the students were reasonable and necessary. The refusal of a student to obey the reasonable requests in this case was insubordinate and unprotected activity. See, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969).
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.