Read this excerpt from the dissent on Tinker v. Des Moines: The original idea of schools, which I do not believe is yet abandone
d as worthless or out of date, was that children had not yet reached a point of experience and wisdom which enabled them to teach of their elders . . . But one may, I hope, be permitted to harbor the thought that taxpayers send children to school on the premise that, at their age, they needed to learn, not teach. What is the reasoning in this argument?
That children are sent to school to learn, not to teach, so the students in this case were in the wrong by trying to “teach” others something by wearing armbands
The argument is <em>that children go to school to learn not to teach their elders ,</em> where teachers can be included. Public schools are subsidised with taxes. Bearing this in mind, we may say that taxpayers send their children to school for them to learn not to teach. This was what the taxpayers did when <em>they themselves </em>were students . Therefore, t<em>axpayers send their children to school on the premise that, at their age, they needed to learn, not teach </em>is the reasoning of the argument.
I think you need to get to 25 to be a Expert I'm a Ace and it took 50 to get this far, so 7/10 meaning you need three more brainliest to level up. Moreover tho it didn't go by that you add your brainliest later on so you will need 20 or 25 to get on Expert level I don't remember which because I been on Ace for two months now.