Question

Read the excerpt from the Tinker v. Des Moines US Supreme Court decision in 1969. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression. What did Mary Beth and John Tinker do at school that was found to be a protected form of expression by the Supreme Court? 1 They started arguments in their classes with fellow students. 2 They led a protest rally outside the school during lunch. 3 They wore black armbands as a nonverbal show of protest. 4 They convinced other students to protest by staging a walkout.

Answer 1

The correct answer is 3. They wore black armbands as a nonverbal show of protest.

Explanation:

Tinker v. Des Moines was a law case that involved a group of students who wore armbands to protest, this included the Tinker family, and the principals of the Des Moines schools in Iowa that opposed the decision, and created a policy to end this behavior.

The excerpt presented explains the decision of students "Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth" to show their position against the Vietnam war, and how wearing the armbands was not interfering with schools "They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs" and therefore this was only a form of expression. According to this, Mary Beth and John Tinker action of wearing black armbands as a form of protest (Option 3) was found to be a protected form of expression by the Supreme Court.