and indeed in all schools will be ready, able, and First Amendment respecting the freedoms of willing to defy their teachers on practically all orders. expression and association. At the same time I am Turned loose with lawsuits for damages and reluctant to believe that there is any disagreement injunctions against their teachers as they are here, it is between the majority and myself on the proposition nothing but wishful thinking to imagine that young, **747 that school officials should be accorded the immature students will not soon believe it is their widest authority in maintaining discipline and good right to control the schools rather than the right of the order in their institutions. To translate that States that collect the taxes to hire the teachers for the proposition into a workable constitutional rule, I benefit of the pupils. This case, therefore, wholly would, in cases like this, cast upon those complaining without constitutional reasons in my judgment, the burden of showing that a particular school subjects all the public schools in the country to the measure was motivated by other than legitimate whims and caprices of their loudest-mouthed, but school concerns—for example, a desire to prohibit maybe not their brightest, students. I, for one, am not the expression of an unpopular point of view, while fully persuaded that school pupils are wise enough, permitting expression of the dominant opinion. even with this Court's expert help from Washington, to run the 23,390 public school *526 systems in our Finding nothing in this record which impugns the 50 States. I wish, therefore, wholly to disclaim any good faith of respondents in promulgating the purpose on my part to hold that the Federal armband regulation, I would affirm the judgment Constitution compels the teachers, parents, and below. elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students. I dissent. U.S.Iowa 1969. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community *** School Dist. 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731, 49 Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting. O.O.2d 222 *527 I certainly that state public school authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities END OF DOCUMENT are not wholly exempt from the requirements of the
and indeed in all schools will be ready, able, and willing to defy their teachers on practically all orders. Turned loose with lawsuits for damages and injunctions against their teachers as they are here, it is nothing but wishful thinking to imagine that young, immature students will not soon believe it is their right to control the schools rather than the right of the States that collect the taxes to hire the teachers for the benefit of the pupils. This case, therefore, wholly without constitutional reasons in my judgment, subjects all the public schools in the country to the whims and caprices of their loudest-mouthed, but maybe not their brightest, students. I, for one, am not fully persuaded that school pupils are wise enough, even with this Court's expert help from Washington, to run the 23,390 public school *526 systems in our 50 States. I wish, therefore, wholly to disclaim any purpose on my part to hold that the Federal Constitution compels the teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students. I dissent. *** Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting. *527 I certainly that state public school authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities are not wholly exempt from the requirements of the First Amendment respecting the freedoms of expression and association. At the same time I am reluctant to believe that there is any disagreement between the majority and myself on the proposition **747 that school officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions. To translate that proposition into a workable constitutional rule, I would, in cases like this, cast upon those complaining the burden of showing that a particular school measure was motivated by other than legitimate school concerns—for example, a desire to prohibit the expression of an unpopular point of view, while permitting expression of the dominant opinion. Finding nothing in this record which impugns the good faith of respondents in promulgating the armband regulation, I would affirm the judgment below. U.S.Iowa 1969. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731, 49 O.O.2d 222 END OF DOCUMENT