LEP Final Danessa derry


This was a case that took place in 1965, around the time the United State were involved in the Vietnam war. There were students beginning to wear black anti war bands to school. Upon learning about this the schools principal established a policy against wearing the armbands. The administration and teachers had a right to make a policy that controls student's conduct, however they did not have a right to interfere with the student's constitutional right of free speech. Some students did not listen to the policy and were suspended.

Teachers actions: the teachers and administrators came up with a policy forbidding the arm bands in case there would be an outbreak of bad behavior because of them. I think that they did what they thought was the best way to avoid bad behavior and/or an outbreak. This is a good case for teachers to remember that there is a limit to the things that you can do to caution students behavior.

Diversity: some students were not wearing the anti war armbands and this could have caused controversy in the classroom between the armband wearers and the nonwearers because of their feelings on the war. There also could have been a vietnam ethnicity student that was in the classroom that could have gotten offended through the armband or things that were being said about the war.

Technology: technology would be kind of hard to include with this case because it happened in a time that didn't have much technology, however teachers could help keep their students up to date with the war and could talk about the student's feelings about the war. How it influences their lives or could influence their lives would also be a good thing to talk about. Just by talking feelings out may cut down on the students involved because some students may be participating because other students are and they really have no idea what is actually happening.

Students benefit: some students might not see that the teachers were not trying to take away the student's constitutional right of free speech... they were just trying to not let the arm bands effect their learning. The students have a right to stand up for what they believe in and the students in this case were doing just that, but the school was just taking precautions to assure that the armbands did not effect the students learning.

Now: This case, in the present, could be something that is happening on the internet. The school has no right to do anything. This is a good case to remember when thinking of things that happen outside of school, unfortunately the teachers have no control.


Pickering V. Board of Education: this as a case that took place in Will County Illinois with a teacher that published a long, sarcastic letter to the local newspaper about how the superintendent and school board raised and spent school funds.

Teachers actions: the teacher wrote to the local paper complaining about the school that he worked in and the way that the superintendent and school board spent the schools money. The teacher stated that the article was him as a citizen, not as an employee and that it was freedom of speech.

Diversity: This was a hard case to find diversity with the students in because it was dealing with a teacher and their personal life. Depending on what the teacher is writing about, in this case it was the schools expenses so nothing to do with students. However, what if it mentioned students in the article? Or different diversities? That could get him into trouble as a teacher.

Technology: judges consider the time, place,manner, context, and consequences of the teacher's expression, and if the school's interests outweigh the teachers. So what if he had posited this on social media and not in the news paper? In 2009 there was a teacher who wrote some sexist and racist things in her personal blog. This blog, however disrupted their coworkers relations and was not considered freedom of speech.

Student's actions: I mentioned students in the diversity part, however I believe that if the article mentioned students or certain people then this case could have went in a bad direction for the teacher.


The Morrison Case: in 1969, the California Supreme Court rejected the notion that teachers can automatically be dismissed for immoral behavior. Marc Morrison was the teachers that began a homosexual relationship with a fellow teacher. The other teacher reported the incident a year later to Morrison's superintendent. The school board revoked Morrison's credentials. The Supreme Court was in favor of Morrison because they said that "immortal conduct" can mean a broad range of things and has many different earnings.

Teachers actions: because of immoral conduct and unprofessional conduct has a broad range of meanings this particular teacher did not lose his liscense. However, I do not believe that is appropriate for a teacher to do with another teacher. The court stated that it does not effect his teaching so he shouldn't lose his liscensing.

Diversity: the sexuality of the incident could have been brought up as well. With this particular incident, it involved a homosexual relationship. Would it have been the same outcome of a heterosexual couple who had a relationship? Also this would have been a different outcome if it was a boy and not a grown man coworker.

Technology: the court might have looked through the couples conversations over different peices of technology to see that if the relationship was mutual and took place off of campus, because if it was that could have been dismissed.

Students actions: it was said in court the Morrinson's teaching was not effected by this incident, however if the teacher was doing inappropriate things in front of the students or if the relationship was effecting his teaching then he would have most likely lost his teaching liscense.

Made with Adobe Slate

Make your words and images move.

Get Slate

Report Abuse

If you feel that this video content violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a Copyright Violation, please follow Section 17 in the Terms of Use.