Here is the outline for a very important essay, though it seems…

QuestionAnswered step-by-stepHere is the outline for a very important essay, though it seems…  Here is the outline for a very important essay, though it seems pretty easy to understand, I have adhd so it’s a lot for to take in because there’s so many parts which overwhelms me, making is hard to find a place to start and how to go from there. But anyway, can someone break this into bigger chunks that are easier to read, understand, and simple. And give me advice on where I should start. Also, this is written in 3rd person so I can’t use any “i” or  “you”s.  (I really struggle starting on essays and i’m hoping someone could help.)  Constitutional Rights CBA: Tinker v Des Moines, 1969  Step 2: Debate the issue. Find clear pros and cons. Research sources are below. Step 3: Decide on a claim. “In the case Tinker v Des Moines, schools SHOULD/SHOULD NOT be allowed to limit students’ freedom of expression.” (delete the one you don’t want: should or should not) Step 4: BACKGROUND information: Using case sources below, note the 5 w’s of the case below: Who is involved?:What happened?:When did it occur?:Where did it happen?:Why was it important?:How?(Source?__________) Step 5: Gather evidence and explain each piece to support your claim. The outline below will show your understanding of the case. Be careful to use facts, then tie your opinion to your claim. Cite evidence after quote (Source).Evidence #1: Quote from sources. (source #1 is…?)Explanation for #1: (This is your opinion and probably the opinion of a Supreme Court justice. Use terms like ‘individual rights’ and ‘common good’.)Evidence #2: Quote from sources. (source #2 is…?)Explanation #2: (Remember to talk  about the 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression- this might be a good spot!)Evidence #3: Quote from sources. (source #3 is…?)Explanation for #3Evidence #4: Quote from sources. (source #4 is…?)Explanation for #4COUNTERARGUMENT: Give a quote  from the case that supports the opposite position. You might start like this: “Some people say…” (source #5 is…?)Reminder: minimum sources are four, so you may certainly repeat a source, but use at least four of the many provided.Explanation for the counterargument:Rebuttal Evidence: This is the evidence that disproves the counterargument. Think of this as the ‘yah but…’ statement. Quote from sources. (source #6 is…?)Explain the yah but statement: (maybe how the counterargument harms the common good or individual rights). Summary statement (restate your claim and summarize how this right ties in with your own life. It may be a good idea to use another quote that goes along with how you see things going in the future, maybe something about civic virtues): Sources#1 Tinker video:  https://edpuzzle.com/media/605bb5641d63c0426d18970e You probably took notes here about 1) students and teachers do not shed rights at the schoolhouse gate; 2) No material and substantial disruption…  #2 Junior Scholastic, January 2, 2018. https://junior.scholastic.com/issues/2017-18/010818/first-amendment-101.html#960L Source: Junior Scholastic article: Does the First Amendment allow me to say and wear whatever I want at school?It’s not quite that simple. School officials have the right to limit your clothing choices and speech if they think either might interfere with learning. But schools can’t ban personal expression simply because it’s controversial or unpopular. Case in point: In 1965, Mary Beth Tinker, 13, was suspended for wearing a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War. She sued the district, and the case made it to the Supreme Court.The Court ruled in her favor, saying that she had a right to peacefully express her views. In the 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, the justices declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The ruling is still considered the most important of all school-related First Amendment cases….Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirement of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” the prohibition cannot be (allowed).  The record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities…(junior.scholastic.com)   #3 Source: (teachtci.com) Case: The United States is involved in a controversial war. To show their opposition to the war, on December 16, 1965, two students wore black armbands to their public school, even though the school had a policy, created December 14, 1965, against wearing them. School officials say the policy against armbands is to avoid arguments or fights between students who support the war and those who oppose the war. Evidence showed that a few students made angry remarks to the armband wearers outside the classroom. However, there were no threats or acts of violence on the school grounds. There was no sign that schoolwork had been interrupted. It was also revealed that the school district did not ban all political symbols. They allowed campaign buttons.  After hearing the evidence, the court ruled that the school authorities took reasonable action to prevent a possible disturbance of school discipline. They stated that the school’s concern for safety, and their responsibility to all students for the common good, limited individual rights of student freedom of expression. The families appealed. Three years later the case was heard by the U.S Supreme Court., which considered these issues: Do the students have the right to wear black armbands to school as freedom of expression? Do school officials have the right to limit student freedom of expression for the common good? Why or why not? (teachtci.com)In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines School District, the Court voted 7-2 in favor of the students, upholding their First Amendment rights. The Court held that the prohibition of armbands was a violation of First Amendment rights because students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech . . . at the schoolhouse gate.” (teachtci.com)                         #4 Source: oyez.orgIn December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day, John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year’s Day, the planned end of the protest.Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district’s actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision without opinion.Question:Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students’ freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?Yes. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district’s actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference. No. Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. In his separate dissent, Justice John M. Harlan argued that school officials should be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than a legitimate school interest. (oyez.com) #5 Source: (landmarkcases.com)Summary of https://www.landmarkcases.org/cases/tinker-v-des-moines The Court ruled that students are entitled to exercise their constitutional rights, even while in school. The justices reasoned that neither “students [n]or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Because student expression is protected by the First Amendment even while in school, school officials must provide constitutionally valid reasons for regulating student expression. The justification for the regulation must be more than “a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” School officials must show that the expression would cause a “material and substantial disruption” with the discipline and educational function of the school. The Court decided that allowing the Tinkers to wear their armbands protesting the Vietnam conflict would not “substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.” Wearing the armbands was a “silent, passive expression of opinion” that did not involve any “disorder or disturbance,” and was unlikely to cause a “material and substantial disruption” in the school. In addition, the justices noted that the school officials specifically targeted anti-war armbands but did not prohibit the wearing of any other symbols conveying a political message. Reasoning that “the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion … is not constitutionally permissible,” they concluded that “school officials do not possess absolute authority over their students.” In his dissenting opinion, Justice Black acknowledged that while the content of speech generally cannot be regulated or censored, “it is a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he pleases, and when he pleases.”  This was exactly what school officials were trying to prevent. Justice Black believed that the majority’s rulingAccording to Justice Black, the Tinkers’ armbands did indeed cause a disturbance by taking students’ minds off their class work “and divert[ing] them to thoughts about the highly emotional subject of the Vietnam War.” was too restrictive on school officials, overly limiting their control over their schools, and subjecting public schools to “the whims and caprices of their loudest-mouthed … students.” Important passage from the majority opinion written by Justice Fortas: In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” the prohibition cannot be sustained.  Question to ponder to help you write about the majority (7-2) point of view (maybe this question is similar to an intro sentence):According to the decision, what must a school prove in order to justify a rule prohibiting its students’ rights to free speech?Important passage from the dissenting opinion written by Justice Black: I think the record overwhelmingly shows that the armbands did exactly what the elected school officials and principals foresaw they would, that is, took the students’ minds off their classwork and diverted them to thoughts about the highly emotional subject of the Vietnam war. [D]etailed testimony by some of them shows their armbands caused comments, warnings by other students, the poking of fun at them, and a warning by an older football player that other, non-protesting students had better let them alone. There is also evidence that a teacher of mathematics had his lesson period practically “wrecked” chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker, who wore her armband for her “demonstration.” Even a casual reading of the record shows that this armband did divert students’ minds from their regular lessons. It is a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he pleases, and when he pleases. 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. Question to ponder to help you write about the dissenting point of view (maybe this question is similar to an intro sentence):Do you think the discussions/disruptions resulting from the students’ protests were significant enough to justify the suppression of speech? If so, describe protest behavior that would not be significant enough to justify the suppression of free speech. If not, how serious would the disruption have to be in order to justify the suppression of free speech? (landmarkcases.com) 9th Grade Constitutional Issues CBA Learning Target 4 – Excellent 3 – Proficient 2 – Partial 1 – MinimalStrong claim  Shows understanding of how a position on an issue attempts to balance individual rights and the common good. Background Paragraph:Shows understanding of key ideals and principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and/or the U.S. Constitution and relationship to your issue.  Writer’s claim is strong, based on facts, and convincingly argued throughout paper. Substantial elaboration on both individual rights and the common good.Background Paragraph:Provides substantial background evidence on the issue by describing:•what the issue is•who is involved in the issue•why this issue is important by relating it to a  constitutional principle. Makes a claim. Takes an adequate  position on the issue. Adequate  elaboration both individual rights and the common good.Background Paragraph:Provides adequate background on the issue by describing:•what the issue is•who is involved in the issue•why this issue is important. Takes a position on the issue.  Considers EITHER individual rights OR the common good.  Background Paragraph:Provides  background on the issue by describing at least two of the following:•what the issue is•who is involved in the issue•why this issue is important. May or may not take a position on an issue.  Does NOT consider either individual rights or the common good. Background Paragraph:Little or no evidence/facts or used. Facts are usually/always inaccurate.Evidence used is excellent, specific, clear, and logical. Shows understanding by explaining  analysis and evaluation regarding how key ideals and constitutional principles set forth in the documents relate to public issues relevant to your argument.  Analyzes and evaluate the logic of positions in primary and/or secondary sources to interpret an issue or historical event  Provides four or more pieces of strong evidence that clearly and effectively explains your position and one counterargument. Evidence used is excellent, specific, clear, logical, and is effectively used to:____________________Clearly and effectively explain how and why a constitutional principle logically supports your position on the issue. At least: ___ 1 piece of evidenceClearly and effectively explains an argument against one or more counterarguments..At least:__ 3 pieces of evidenceThat clearly and effectively supports your claim Provides three or more pieces of strong evidence that clearly and effectively explains your position.Evidence used is excellent, specific, clear, logical, and is effectively used to:____________________Clearly and effectively explain how and why a constitutional principle logically supports your position on the issue. At least: ___ 1 piece of evidenceClearly and effectively explains an argument against one or more counterarguments.At least:__ 2 pieces of evidenceThat clearly and effectively supports your claim Provides reason(s) for the position supported by evidence.Evidence used is vague, unclear, may not be logical, and incomplete. Used to: __________________Loosely based on facts; ineffective or missing explanation of how a constitutional principle would support your position on the issue. At least: __ 0/1 piece of evidenceLoosely or missing explanation of  an argument against one or more counterarguments.At least:__ 0/1 piece of evidenceThat clearly and effectively supports your claim Provides few or no  reason(s) for the position with little or no supporting documents or evidence. Position is supported almost completely by opinion. No counterargument addressed.Uses appropriate format to cite sources within an essay.   Cites four or more credible sources within the paper.  Cites three or more credible sources within the paper. Cites two or more credible sources within the paper. . Makes no explicit references within the paper  to one credible source that provides relevant information. ORDoes NOT cites sources within the paper.           Arts & HumanitiesWritingENGLISH 01Share Question