More handpicked essays just for you.
Relationship between culture and behavior
Relationship between culture and behavior
How does culture impact human behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Why do Philip’s classmates think that he is guilty? They know that Philip was wrong. Even though they didn’t have support or evidence they knew that Philip was wrong. These are some main reasons. Philip’s rights weren’t violated because he was causing a disturbance in the school environment, he wasn’t trying to be patriotic, and laws protect teacher’s rights.
In contrast, Philip’s rights were violated because Miss Narwin overreacted. On page seventy one, Miss Narwin sent Philip out of the classroom just because he was humming the anthem. Miss Narwin wasn’t as laid back about the rules like other teachers. The First Amendment states that all people have the freedom of speech. The Tinker Standard says that schools can’t silence students
The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the student's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.
In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the students’ first amendment right was violated. They were not able to express their opinions freely. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Classifying Arguments in the Cas...
Fraser (1986). During a student assembly, Senior, Matthew Fraser gave a campaign speech to elect his friend to student government. Fraser’s speech was rife with sexual innuendo. Consequently he was suspended and his name removed from the list of possible graduation speakers—he was second in his class at the time. In this case, the Court established that there is a monumental difference between the First Amendment protection of expression for “dealing with a major issue of public policy and the lewdness of Fraser’s speech” (“Key Supreme Court Cases,” 2015). Comparatively, Foster’s high school points out that there is a monumental difference between Foster’s desire to express his individuality and impress girls, and the school’s desire to regulate the serious public concern of gang activity within the school. Indeed, in the petitioner’s application of Tinkering and Chalifoux court cases, the defense notes, in both First Amendment cases the students were addressing a major public issue—political and religion statements. Foster’s message of individuality, however, decidedly lacked a message that would safeguard his First Amendment
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
At this point in a college freshmen’s life, they have been in school for 14 years. Throughout those 14 years, freshmen have learned the Bill of Rights like they’ve learned how to walk and the first amendment the way they’ve learned to talk. The first amendment has been engrained in a child from the first history class in 5th grade, to the fifth history class in 9th grade and the eighth class in their senior year. In those eight years, a student has the first amendment in their head to bring to college and express themselves how they see fit and how they have been socialized to do so. According to Dinesh D’Souza, Stuart Taylor and Tim Robbins freedom of speech has been inhibited and taken out by politics and political correctness and fueled heavily by the societies need for preferential treatment.
The palace of Versailles was built by King Louis XIV of France and the Escorial was built by King Philip II of Spain. The two kings each had their differences about their beliefs on how to rule, yet there are some similarities. Louis XIV believed in showing off his power and being open. Philip II was a simplistic guy devoted to Catholicism. They both had military to spread their beliefs and ideas. Despite the kings’ beliefs, their palaces reflected their ideals.
King Charles I left us with some of the most intriguing questions of his period. In January 1649 Charles I was put on trial and found guilty of being a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer and a public enemy of England. He was sentenced to death and was executed on the 9th of February 1649. It has subsequently been debated whether or not this harsh sentence was justifiable. This sentence was most likely an unfair decision as there was no rule that could be found in all of English history that dealt with the trial of a monarch. Only those loyal to Olivier Cromwell (The leader opposing Charles I) were allowed to participate in the trial of the king, and even then only 26 of the 46 men voted in favour of the execution. Charles was schooled from birth, in divine right of kings, believing he was chosen by God to be king, and handing power to the parliament would be betraying God. Debatably the most unjust part of his trial was the fact that he was never found guilty of any particular crimes, instead he was found guilty of the damage cause by the two civil wars.
Schools provide an umbrella for freedom of expression other places may not have. In school we are allowed to share and express our opinions hopefully without judgement. Teachers, for the most part, show an unconditional positive regard; refraining from public judgement in the classroom setting, allowing each and every student to feel comfortable expressing their views and feelings of their own. Although, some occurrences may infringe upon school law. On the count of threatening and potentially adverse public speech, the Itawamba School Board claims the allegations Taylor Bell made in his song were a violations and disruption of school policy. However, I personally believe the school cannot ‘police’ students outside the school grounds. More importantly, the Itawamba school district should be more concerned with the meaning of Taylor Bell’s song than any charges against him.
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
...o school. The dissenting opinion simply argued that freedom of speech is not to be used as a disturbance. Therefore, those students’ right to expression or speech was not violated because it interfered with the classroom’s learning. There is a time and place for everything, and freedom of speech should not be used everywhere.
If you’ve read the book nothing but the truth by Avi, you know that there are many sides you can take. It seems every time you turn a page you can form a new opinion. With every opinion you can form new points of view and sides. One of the main points of view is Ms. Narwin’s. My reasons for taking Ms. Narwin’s side are one, Ms. Narwin meant nothing against patriotism by sending Philip out of the class, two, Philip isn’t doing anything in the sake of Patriotism, three, Philip is a liar who gets around the truth, four, not only does the gossip of people blow things our of proportion, but the press defiantly does too, and five, there is a teacher/student stereotype that gibes the student a “poor me” reputation which makes them always right so they’ll always win.
He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the courtroom. He continued to feel this way until later in the movie when he changed his appeal to pathos. The decision to change his mind was caused by the other jurors starting to change their minds. As the one juror that felt the boy was innocent continued to try and convince the others that there was a chance that they could all be wrong, most of the jurors were starting to see the possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he could be innocent, each juror had more to think about.
Students and children have limited first amendment rights which at times subjects them to unfair treatment . Students have also fought for their rights, and few have won, but the one that have succeeded have breathed new life into students rights. An example of this is in a fiction book called Nothing But the Truth. A boy named Philip Malloy found himself fighting for his rights after singing the national anthem in a disrespectful manner during his class, which caused a major disturbance. I don’t agree with Philip’s behavior, but his case is interesting because I doubt an adult would have similar consequences.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
...irrespective of what majority says. Your participation has the ability to change what others think completely. Due to Jury number 8's participation, the ratio of 1:11 votes(not guilty:guilty) changed to an over all vote of not guilty. Communication doesn't happen non-verbally right at the beginning stages of the group development. If the movie was “11 Angry Men” with Jury number 8 excluded, the other jurors would've done just given vote once, and decided the fate of the boy. Why did the group make its decision not guilty? The answer is plain and simple: “Due to group participation and interaction.” If you were in the place of juror number 8 or any other juror, would you've spoken for the boy or not?