Summary Of The Barr And Melon Case

In this case, the general tension within and surrounding the School should be sufficient to help support the School in proving a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption. This case is similar to Barr and Melton, as all three of these cases had pre-existing tension that resulted in or could contribute to a substantial disruption occurrence. Examples of prior tension in this case include: the past illegal steroid use scandal, general community disapproval of medical marijuana, and the brawl that resulted from students wearing apparel with a controversial expression. (R. 20, 21). These past instances are comparable to the contentious environments described in Barr and Melton that ultimately led to the schools restricting speech in fear of disruption. This case is discernable from Tinker, as in Tinker, there was no evidence of pre-existing tension surrounding the school nor was any tension created as a result of the
In Barr, some students skipped school, as they feared the possibility of a violent situation. In Melton, police had to come to school to stop violent confrontations from happening. The schools in these cases intervened by restricting the expression encompassing this violence. This case is similar, as a near-violent confrontation broke out in which the Student and another student were yelling at one another until each of them were red in the face. (R. 27). Had the School not stepped in here and restricted the Student’s expression, more near-violent and possibly entirely violent situations could have possibly occurred following. The Tinker case is different here as in Tinker; the court found that there were not any near-violent or violent acts that occurred on the school premises while the students wore the