What is justice black's purpose in noting that the father of four armband wearers is "a methodist minister without a church" who is "paid a salary by the american friends service committee"?

The answer is First Amendment rights, connected in light of the extraordinary qualities of the school condition, are accessible to educators and understudies. It can barely be contended that either understudies or instructors shed their established rights to the right to speak freely or articulation at the school building entryway.  

Explanation:

This has been the indisputable holding of this Court for right around 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Barrels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in sentiments by Mr. Equity Reynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment keeps States from disallowing the instructing of a remote dialect to youthful understudies. Rules to this impact, the Court held, illegally meddle with the freedom of educator, understudy, and parent. [note 2] See additionally Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [507] (1925); West Virginia v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McConnell v. Leading group of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (agreeing feeling); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Leading group of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, stake, p. 97 (1968).

which time period is this? or is this story fictional, i'm going to need more info to answer this question