Black Arm Band Vietnam War

I think this court case had a really bad reason for being made into a court case. Even though there was a reason they should have found a better one to make a court case. In this court case we somehow argued for five to ten minutes with each argument that the lawyers laid on the table. We then went out and voted for money to be given to the Tinkers and to let them wear their armbands. So now the school should think of how they’re going to treat matters better instead of just kicking kids out for wearing an armband that says what they think of the Vietnam War. So I think that armbands are allowed because they’re armbands why make a big deal out

The District Court dismissed the case, upholding the constitutionality of the school board’s decision to prohibit the students from wearing the armbands. The case later moved onto the US Court of Appeals, where a 4-4 vote upheld the lower court’s decision. They then took their case to the Supreme Court.

that the school did not have the right to suspend the students for the black arm band since they

"The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

armbands at school, the Court established that students do not shed their Constitutional rights at

The court stated the arm bands were a sign of symbolic speech and that students have the right of exercising this kind of expression in schools. They also stated that in order to suppress symbolic speeches, school officials must have a valid reason such as the disturbance of that symbolic speech to the education of others. Since the black arm band was used to express the feelings of the students, the school was incorrect for the suspension of those students who participated.

However, the school board didn’t approve this action and state that whoever come to school wearing black armbands would be suspend. Mary Beth arrived to school on December 16. The principal asked her to remove her armband. When she refused, she was sent home and got suspended. Even though the protest did not disrupt classes, four other students were suspended including John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt. The school told the students they couldn’t return to school until they agreed to remove their armbands (“Tinker V. Des Moines”). Mary Beth Tinker wrote later in an essay in Peter Irons’s book The Courage of Their Convictions “We didn’t think it was going to be that big of a deal” (Mauro). Therefore, the students decided to remove their armband and retune to school after the Christmas break. The article “Tinker V. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969)” says, “the students returned to school after the Christmas break without armbands, but in protest wore black clothing for the remainder of the school year” (“Tinker V. Des Moines”). The parents of the suspended students deprecated the school action and asked for the suspensions to be revoked, but the school refused. Therefore, the Tinkers’ father filed a

The Tinker vs. Des Moines case helped determined and interpret legal rights of young citizens for the first time. A group of students made a decision to wear black armbands to school to support a peace establishing agreement during the Vietnam War. As a result, the participating students; Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker got suspended for their actions (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District).The school outlawed and attempted to penalize petitioners for a “silent, passive expression of opinion”, that didn’t cause any commotion (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist). The parents decided to sue the school for disrespecting the student’s constitutional rights of expression.

The case of Tinker v. Des Moines revolved around American's discontent for the actions the country was taking overseas in Vietnam. In 1965 in protest against the war, John and Mary Beth Tinker "wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against American involvement in the Vietnam War" (StreetLaw Inc. 1). The two were young students at a local high school. Their protest was noticed by the authorities of their school, who then promptly demanded that the two remove their armbands. This demand was denied, and the Tinkers refused to do so, claiming that it was their right to free speech that was provided to them by the Bill of Rights. As a result the two were suspended from their school (StreetLaw Inc. 1). Yet, the Tinkers were unwilling to accept the punishment, and saw the act as a violation of their First Amendment rights. They sought legal action and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court in 1968.

The 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines court case attested the First Amendment privileges of understudies in school. The Court held that a school region abused the students’ freedom of speech rights when it singled out a type of typical discourse – black armbands worn in dissent of the Vietnam War – for denial, without demonstrating the armbands would bring about significant disturbance in class.

John and Mary Beth Tinker were public school students in Des Moine, Iowa in December of 1965. The school directly violated and broke their 1st and 14th amendment by making them take off their armbands or get suspended until they agreed to go to school without them on. Tinkers had the right to wear the armbands and the school could not say otherwise

In the case Tinker V. Des Moines a group of adults and students in Des Moines decided that in protest of the Vietnam war they would wear black armbands during school. Although the protest was silent, the school feared the controversy that this would cause and implemented a new policy that forbid students to wear armbands or they would face suspension. When the day came the students were asked to remove the bands and they refused, they were suspended and asked to not return until they removed the armbands. The parents of the students decided to sue the school because they believed the schools action went against the first amendment. The supreme court came to a conclusion after analysing the majority opinion

In “from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” by Justice Abe Fortas, the Supreme Court creates a strong argument against the disruption of the black armbands. When discussing this argument the author uses a strong expression of logical evidence and a great variety of diction. In “Supreme Court Landmark Series: Tinker v. Des Moines,” an interview with law professor Catherine Ross, more empirical evidence is presented and the wide range of diction and syntax is not presented as advanced as it was in the first article.

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the student’s plans on wearing the armbands to school. The principles decided to meet On December 14, 1965, to discuss this situation. They decided to adopt a policy that said any student that participates in wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it. If the students refused to remove the armbands, then that

In the passage Tinker v. Des Miones Independent Community School District, they believe the students set themselves up for suspention. "While the record does not show that any of these armband students shouted, used profane language, or were violent in any manner, detailed testimony by some of them shows their armbands caused comments, warnings by other students, the poling of fun at them, and a warning