Black Armbands Case Study

The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 12th, 1968 to a packed court house. The main constitutional question at hand was if a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and expression. Attorney Dan L. Johnson argued on the Tinker’s behalf, proclaiming that the students had the constitutional right, as per the 1st amendment freedom of speech and expression, to wear the black armbands as a form of symbolic speech. On the other hand, attorney Allan A. Herrick defended the school board’s actions, inciting that the prohibition of armbands was necessary to prevent and stifle any violence or disorder. The topic of discussion during the oral arguments centered largely upon whether Tinker’s protest was disruptive to the class environment. Johnson argued that the anti-Vietnam protest, although sparking some talk, was undisruptive to school, citing that there was no evidence of disruption in any of the classes. Herrick, conversely, argued that the Vietnam War was an inflammatory issue, and that armbands invoked violence, especially since a

"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."

In December of 1965 Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended from the Des Moines public school system for wearing black armbands supporting a truce during the Vietnam War (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, n.d). Mary Beth and John’s younger siblings, Hope and Paul, also participated in the protest (Tinker v. Des Moines, 2013). Mary Beth, John, and Christopher’s suspension was lifted following the Christmas break when the students’ planned protest ended and they no longer were going to wear the armbands (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, n.d). The students’ parents sued the school district on behalf of their children (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community

In 1969, a group of students filed a lawsuit against their school district claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated because the school district wrote a policy that prohibited them from wearing black armbands in a silent protest of the Vietnam War. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ruled that students are entitled to their First Amendment rights as long as they are not causing a disruption to the school environment. This paper outlines the procedure and rulings in the case as well as other legal rulings that have expanded on when censorship of students is protected in public school settings as well as provides a personal reflection on how such matters can impact my future as a school administrator.

John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Echardt all attended the same public school. They decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They were asked by the school to remove the armbands but the kids refused to do so. This resulted in the suspension of all three students. Through their guardians, the scholars sued the school region for infringing the scholar’s right of expression and looked for a directive to keep the school from suspending them. The Tinkers took to court. The Tinkers claimed that they were suspended for essentially expressing their views on the war. They thought this move made by the school

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

Introduction of Case: In the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, three students, John F. Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and Mary Beth Tinker were all suspended from school for wearing black armbands to school to protest the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. The three students who had been suspended from school filed a claim stating that the banning them from wearing the armbands and the suspension was against their Constitutional right, under the First Amendment (Tinker

The District Court decided that the students who petitioned the Vietnam War sought nominal damages. Also the court believed what the school did was under its constitutional authority to prevent the disturbance of school discipline, 9258 F. Supp. 971 (1966). The case moved on to the Court of Appeals. The case was considered en banc, which means all the appellate judges were there to hear it. The court was equally divided on the case, so the District Courts decision was affirmed with no opinion from the Court of Appeals, 383 F.2d 988 (1967). The court recognized the action of the students wearing the armbands to protest the Vietnam War was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This case was so close to “pure speech”, which is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. The District Court figured that it can’t be argued that neither teachers nor students should lose their constitutional rights when at school. The problem was that the students freedom of speech rights collide with the school authorities rules. There was no evidence showing that the protest disrupted any classes or work of the schools. The District Court came to their final conclusion after looking the case over again. They decided 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. In no way was the school authorities trying to deny the student’s constitutional rights. Although the students were suspended from school for protesting the Vietnam War, it was not because they weren’t protected by the First

John and Mary Beth Tinker and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the war in Vietnam. The student refused to take off armbands and then were suspended. Parent sued the school and said it was a violation of their First Amendment. On the ruling the Supreme Court sided with the students said As long as an act of expression doesn't disrupt class work or school activities or invade the rights of others, it's acceptable.

The Supreme Court held that while wearing black armbands, the petitioners had been quiet, passive, non disruptive and their behavior did not infringe on others' rights. The Court held that 1.) The student's conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2.) First Amendment rights are available to both teachers and students while at school, but subject to application in view of special characteristics of the school environment. 3.) That the school could not

In the Tinker v. Des Moines case two public high school students and a junior high student decided to wear black armbands to school to make a peaceful protest against the Vietnam War and to show their support for a truce. They were aware that their school policies had changed a few days prior that stated any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to take it off or be suspended until the student would return to school without it. The students refused but wanted to fight back. They filed a complaint seeking nominal damage.

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

Some people thought that they should not be allowed to wear the black arm bands to school. The school was making excuses like "The arm bands are a distraction" to prevent the children from wearing the arm bands. The people in the Supreme Court agreed with the school, that

In the case Tinker v. Des Moines, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. The supreme court has drawn a conclusion that the suspension of the three pupils was illegal. In the review of the case, the supreme list several main points to justify the Protest of pupils.