The excuse of the school board president was, that the armband policy was aimed so it won’t cause a disturbing influence on the students. However, in the book Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court by Tony Mauro says “Students and a lawyer for the Iowa Civil Liberties Union reminded the board that other students had been allowed to wear armbands in other situations, such as to mourn the death of people killed in the civil rights movement” (Mauro151). The Supreme Court was asked to reverse the suspensions and to make it illegal to violated the freedom expression of the young youth even in schools. The lawyer argued that students should enjoy the same level of First Amendment protection like adults. Besides, the students, at Des Moines public school, protested without disturbing anyone. In Fact, the students’ protest was a silent expression of opinion by just wearing the armbands (Mauro). According to Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court “The Court decided that allowing the Tinkers to wear their armbands protesting the Vietnam conflict would not substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students. Wearing the armbands was a silent, passive expression of opinion that did not involve any disorder or disturbance, and was unlikely to cause a material and substantial disruption in the school” (Mauro 151). Also, Teachers and
In December 1965 a few students in Des Moines planned to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and they planned to fast on December 16th and New Year’s Eve to support a truce in the Vietnam War. The principal and other school officials learned that the students hatched this plan and immediately adopted a no armband policy and students would be suspended if they wore armbands. On December 16th Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day John Tinker wore his armband to school and the same result occurred. They were suspended until they wouldn’t wear the armbands anymore. The students sued for violating their first amendment right of free speech. How should individual rights and the common good be balanced when they come into conflict? The common good should be put before individual rights because we have to think of the big picture not this little tiny problem. I think the school was wrong to censor the student’s free speech because they didn’t cause a substantial disruption of education.
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
In choosing a topic to research, my decision was influenced by my grandfather who was drafted at the age of 17 and served in the Vietnam War. Due to only hearing stories from other family members about his experience and never from my grandfather himself, my curiosity was my
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.
Due to the student’s suspensions, father’s of students sued Des Moines Independent Community School District. Initially the case was filed in District Court which dismissed the complaint and upheld the schools’ authority to enforce the policy because a fear of a school disturbance would result from the armband protest. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, which considered the case en banc. where the court was divided equally the case was granted certiorari. On
Tinker vs. Des Moines Is symbolic protest protected under the First Amendment of public school students? 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 issue of Tinker v. Des Moines ISD was that students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam War; however the school warned that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended, but the Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended leading to Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filing a law suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech." In the case of Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers in schools were considered unconstitutional, leading to a ban of all prayers led by teachers in school, even if the prayer was considered voluntary, stating, in a way, that there was some sort of “separation of church and state” which is not true. Lastly, New York Times v. Sullivan focused more on the freedom of the press, ruling that “actual malice” must be proven to support a finding of libel against a public figure.
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
Tinker v. Des Moines, three students wore anti-war armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. The students expressed that the school violated their First Amendment and their right to free speech or expression. The school officials claim that the three students disrupted the school education activities by wearing the armbands. “The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion” by suspending the students from school (pg.139). Even though they protest silently without disturbing other students. The students took the issue to the court to receive justice for their expression. Tinker v. Des Moines help established student’s first amendments rights in the school system by creating the Tinker test or substantial
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.
Tinker V. Des Moines Analysis 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
13. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Constitutional Question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First
The U.S is sending troops to a place most Americans couldn't point out on a map. This place is called Vietnam. My opinion on the draft is that is was extremely unfair for people that couldn't afford to send their kids to college. If your draft number was called you
That makes advisable to wait to enter in Vietnam until the society and the retail sector are more developed.