John And Mary B. Tinker: The Definition Of Freedom

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

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

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

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 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines originated in Iowa in December 1965 when seven Des Moines high school students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Ultimately they were suspended in which the student’s fathers sued the school district. The court case battled through the District Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court. The ultimate ruling was that Des Moines School District violated the students First Amendment rights. Years later, in Oregon in 1990, teachers a McMinnville High School started a lawful strike and in response, the school district hired replacement teachers. Following, two students wore and distributed buttons and stickers with slogans supporting the strike. The students were suspended which led to the student’s parents suing the school district where the District Court provides a ruling. Similar to Tinker v. Des Moines, Chandler v. McMinnville was ruled that the school violated the students First Amendment rights of the students.

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.

Tinker v. Des Moines: The students of a public school in Des Moines Iowa wore black arm bands to protest the vietnam war and they were suspended for disrupting learning. The supreme court ruled 7 to 2 that it was a violation of their first amendment rights and that there was no disruption, This garuntees the right to protest in school as long as it doesn't disrupt learning.

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

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 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a group of high school students in Des Moines, Iowa wanted to show their opposition to the deployment of U.S. troops in Vietnam, and decided to wear black armbands during the holiday season. The school system found out about the student’s plan to wear black armbands, so the principals of the Des Moines schools adopted a policy that required students to remove the armbands or be suspended until the student would return to school without the band. Several students, including John Tinker, wore armbands and were suspended from school. As told by the United States Courts, the parents of the suspended students sued the school district because they believed the school district violated the students rights to free speech. The parents lost in the Court of Appeals, and went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students on February 24, 1969, because, “Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the school gates.” (United States Courts)

They claimed that the wearing of the armbands was not being disruptive and they linked it close to “pure speech” which is protected under the First Amendment . Not allowing the students to wear the armbands is taking away their First Amendment rights. The Authorities had no reason to believe that the armbands would interfere with the work of the school or disrupt anyone, however the authorities actions were made to try and avoid controversy.

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