Should Armbands Be Suspended From Schools

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

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

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.

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.

When supreme court was deciding on the case of Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) there were two previous cases that were cited which where Tinker v. Des Moines Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). In the supreme court case between the Des Moines school district and a student by the name of Mary Tinker, both the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment were utilized as a means to relieve a dispute of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech. Three students that were attending a public school in Des Moines wore black armbands around their biceps as a peaceful protest against the Vietnam war. The students were suspended from school and through the appeals process, this case

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 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)

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

Black stated an unpopular opinion, saying that it was a "myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he pleases, and when he pleases,” while other dissenter Justice John M. Harlan found nothing wrong with teachers regulating armbands and their suspension was for a legitimate reason.

"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."

Does a black armband really interfere with education? The two passages answer this. While wearing black armbands, the students of Des Miones Independent Community School District, were suspended one by one. After they were told not to wear them to school. Was their freedom of speech taken, or did they set themselves up for suspention?

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 Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is “equal protection of the laws" (Legal Information Institute, 2016)

In the end, the school shouldn’t have asked the kids to remove the armbands. If the school hadn’t said anything the school wouldn’t have had to go to court. The kids wearing the armbands wasn’t a big deal, but the school made it bigger than it should have been. The problem got to the point where the whole nation knew about the case. If schools didn’t butt in on little thing all the time, they wouldn’t need to go through all of this.

All students have been given the right to express and speak freely according to the First Amendment. In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment states “‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble’” (U.S. Constitution). This gives everyone in America the right to freedom of speech, expression and to protest. Therefore, any student should have the right to say or do anything they want. In the case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), there was a group of students planning to wear black armbands and to fast on December 16th and on New Year’s eve to the Vietnam war. Prior to the protest, the school found out and created a policy which stated that any student wearing an armband will be asked to remove it and if they refuse, they will be suspended. Three students, Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt and John Tinker wore their armbands to school and got suspended. These students did not return to school until after the protest, which was New Year’s Day. They also sued the school for violating their right to freedom of expression. When the students went to court, the court agreed with them that the school violated their first amendment rights (Oyez). This connects to the First Amendment because the students are trying to express their disapproval of the Vietnam war, while not harming or offending anyone, yet the school is limiting their freedom of expression. The students are also not doing anything wrong since none of the