Should Armbands Be Suspended From Schools

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."

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 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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

“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)

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?

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

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