The 1960's: The Tinker Vs. Des Moines Case

I think this court case had a really bad reason for being made into a court case. Even though there was a reason they should have found a better one to make a court case. In this court case we somehow argued for five to ten minutes with each argument that the lawyers laid on the table. We then went out and voted for money to be given to the Tinkers and to let them wear their armbands. So now the school should think of how they’re going to treat matters better instead of just kicking kids out for wearing an armband that says what they think of the Vietnam War. So I think that armbands are allowed because they’re armbands why make a big deal out

"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."

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

The first amendment, which is considered the right to freedom of speech, is a misconception to many. Not all citizens, but some, think that because of the first amendment; they can say whatever they want. Although citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of speech, this freedom of speech is viewed differently by others. Which leads to confusion as to what can be said and what cannot be said. Both court cases: Tinker v. Des Moines, and Bethel v. Fraser involved the confusion and misunderstanding of this first amendment.

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

The United States’ attention was captivated on the Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama during the 1930s. During the time period, this case revealed the brutal treatment towards African Americans more than any other event. The case began on March 25, 1931, when a group of young white and African American youths were traveling on a train to find a job. A physical encounter broke out between them and the white youths were thrown out of the train. Then they reported the incident to a stationmaster, who stopped the train. The police arrived to gather the nine African Americans and brought them to jail. Nine young African Americans were recognized as the “Scottsboro boys”. They were accused of rape of two white women on that train. The white jury convicted eight of them, all except one, the youngest at 12-years-old, and were sentenced to death. These youths were falsely charged with raping two white women in Alabama. Although there was no evidence that linked the African Americans to the white women, they were still charged with sexual assault. The two women -- fearing prosecution for their sexual relationship with the white men agreed to testify against the black youths. The Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama is crucial in both Civil Rights history and in the evolution of the Constitution.

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.

There are many Supreme Court cases in which the court case decision affected society and the accused. Also, many debates about how it affected society and the accused are up in the air. People will either look at it as positive or negative, depending on the person. In some cases, many of the accused actually did something wrong, but yet still got away with the crime. It just goes to show there is a flaw in the court system, but again, a different subject.

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.

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.

One of the most well-known Supreme Cases involving student rights was the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District decision of 1969. The verdict quickly became a precedent for many other decisions involving school issues and is very relevant today.

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

A group of students gathered for a meeting in December of 1965. They planned to show their support for peace in the Vietnam War. John Tinker and a group of his friends met at Christopher Eckhardt’s home in Des Moines. They all agreed to wear black armbands during the entirety of the holiday seasons and to not eat on the 16th of December and New Years Eve. Their school discovered the student's plan and decided to produce a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband who would not remove it if asked would be suspended. The school would only allow the students to return if they agreed to follow the new policy and remove the armbands. John Tinker’s sister, Christopher Eckhardt, and the other students who attended their meeting all wore the armbands to school. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended since they did not cooperate with the policy. Tinker’s parents sued the school for repressing their children's self-expression and opinions. They demanded that a law would be made to forbid the school from disciplining their children for their expressive actions.

In January 1972, Marvin Miller mailed out brochures promoting his commercially owned and operated pornography business. The recipients of his letters did not sign for or agree to have his advertisements sent to them. A local restaurant received four of his books, Intercourse, Man-Woman, Sex Orgies Illustrated…,and were opened by a mother and her son. They immediately reported him to local authorities and Marvin Miller was charged with knowingly distributing obscene matter. His first court appearance was with the Supreme Court where the State of California found him guilty. Miller then appealed his verdict, and filed that the decision violated his first amendment rights.