Tinker Case Summary

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 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

December of 1965, a group of adults and a few students of Des Moines Independent Community School District including John Tinker, Mary Beth and their friend Eckhard gathered to show they disfavor towards American involvement in the Vietnam war. Few students decided to wear black armbands to express their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam. The three Tinker students among with their friends were suspended for wearing the armbands. All of them did not return to school until after New Year. Acting through their parents, they all went to the Federal District Court to ask for injunctions but the court declined the idea, forcing them to take the case to the Supreme

“In December, 1969, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam War.”1 These students decided to wear black armbands to show their support. These students included: John F. Tinker, Hope Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, Paul Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt. Whenever the Principal found out about their plan, he stated that any student found wearing these black armbands would be suspended.2 Despite the Principal’s warning, the students still wore the black armbands.3

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 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.

In December of 1965, a group of Des Moines students held a meeting at 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt’s house to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They came to the decision that they would wear black armbands during the holiday season and fast on December 16 as well as New Year’s Eve. When the principals of the Des Moines school learned about the plan, they met on December 14 to create a policy stating that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, and would be suspended if they refused to do so. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were consequently sent home. The next day, John Tinker did the same thing, and was also suspended. The students did not come back to school until after New Year’s Day, the planned end of the protest.

The 1960’s was the height of many civil rights and anti-war protests. During this time, student activist became more radical. It began mostly on college campuses when students would organize “teach-ins” to express their opposition to the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines. This case changed the history of America because it gave students freedom to voice their opinions. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the question of whether or not the First Amendment’s free speech rights extend to students’ symbolic speech can be analyzed by examining the background, considering the arguments, and reviewing the impact.

However, the school board didn’t approve this action and state that whoever come to school wearing black armbands would be suspend. Mary Beth arrived to school on December 16. The principal asked her to remove her armband. When she refused, she was sent home and got suspended. Even though the protest did not disrupt classes, four other students were suspended including John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt. The school told the students they couldn’t return to school until they agreed to remove their armbands (“Tinker V. Des Moines”). Mary Beth Tinker wrote later in an essay in Peter Irons’s book The Courage of Their Convictions “We didn’t think it was going to be that big of a deal” (Mauro). Therefore, the students decided to remove their armband and retune to school after the Christmas break. The article “Tinker V. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969)” says, “the students returned to school after the Christmas break without armbands, but in protest wore black clothing for the remainder of the school year” (“Tinker V. Des Moines”). The parents of the suspended students deprecated the school action and asked for the suspensions to be revoked, but the school refused. Therefore, the Tinkers’ father filed a

In 1969, three young activists walked into school and were told they could not symbolically express themselves. Without these teens carrying out this simple act of rebellion, students today would lack basic rights in the school place, as they would have no outlet outside of the home to express their views. In order to understand Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District one must examine the history behind the case, analyze the case itself, and evaluate the impacts on modern society.

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 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.

December 1965 in Des Moines Iowa John and Mary Beth Tinker decided to show they are opposition to the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands with peace signs on them to school. The administrative office quickly found out about their plans making a new school rule banding armbands anyone who wore these armbands and then refused to take them off if asked would then be suspended.

The case of Tinker vs. Des Moines to place at Warren Harding Junior High School in Des Moines, Iowa and dealt mostly with Your freedom of speech and freedom of expression on school grounds. On December 16th, 1965, Fifteen-year-old John Tinker, Thirteen-year-old Mary Beth Tinker, Eleven-year-old Hope Tinker, Eight-year-old Paul Tinker, and Sixteen-year-old Christopher Eckhardt wore black armbands to schools to protest the ongoing Vietnam War. But then the principal of the school then told them that if they proceed to enter the school grounds with the black armbands a part of their dress attire, they will be suspended for the rest of the year until they decide to not return with the black armbands. They then return to school on January

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.