Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School Case Study

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

All around the world, the United States is known for its freedom and rights set up by the constitution. In “United States Supreme Court majority Opinion,” by Chief Justice Abe Fortas, “United States Supreme Court dissenting opinion,” by Justice Hugo Black, and a transcript radio interview with law professor Catherine Ross it explains that school children were suspended for peaceful protesting and their opinions on the outcome of the court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. While all the arguments were presented with evidence, the argument best presented was in the passage by Chief Justice Abe Fortas and in the the radio transcript. This is because of the use of ethos, logos, and pathos.

Justice Hugo L. Black argued against and gave a dissenting opinion from the majority. He argued the school had a right to maintain order and those armbands distracted students from schoolwork, ultimately detracting the abilities of school officials to perform duties. Additionally, concurring opinions arose from Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White. Potter argued that students are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of the First Amendment rights, and White argued that distinction between communicated words and communicated actions are what drives the majority opinion (“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District:”). In the “Tinker v. Des Moines School District” article it is written that Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” giving way to students’ First Amendment rights in the school place (“Tinker v. Des Moines School District:”). In order for a student to lose such right, the school district would now have to prove this act interfered with other students, an issue that begins to surface throughout the remaining 20th

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 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

In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, two Supreme Court justices, Abe Fortas and Hugo Black, give their testimony through writing, in which, Fortas agues in favor of the students and gives valid evidence in order to prove his case. However, Black, while he leans in favor of the schools focuses mainly on his opinion that the decision should be left to the school officials and not the courts.

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 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.

How would you feel if you weren't allowed to go to school just because of you protesting what you think is right? I’d feel pretty discriminated against, and we know for a fact that you would too. The armbands are a piece of clothing and they aren’t disrupting anything

Tinker v. Des Moines Schools took place in 1969. The historical significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Schools is that the case detailed the rights of students attending public schools. The case originated when five children, four of which were Tinker children and one a friend of the children, wanted to wear black armband to protest the Vietnam War at their school. The administrators on the Des Moines School Board created a policy that required the students to remove the armbands or they would be punished. Three of the five children were suspended from school. In District Court, the court ruled that the Des Moines School Board were justified in their actions.

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.

Tinker v. Des Moines was a case arguing over whether the students were allowed to peacefully protest the Vietnam war in schools by wearing a black arm band with a peace sign on it. The Supreme court decided that they were allowed to peacefully protest because it didn't hinder the students for learning and it didn't lead to criminal activity. This case was one of the most important cases in US history because it was a stepping stone for students to express themselves freely in schools.

Later, on the Tinkers' and Eckhardt's parents sued the district for violating their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The U.S. District Court of the Southern State of Iowa argued that the black armbands the students were wearing would cause a disruption in the classroom and distract other students. Allan Herrick, the lawyer for the district, said that limited speech should be allowed if said speech could lead to "violence, disorder, and disruption. The students’ lawyer, Dan Johnston, countered by statingthat the district had previously allowed other kinds of political speech occur and that no disruption was caused because of it. In the end the school board failed to prove that the armbands would do as they said they would, and so on February 24, 1969, the court announced that it sided with Tinker and company with a 5-person lead. It was 7-2. The court argued that the armbands symbolized pure speech and that it was completely different from the actions of the people wearing them, and because that just because they were students on school property didn't mean that they lost their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Justice Hugo Black wrote a dissent saying that the armbands did in fact disrupt

In the Tinker V. Des Moines Independent community school district case students were involved in a silent protest against the Vietnam war. The school tried to prevent the students from protesting by telling them that if they wore their black armbands they would be suspended until they agreed to take them off. The U.S. District Court sided with the school saying that the bands could disrupt the children from their work. The students appealed the case to the Court of Appeals but lost. They then took their case to the Supreme Court (Tinker V. Des Moines Independent School District).

Regarding the school’s districts claim that students would become distracted by the act of wearing armbands which resulted in the suspension of the students, the court claimed that “in order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would materially and substantially interfere with the operation of the