Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School Analysis

“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

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.

In 1968, there was a case that went from the board of education and expanded to the Supreme Court. Everything started from student simply wearing black armbands. The court tried everything to hide the fact that they we're basically making the government look like a democracy.

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

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 1965, a group of Iowa residents, both adults and children, gathered to discuss ways in which they could protest American involvement in the Vietnam War, a very controversial issue at the time. The group decided to wear black armbands for the month of December as a form of peaceful

Significance: The case Tinker v Des Moines broadens the interpretation of student’s First Amendment rights. The students do not shed their First Amendment right when they enter school grounds. Thus extending their right of free speech, press, etc. in their school. They have the ability to freely speak about issues in their schools, etc. However, their rights are still limited in a way their speech may not disturb the learning of

Des Moines Independent Community School District is the single most influential U.S. Supreme court case on school free speech. It was noted from this case that: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate.” The 1969 case involved Iowa students and their rights to wear black armbands in school to symbolically protest against the Vietnam War. In this case the court concluded that wearing armbands is a form of symbolic speech “akin to pure speech” and that the act was a “non-disruptive, passive expression of a political viewpoint”. Furthermore, the court went on to say “that a fundamental right of freedom of expression cannot be squelched due to a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompanies an unpopular

Tinker, 393 U.S. at 511. Thus, discomfort, hurt feelings, embarrassment, or disapproval of an unpopular viewpoint do not justify a school’s restriction of silent, passive expressions of student speech. Id. See Emmett, 92 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (holding that a student cannot be suspended for non-school sponsored website featuring mock obituaries on the basis of fear of disturbance); and Tinker 363 U.S. at 512 (finding that a school cannot restrict students’ free speech to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness of an unpopular viewpoint when the school suspended students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War); and J.C., 711 F. Supp. 2d at 1107 (finding that a school cannot suspend a student over a YouTube video because of a teenager’s hurt feelings, rather it must be something more than “ordinary personality conflicts”); and Burge, 92 F. Supp. 3d at 1060 (holding that a teacher’s upset or angry feelings about a student’s comments on Facebook, such as “she should be shot,” was insufficient for a substantial disruption). Any words spoken in class, the lunchroom, or on campus that deviate from the majority can cause a disturbance, but the Constitution asserts it is imperative that students’ take the risk of voicing unpopular opinions.

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

To avoid disturbance and disruption and to create and maintain a safe learning environment, public schools often adopt policies that forbid certain acts on the part of students. Included in many of these policies are prohibitions on hate speech. The opinion of the court in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) broadly stated that students retain their first amendment rights when they enter the school, but the breadth of that statement is not without limit. Schools may narrowly curtail free speech rights to the extent necessary to maintain good

In his essay, “The Campus: An Island of Repression in a Sea of Freedom”, Chester Finn details the growing movement for political correctness at the collegiate level. He quotes the regents of Massachusetts, “There must be unity and cohesion in the diversity which we seek to achieve, thereby creating an atmosphere of pluralism” (Finn 58). However, that pluralism does not parallel the First Amendment. In this situation, the issue is not freedom of expression, but the steps taken to limit it. An article written by Maegan Vazquez for Fox News details a stipulation to the speech code at Indiana University Southeast. The code states that students are restricted to expressing their opinions in “free speech” zones. However, Robert Shibley, Senior Vice President for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, fires back “It's not just Indiana University Southeast. Colorado College, in Colorado Springs, prohibits ‘any act of ridicule...or embarrassment,’ and Northeastern University, in Boston, prohibits the use of university computer resources to transmit or make accessible material, which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive." He sums up the damage that this situation is causing with his final statement. “You're teaching [college students] that they're not equipped to live in a free society” (Vazquez). Therefore, those parents who worry about the indoctrination of their college-age children are justified in that fear as this problem is widespread and

Students as U.S. citizens have the right to express their opinions without any restraints from congress or school administrators. “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” U.S. constitution's, 1st amendment (“ Student Rights and Responsibilities in the Digital Age: A Guide for Public School Students in Washington State” 2). Knowingly, our freedom of speech is protected and no law or person can act upon it. However, we ourselves can cause our freedom of speech to become restricted. “Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right” Washington, constitution Article 1, Section 5 (“ Student Rights and Responsibilities in the Digital Age: A Guide for Public School Students in Washington State” 2). The speech must be appropriate in all circumstances, it must not discriminate or put a person at risk. If so, the person must assume responsibility and public school officials have the authority to limit their speech. In the court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), John and Mary Beth Tinker were suspended for refusing to remove their black armbands; in response to protesting the Vietnam War. The school district were sued,

While schools may punish student(s) for vulgarity, profanity, or lewdness when giving a speech during instructional time, the First Amendment places restrictions on any school’s power to legalize student(s) speech that may occur on or off school grounds. In some cases, courts have protected both the student(s) for lewdness in a speech, as well as, the school’s right to regulate authoritative discipline upon the student(s). In one Washington case brought by the defendant’s father, Bethel School District v. Fraser[1], a senior high school student was suspended and removed from the graduation ceremony based on his lewdness during a student elective speech.

In the United States, students have slightly different rights in school than outside of school. While outside of school, students are considered and viewed as normal members of society. However, when in school, different things are expected of students. That is why students have slightly different rights in school than outside. The supreme court has taken many cases related to students that cover all areas of their rights. This paper will cover three main areas of student rights: censorship, privacy, and speech.