Tinker Vs Des Moines Case Study

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

On December 16, Christopher Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker wore their black armbands to school and were sent home. The next day, John Tinker wore his armband and was also sent home. Because of the protest, the students did not return to school until after New Year’s Day. This was the date they planned to end the protest.4 Parents, of the children who were sent home, were furious.

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.

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

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

The hearing took place on November 12,1969. During the hearing, leading attorney for the Tinkers, Dan Johnston, argued that the action of the students was censored under the First Amendment and their symbolic speech caused no disturbance. On the other hand, the school argued that they should have the duty to enforce and maintain order and all discretion should be left at the hands of the school and not the court (Anker 379). Around the same time, another case with the same problem arose. In the Burnside v. Byars case, there was a group of black students that attended an all-black public school in Philadelphia, Mississippi. To protest the racial segregation happening in their state, they wore freedom buttons. About thirty of the students who wore the buttons were suspended. The Court of Appeals, in the fifth circuit, said that the students have free speech rights and in order for the school to ban the buttons, the school must have evidence of disruption; otherwise, it is considered arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be sustained (“Tinker…1969”). In the ruling of the Burnside v. Byars case, the Court of Appeals stated that in order for the school to interfere with students’ free rights, they must have evidence that it was interfering with school orders. However, Judge Stephenson, judge in the United States Court or Appeals, claimed that schools should not be limited to how they restrict

Decision of the Court: The court ruled (7-2) in favor of the students, stating that the armbands were a symbolic representation of speech and that the students do not lose their Constitutional rights in

The case of Tinker v. Des Moines revolved around American's discontent for the actions the country was taking overseas in Vietnam. In 1965 in protest against the war, John and Mary Beth Tinker "wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against American involvement in the Vietnam War" (StreetLaw Inc. 1). The two were young students at a local high school. Their protest was noticed by the authorities of their school, who then promptly demanded that the two remove their armbands. This demand was denied, and the Tinkers refused to do so, claiming that it was their right to free speech that was provided to them by the Bill of Rights. As a result the two were suspended from their school (StreetLaw Inc. 1). Yet, the Tinkers were unwilling to accept the punishment, and saw the act as a violation of their First Amendment rights. They sought legal action and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court in 1968.

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.

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 issue of Tinker v. Des Moines ISD was that students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam War; however the school warned that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended, but the Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended leading to Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filing a law suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech." In the case of Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers in schools were considered unconstitutional, leading to a ban of all prayers led by teachers in school, even if the prayer was considered voluntary, stating, in a way, that there was some sort of “separation of church and state” which is not true. Lastly, New York Times v. Sullivan focused more on the freedom of the press, ruling that “actual malice” must be proven to support a finding of libel against a public figure.

There were only two concurring opinions from Blackmun and Rehnquist. Mr. Blackmun thought the picketing was a method of expressing an idea. Also, he believed it conducted subject to broad state regulation and nevertheless recognized the deficiencies of laws like Chicago?s ordinance. A relative precedent case of Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) is Edwards v. South Carolina. There were approximately 190 petitioners in the case whom were all black that marched to the South Carolina State House grounds. This was where the small groups would walk to a public area protesting the policies of segregation in their state. This particular march was peaceful and was conducted in an orderly fashion. A group of police officers confronted the group and ordered them to disseminate or to yield to detainment. The marchers did not refuse but instead they began to sing religious and patriotic songs. They were detained and were later convicted on a charge of breach of the peace (Edwards v. South Carolina). Another relative precedent would be Frisby v. Schultz (1988). Sandra Schultz and Robert Braun both strongly opposed abortion and collected fellow citizens with the same opinion together to picket in front of the home of a local doctor who performed abortions. Soon after, the city of Brookfield, Wisconsin passed an ordinance against all picketing in front of residential homes except for disputes pertaining to labor. After following the

The rights of Cyrus were not violated as it is stated in the Tinker v.s Des Moines case. The Court ruled, “On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the authority the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution is probably the most compelling piece of evidence for this case. “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment). Basically, these students had every single right to be able to go to school and not be harassed by racist protesters. President Eisenhower had every right to protect these students, because their constitutional rights state that they have the right to equal protection of the