Tinker Vs. Des Moines: Textual Analysis

Tyler Bonin’s The Atlantic article “The Challenge of Teaching War to Today's Students”, published in November 8th, 2017 addresses the “Challenge” of this article with “I realized that it was not simply a matter of disinterest, but rather that the subject only existed to them in an abstract manner”. Tyler Bonin, in his Rationale, interprets this challenge as a congestion to the future of the current generation in America as today’s students will be “exposed to an entirely new set of policies and institutions have been developed in the name of the “War on Terror.””. Thus in Bonin’s postulation, ultimately it is the civic responsibility of today’s students to understand and assess violence being

The central issue in the Stromberg case was whether the state of California violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by making it illegal to display red flags that suggested support of organizations that dissented organized government or favored anarchic action (Communism). This case was a significant landmark in constitutional law because of the Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a First Amendment right, symbolic speech, from state infringement. It impacted American society in a positive way because it expanded the freedoms in the First amendment and created the doctrine that would be used in cases involving subjects like American flag and draft card burning. The Supreme Court ruled accurately, the government cannot outlaw speech or expressive conduct because it disapproves the ideas expressed. “Nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not the ideas it expresses.” (pg.25)

In the Tinker vs. Des Moines court case the judges decided for Tinker even though both arguments from the lawyers where not well made. The judge’s decision was made by who they thought they should go for even though both sides had bad arguments and made a bigger deal of this case than what it should really be.

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

College students were aware that over 38,000 American troops had been killed in Vietnam and if something wasn’t done on the streets of America, many more would die. With tensions running high all over America’s college campues, the unrest of the anti-war movent was just about to get worse. Nixon’s decision to engage more troops into a sensless War, sparked a new wave of protests that errupted into many violent standoffs. Unknown to the country, this unrest would take a fatal and trajic turn.

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 author believes that the war had a positive outcome but it was unnecessarily disturbing. The accomplishments made during the war has indeed undermined the failures, with misconstrued views. People today think this war was “The best war ever.” Adams creates a realistic picture of the war by describing the major aspects as well as topics that have little coverage to the masses. This includes; the development of teen culture, treatment of homosexuals who took part in the armed forces, minority combat during the war, the physical and mental scars, and economic reorganization of war production.

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.

The anti-war protests of the 1960s was a response of resentment by minorities and young educated college students against the nation’s desire to participate in war against Communism in Vietnam and conduct a military draft. The protests, originally began with peaceful public demonstrations by activists, who were nonviolent; however, the peaceful demonstrators were frequently attacked and victimized by the police and other citizens, who did not share their same opinion. Throughout the peaceful protests the activists suffered many beatings in the hands of the police and as a result, many of the activists claimed the right of self-defense and turned to taking offensive actions against their oppressors including the police and other citizens. Later, the scene of violence and mayhem quickly shifted to college campuses, to which college students began protesting the draft (Gurr, 1989, pp. 183-185). At the time the average age of an American soldier serving in Vietnam was 19 and students quickly rebelled after realizing that young Americans were legally old enough to be drafted to fight and die, but were not yet legally allowed to vote or drink alcohol (UShistory, nd.).

It was not just a war in Vietnam or in America, but the war became a symbol (Gioglio, 20).       One of the most prevelant type of protests were based on the imparting of knowledge. These were known as teach- ins. The teach-ins were really the first step in raising conciousness to the impact the war could have(Fever, 11). They were the first things to get people informed and involved.

If someone were an intellectual and they shared any slight negative views towards the war, they may lose their job. Also, one was not allowed to associate with people that held negative views. This abridged on the peoples’ freedom of speech, which is the 1st amendment to the United States of America’s Constitution and contained within the Bill of Rights. Anything that is related to the enemy becomes taboo. People are not allowed to speak the enemy’s language, read their books, or listen to their music.

On September 13, there was a lecture held in the pottle auditorium about the consequence of World War II in Louisiana. Mr. Jerry P. Sanson of Louisiana State University at Alexandria came to SELU to share his knowledge in this field. According to him, during the second world war, civil liberties was suppressed and even president Roosevelt tried to suppress it. But, Samuel Harpus, a state-senator opposed him and caused the war to resign. The outcome of the war had already affected the political situation, but it was not all. It even effected some schools, mostly those that were violating the Intelligent Patriotism Program.

In 1919, in the wake of World War I, Charles Schenck was arrested on the charge of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by encouraging eligible United States citizens not to comply with the draft during the war. He took his case to the Supreme Court claiming that his freedom of speech granted to him by the First Amendment had been violated. In a unanimous vote, the court ruled that in times of “clear and present danger” the freedom of speech clause could be revoked. This case served as a precedent in times of national crises and has allowed the government to better protect the citizens of the United States.

An interesting fact concerning the protests by working class in the period during and succeeding WWI was not initial demands for revolutionary change or worker’s rights, but instead forcing government to provide basic life necessities of food and shelter during times of rationing. Though there were differences in geography and outcomes, the goal was the same in demanding survival over social and economic change. The politicization of these movements did not occur until their male counterparts, who did hold memberships in unions and radical political groups, sympathized with their female equivalents and participated in these marches did violence or government crackdowns occur. It was