Tinker Vs 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

The majority opinion says that the schools did not have the right to suspend the students

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

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 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

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 Scott v. School Bd. of Alachua County two Florida students in 2003 were suspended from school for displaying images of the Confederate flag. Both students were told countless times to stop displaying this symbol. One student flew a Confederate flag on the antenna of his truck while the other student wore a T-shirt with the image clearly displayed. The principal believed the Confederate images created an “unhealthy environment and could lead to a dangerous environment at school.” The students sued the school saying that their First Amendment rights were violated. They argued that under Tinker v. Des Moines

A group of students gathered for a meeting in December of 1965. They planned to show their support for peace in the Vietnam War. John Tinker and a group of his friends met at Christopher Eckhardt’s home in Des Moines. They all agreed to wear black armbands during the entirety of the holiday seasons and to not eat on the 16th of December and New Years Eve. Their school discovered the student's plan and decided to produce a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband who would not remove it if asked would be suspended. The school would only allow the students to return if they agreed to follow the new policy and remove the armbands. John Tinker’s sister, Christopher Eckhardt, and the other students who attended their meeting all wore the armbands to school. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended since they did not cooperate with the policy. Tinker’s parents sued the school for repressing their children's self-expression and opinions. They demanded that a law would be made to forbid the school from disciplining their children for their expressive actions.

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.

He believed the students did not have the to protest. “Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students.” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District." Oyez, 8 Jun. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21.)

Frederick was if Morse violated the First Amendment, or the freedom of speech, by taking down Joseph’s banner. A Similar court case is called the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District when a group of kids decided to wear black armbands during the holiday season showing their support for a truce of the Vietnam war. When the principal heard about this plan he called together a meeting with the teachers of their school to point out the issue and demand them to suspend the kids wearing them if they refuse to take off the armbands after the first warning. Unlike how Joseph tried to spread his message across the street from a schooling event, these kids that wore the black armbands were not causing any sort of a disturbance. It says, “school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would ‘materially and substantially interfere’ with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district's actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference”(Oyez). This means that there wasn’t any kind of disturbance that these kids were causing, making a huge scene in the school, but it scared the principal that they would cause the disturbance by wearing the black armbands. Another difference between the two court cases are that in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, the kids wore their armbands inside of the school. In Morse v. Frederick, it says

On April 26, 1983, Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. There were six hundred high school students there, most of them the age of 14. The assembly was a part of the educational program in self-government that the school sponsored.