Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Essay

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 District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

armbands at school, the Court established that students do not shed their Constitutional rights at

The first amendment, which is considered the right to freedom of speech, is a misconception to many. Not all citizens, but some, think that because of the first amendment; they can say whatever they want. Although citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of speech, this freedom of speech is viewed differently by others. Which leads to confusion as to what can be said and what cannot be said. Both court cases: Tinker v. Des Moines, and Bethel v. Fraser involved the confusion and misunderstanding of this first amendment.

The 3 teenagers ended up filing a Civil Rights lawsuit in federal court through their fathers, asking the court to issue an injunction that would bar the school system from further disciplining students in the same situation as well nominal damages. The district court sided with the school board, deciding that the school’s fear of this protest causing disruptions of school discipline was within reason. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling on an evenly divided vote. The students ended up bringing their case to the Supreme Court after that.

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

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) defined that students do not lose their Constitutional rights when they enter the school. This case has helped shape school and district policies and regulations since it was handed down, including the policies of Regional School Unit #40. Other cases, such as Bethel v. Fraser (1986), have clarified that schools can punish lewd speech and language. In more recent times, several Circuit Court decisions have looked at speech on social media written outside of school, but are later brought into school through the Internet. In general, those decisions have upheld that the speech must cause a substantial disruption, or be likely to do so, for an administrator to punish the

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 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

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 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.

The Fourth Amendment states that a search is constitutionally unreasonable unless there is a warrant issued supported by probable cause. The interests in schools are different because they must maintain order and discipline of children and their Fourth Amendment rights must be balanced. One type of search that has arisen lately is the strip search. The Supreme Court had not directly ruled on the constitutionality of strip searches until 2009 with the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding. This paper will break down the topic of strip searches in public schools into three parts. Part 1 will show how the Supreme Court decisions have defined the rights of school children under the Fourth Amendment. The second part will compare and contrast different court cases that have dealt with strip searches. The third, and final part, will look into responses to the problem and recommendations that schools should use when dealing with strip searches.

In “from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” by Justice Abe Fortas, the Supreme Court creates a strong argument against the disruption of the black armbands. When discussing this argument the author uses a strong expression of logical evidence and a great variety of diction. In “Supreme Court Landmark Series: Tinker v. Des Moines,” an interview with law professor Catherine Ross, more empirical evidence is presented and the wide range of diction and syntax is not presented as advanced as it was in the first article.

That’s when the Tinker vs. Des Moines case came to be. In the Tinker vs. Des Moines case I believe Fortas had the stronger argument because he used the First amendment as evidence yet he provides more detail and prof to defend the students. He says “First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or

During the Vietnam War, a group of students that went to a public school in Des Moines, Iowa organized a silent protest against the warfare. To show their anguish, they planned to wear black armbands with peace symbols. When the principal got wind of this remonstration he threatened the students if they wore the armbands again they would be suspended. Despite the warning the undergraduates still persisted and wore the armbands, they were suspended. During their suspension the parents of the students sued the schools for violation their children's right to free speech. A U.S. district sided with the school, that wearing armbands could disrupt learning. The students appealed the ruling to a .S. Court of Appeals but lost and took their Case