Why Do Students Wear Black Armbands?

John and Mary Beth Tinker and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the war in Vietnam. The student refused to take off armbands and then were suspended. Parent sued the school and said it was a violation of their First Amendment. On the ruling the Supreme Court sided with the students said As long as an act of expression doesn't disrupt class work or school activities or invade the rights of others, it's acceptable.

One of the most well-known Supreme Cases involving student rights was the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District decision of 1969. The verdict quickly became a precedent for many other decisions involving school issues and is very relevant today.

The failure of the school’s principal to call a board meeting to hear student’s list of concerns, was the result of the walkout of students at Edcouch-Elsa School. Furthermore, some concerns were drawn up by students in regards to the policy and conditions in the school. The Mexican-American students threw the doors open of classrooms and left the school to protest their anger. All of this was due to the increased school policy segregation of race. Examples of this, the High school classes were organized according to race and students were not

He was suspended for 10 days by the school, Beussink sued and the courts agreed finding that the principal made a legal error in punishing Beussink simply because he did not like the content of the student’s home page.“Disliking or being upset by the content of a student’s speech is not a good reason for limiting students speech under Tinker,” the judge wrote(Hudson 7). The judge acknowledges that under Tinker school officials cannot punish students just because they don’t like the context they found. “...school officials may not consor students speech unless they can reasonably predict that the speech will cause a substantial disruption of the school environment or hurt the rights of others”(Hudson 4) The courts argues that the school does not have the authority to punish students unless what they say can reasonably create a substantial disruption of the school environment or hurt the rights of others. So that is an example of when the courts are in favor of the students, a total opposite of when the court are bias to the

Fraser. On April 26, 1983, The student in question, Matthew Fraser delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for a student office at an assembly that was held during school hours as part of the school’s program in self-government. Throughout this speech, he repeatedly referred to his successor with an “elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.” Before the speech was given he conferred with teachers on if the text was appropriate, two of which stating that it wasn’t. Shortly after the speech was given, the principal issued the student and three day suspension and revoked his right to speak at graduation. His father soon filed a suit, considering it a violation of his First Amendment rights. The matter was resolved by the Burger Court. The case was ruled in favor of the school with a 7-2 vote, The majority opinion, given by Chief Justice Burger, concluded that since the school was simply enforcing it code of conduct-their belief that his profanity interfered with the educational process-was justified.The fact that he had been warned by two teachers beforehand to not give the speech meant that he was aware of its risks, further justifying their reasoning. This was supported by justices Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor. The dissenting opinions, given by both judge Marshall and Stevens, stated that the school failed to show how the speech was considered

contended that the refusal to admit the children to the school was a denial of

A group of friends met at 16 year old Christopher Eckhardt’s house to discuss their protest of the Vietnam war. The children wanted the Vietnam to end with a truce, and planned on peacefully protesting the United States’ involvement. They planned on wearing black armbands around the Christmas holiday, and planned on not eating any food on December 16th, and christmas eve. However, when the school district found out, they had an emergency meeting on December 14th. The school board decided to suspend anyone that didn’t take their wristbands off. On the first day, two children were suspended, and a third student on the second day. The parents sued the school for violating the student’s rights, and wanted to make sure their children weren’t punished. The Supreme Court debated whether or not the school’s prohibition against wearing armbands in public schools, as a form of protest, violates the student’s freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment. Seven justices believed that the school district represented pure speech that is separate from the actions of those participating in the protest. The Court declared that students do not lose their rights when they walk onto school property. The Court also decided that school districts need to be able to prove that the actions interfered with the school’s operation in order to take away student’s freedom of speech. In this case, the

Would you like to get suspended from school because of what you believe in? Three students from Des Moines, Iowa were suspended for wearing armbands to protest for Vietnam War until the students came back with the armbands off. The students were John F. Tinker, fifteen years old, Christopher Eckhardt, sixteen years old, and Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinkers younger sister. Students should be allowed to freely protest against the Government’s policy as long as it doesn’t affect or disrupt the learning environment.

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.

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

Rule - The court had ruled the school district in favor and held the defendant to the sanctions imposed by the high school. The student had engaged in off-campus cyberbullying of two teacher-coaches but he did not violate his school freedom of speech rights considering that harassment satisfies “substantial disruption” standard for restricting student speech established by the U.S.

Public schools are fools! Most sensible individuals would think silent symbolic protest is nothing to worry about. It’s usually seem as just another way for a person to express themselves in a manner that’s usually not violent and is quiet. In 1964, a school in the state of Iowa objected to that theory. Are school administers determiners of constitutional rights? Does the forbidding against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment? A small group of high school students involved in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, got their overall answer after a four year battle, when the issue was first argued.

The issue was students not having a freedom of speech and rights in school. At a public school in Des Moines, iowa students organized a silent protest against the vietnam war. Students planned on wearing black armbands to school, but they were told by the principle if they did they would be suspended. Even though the students were warned they wore them to school anyways and got suspended. While the students were being suspended their parents went and sued the school, because they had violated their children's freedom of speech. The United States district court ruled that wearing these armbands to school could be disrupting to the process of learning. The students appealed the ruling to the united states court of appeals but the case was lost,

In the year 1969, a student, Mary Beth Tinker, her brother John, and 3 other students wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, in order to protest the Vietnam War. The administration feared a distraction/disruption of the armbands and the students were prohibited of wearing the armbands. The Tinkers’ were removed from school when the failed to follow the restriction of the armbands, but their parents sued the school for violation of their children’s rights of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Then, a US district court agreed with the school, by saying that by wearing the black armbands the students could disrupt learning. The students then appealed the ruling to a U.S. Court of Appeals but lost. Then the case was taken

David Bulley states that when one student misbehaved in the cafeteria, he instead of suspending her, sat her down in his office and talked to her about what happened. Whenever he started doing this with most kids that would usually act out, the number of suspensions decreased and by talking to them they got the problem solved. So although suspensions can be very convenient, this means the problem never gets resolved.