Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
freedom of speech in education
tinker v des moines school district
tinker v des moines school district
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: freedom of speech in education
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated. Mary Beth Tinker was only thirteen years old in December of 1964 when she and four other students were suspended from school because they wore black armbands. The black armbands were a sign of protest against the Vietnam War. The school suspended the students and told them that they could not return to school until they agreed to take off the armbands. The students did not return to school until after the school’s Christmas break, and they wore black the rest of the year, as a sign of protest. The Tinker family, along with other supporters, did not think that the suspension was constitutional and sued the Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Supreme Court’s majority decision was a 7-2 vote that the suspension was unconstitutional (Tinker V. Des Moines). In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the students’ first amendment right was violated. They were not able to express their opinions freely. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Classifying Arguments in the Cas... ... middle of paper ... ...as, J., J. Stewart, J. White, J. Black, and J. Harlan. "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (No. 21)." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 24 Feb. 1969. Web. 29 Oct. 2013. . "Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. . "Tinker V. Des Moines." Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself. American Civil Liberties Union, 16 Mar. 2007. Web. 29 Oct. 2013. . "Tinker V. Des Moines (1969)." Bill Of Rights Institute, 2012. Web. 29 Oct. 2013. .
Justice Hugo Black dissented and feared that the Court’s ruling would cause more revolutionary actions from students. However, Justice Fortas addressed this potential outcome. He says, “Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.Burnside v. Byars, supra at 749.” The school’s ban of the armbands could not be upheld because the expression had not caused any harm. If the students underwent another expression, the school would still have the power to make a decision. If their actions were disruptive, the school would still have the power to limit these actions. The students’ rights are still protected, and the school still has the authority to operate the
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
In December 1965, an issue was caused by teachers’ in violating students’ freedom of speech. In December some students from Des Moines Independent Community School District, in Iowa were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest against the American Government’s war policy in support Vietnam (Richard, Clayton, and Patrick).The school district pressed a complaint about it, although the students caused no harm to anyone. Students should be able to voice their opinions without the consequences of the school district.
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District by Justice Abe Fortas, and the transcript from Supreme Court Landmark Series: Tinker v. Des Moines, both discuss the same court case. After a careful analysis of these texts, the reader comes to understand the argument concerning those who believe certain kinds of speech should be prohibited within an educational setting and those who believe the opposite. However, this analysis leads one to recognize that “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” majority opinion presents a much stronger argument than the interview with Professor Catherine Ross because it had more facts, court cases, and credibility
At a school in des moines lowa students organized a protest against the vietnam war students planned to wear a black armband to school to protest the fighting but the principal found our and told the students that they would be suspended if they wore them despite the warnings the students wore them anyways and were suspended during their suspension the parents sued the school for their child’s freedom of speech the court sided with the school that wearing the armbands could be a disrupt the learning the students appealed to the court
Background: In Des Moines, Lowa, the students came together and organized the kids to wear black armbands to school to protest the vietnam war. The kids wore the armbands to school and the principal found out and suspended all the kids because of the armbands. The students gaurdians sued the school for not allowing them to have freedom of speech. The United States court was on the schools side, ruling that the armbands were a distraction of the kids learning abilities. The kdis appealed the rulling to a United States court of appeal but in the end they lost.
The first amendment states some of the freedoms we have. These are freedom of religion and freedom of expression. These include the right to free speech, press, assembly, and to petition the government. The reason for wanting to wear the black armbands was to show their anti-war belief in the Vietnam War. Rebelling against the authority figures’ ruling, three students wore the armbands and got suspended. The students’ names are John F. Tinker, who was 15 years old at the time, Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, and 13 year old Mary Beth Tinker (John’s younger sister). Getting suspended, the students did not return until after New Year’s Day (FORTAS). “This case was significant because the justices stated, “students do not abandon their civil rights at the school house door....” The school is not allowed to limit a student or teachers first amendment...
The students’ parents believed the issue was still unresolved so they hired attorneys to try the case in court. The lawsuit asked for two things; the first was an injunction to stop the school from enforcing the rule prohibiting the black armbands. They had also requested nominal damages which was a small amount of money sought for the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. In this case, nominal damages equaled one dollar (Farish, 33). The first trial took place in July 1966 and was tried by only a judge. There was no jury involved (Farish, 38). Five weeks later the judge returned with his decision; the plaintiff’s request for injunction and nominal damages was denied. The Tinkers were still not satisfied with the outcome and decided to appeal to the next higher court which was the Eighth Circuit. Meanwhile back in Des Moines, Iowa the community reacted angrily to the act of the students while the trial was taking places. Mary Beth Tinker recalls red paint being thrown at the Tinker residence and threatening phone calls (Farish, 41). When the trail in the Eighth Circuit had finally concluded, it had ruled that the Tinkers had lost yet again. The case was then taken to Supreme Court after careful consideration by both sides’
II. FACTS: John Tinker, his sister, Mary Beth, and fellow petitioner Christopher Eckhardt were all teenagers attending schools in Des Moines, Iowa. In December of 1965, these students and a group of adults held a meeting at the Eckhardt home and resolved to express their objections to the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands during the winter break and by fasting on select days. The students had protested other issues before in like manner by wearing armbands. Somehow, the administration of the school system learned of the students’ intentions to wear the armbands and adopted a policy prohibiting this. Under the policy, any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it. If the student refused, he or she would be suspended from school. The students would be permitted to return only when the armbands were left at home. The students, aware of the policy, challenged the administration.
One of the main court cases that have dealt with teachers’ first amendment rights is the case of Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of Tipp City Exempted Village School District. This case first began in Ohio, when English teacher Shelley Evans-Marshall asked her class to select a book off of the list “One Hundred Most Frequently Challenged Books”(Lampe, 2010). The students were then asked to debate in class why they believed that the book had been challenged by other school districts. After this assignment was given, several parents “complained about the curricular choices”(Lampe, 2010: pg.1). Eventually a petition was signed by over 500 parents of the school, saying they wanted “decency and excellence” in the classroom. With this, the school board unanimously voted to terminate Evans-Marshall’s contract. Evans-Marshall filed against the school board saying that they interfered with her First Amendment rights (Lampe, 2010: Pg.1).
The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the student's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.
The year is 1965 and tension is high the country as we were in the middle of a very controversial war. So, a couple of Des Moines students, in protest of this war, decided to express their disdain by wearing black armbands with white peace symbols on them. When the School district learned of this plan the instituted a rule stating that any students wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately, and if they did not comply then they would be suspended until they showed up without it. The kids, wanting to use their first amendment rights, wore the armbands to school anyway and got suspended until their protest was scheduled to end (January 1, 1966). A few days later the ACLU approached the children’s livid father and he agreed to
An example being clothing relating to gangs that might bring up conflict between rival gangs. “Safety in schools today is essential, and creating an environment that reduces incidents of intimidation and violence is necessary for students to learn effectively” (Daniels). In the renowned 1969 Supreme Court case, Tinker V. Des Moines, several students were suspended for wearing black armbands to show their lack of support for the Vietnam War. They brought their case all the way to the Supreme Court and won on the fact that they were exercising their first amendment rights. While they won, however, the Court still dismissed the school under the premise that they sent the students home in fear of the school environment being disrupted or becoming unsafe (Tinker V. Des Moines). Thus showing that safety is a top priority in a learning environment, and that a student’s dressing behavior can complicate
As students civil rights revolution evolved, and the increase of these rights emerged, parents and students, began to question, undermine, and challenge school disciplinary practices in court with the help of lawyers in the public’s interest. The timeframe for drastic school discipline changes began around 1969. The Supreme Court ruled how...
Dress codes and uniforms have been deemed legal by the United States Supreme Court. As long as the dress code or uniform regulations pass a four-pronged test. Opposition for school uniforms holds fast to preserving the sanctity of freedom of speech. The supreme court ultimately has decided that dress codes and uniforms do not violate the freedom of speech. In Harold W. Mitchell and John C. Knechtle’s study of the first amendment rights and dress code, they note that in 1968 in Ginsberg v. New York the supreme court ruled that “[t]he state has power to control the conduct of children that reaches beyond its scope of authority over adults (491).” Mitchell and Knechtle go further into explaining the 4 pronged rule the supreme court uses to judge if a rule is against the freedom of