US History
Tinker v. Des Moines:
Examining a Student’s Right to
Freedom of Expression in a Public School
The Legal Question:
Do school officials (principals, teachers, etc…) have the right to prohibit students from wearing articles of clothing which express political opinions? In 1969, the Supreme Court confronted this question of the students’ right to freedom of expression (1st Amendment) in public schools. That year the court heard a case involving two students who were suspended for wearing armbands to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War.
The Facts Surrounding the Case:
The United States began fighting the Vietnam War in the 1950s. By the mid-1960s there was growing opposition to the war in the U.S. Americans expressed their discontent through peace marches, picketing and the burning of draft cards. At times these protest rallies became violent and the police were called in to control the crowds. In Des Moines, Iowa, a group of local citizens decided to demonstrate their opposition to the war by wearing black armbands during the Christmas season. Their silent protest began on December 16th and was scheduled to run until New Year’s day. The group also decided to fast on the first and last day of the protest.
When the principals of the local school district heard of the plan, they adopted a policy and informed the public that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it. If the student refused, he or she would be suspended from school.
On December 16th, despite the school’s new rule, a number of students, including Mary Beth and John Tinker (and two of their friends) decided to wear the black armbands to school as a means of expressing their opposition to the war. They were asked to remove the armbands by school officials, but they refused. The principal suspended the students and sent them home. The students were instructed not to return to school until they were willing to appear without the black armbands. The students did not return to school until after the holidays when the silent protest had ended.
The parents of the suspended children believed that the school had violated their kids’ 1st Amendment rights (the right to free speech and free expression). The Iowa Civil Liberties Union agreed with the parents and filed a petition in the U.S. District Court on the students’ behalf.
Tinker v. Des Moines, Round 1:
The District Court had to rule on the following issues during the trial:
· Is wearing an armband to express your opinion protected by the First Amendment?
· Had the students been denied their right to free speech?
· If so, did the school have the right to deny the students their First Amendment rights in this instance?
On September 1, 1966, the District Court found in favor of the school officials. It agreed that an armband was a symbol of free speech and the court found that the students had been denied their free speech by the school system, but the court believed the school was justified in their actions. The court believed that the wearing of armbands could lead to disruption and that school officials had a reasonable basis for establishing the no-armband policy.
The court stated, “In this instance, however, it is the disciplined atmosphere if the classroom, not the student’s right to wear armbands on school grounds, which is entitled to protection under the law”. The court meant that the school had the right to limit the free speech of individual students because it was more important to avoid potential disruptions to the learning process (which the armbands might have caused).
The Tinkers Take it to the Supreme Court
The Iowa Civil Liberties Union appealed the District Court decision to the United States Court of Appeals. The court was divided evenly on the issues presented: four judges were in favor of upholding the District Court’s decision and four judges wanted to reverse the decision in favor of the students. When the Court of Appeals is evenly divided, the lower court’s (District Court) position is allowed to stand. The Tinkers then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The court agreed to hear the case, which was argued on November 12th, 1968.
Tinker’s Arguments Before the U.S. Supreme Court
· Students wearing armbands had not interfered with the rights of other students
· School discipline had not been disrupted by the wearing of the armbands (it was not disruptive to the learning process)
· The school district had violated the students’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech (and expression)
The Des Moines School District’s Before the U.S. Supreme Court
· The school prohibited students from wearing the armbands because they did not want the learning process disrupted.
· Schools are not the place to demonstrate (express political beliefs)
· Controversial issues should be confined to classroom discussions
Name: U.S. History
Date:
Core:
Tinker v. Des Moines:
You Decide
Directions: Answer the questions below using ATIC2. You must use support from both texts (the handout on the case and the text of the Fourth Amendment) in your response.
Amendment 1. Religious & Political Freedom (1791). Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
· Do you think that the school district violated the 1st Amendment rights of Mary Beth and John Tinker when they suspended them for wearing the black armbands used to protest the Vietnam War? Explain your position using facts from the case and the 1st Amendment.
______
______
4 / 3 / 2 / 1Exemplary / Proficient / Progressing / Beginning
· Insightful, well organized, and fluent
· Deep understanding of case and law is demonstrated
· Specific references to law and facts of the case are used to support ideas
· Deep interpretation (inferential thinking) that is fully explained / · Thoughtful, organized, and fluent
· Clear understanding of the case and the law is demonstrated
· Relevant references to law and facts of case are used to support ideas
· Clear interpretation (inferential thinking) that is well-explained / · Organized and somewhat fluent
· Basic understanding of text is displayed
· Somewhat relevant examples from the case and the law are used to support ideas
· Basic/literal interpretation (inferential thinking) that is partially explained / · Disorganized or confusing
· Limited or no understanding of case and/or law is displayed
· Limited examples from the case and law are used to support ideas
· Interpretation of the facts of the case is limited. Undeveloped response