TINKER VS. DES MOINESRachel Pleasants

TINKER VS. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY

SCHOOL DISTRICT1969

Background Info. In December 1965, a group of students met to

discuss plans of wearing armbands to school throughout the holiday season and fasting on December 16th and New Years Eve.

This was to show support of the truce of the Vietnam war and publicize objections of the hostilities during the war.

Mary Beth Tinker, John F. Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt were the only students who participated on wearing the armbands to school.

Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands on Dec. 16th , while John Tinker wore his on Dec. 17th.

Public Policy School board created public policy

against the armbands after getting word of it.

The policy prohibited the students from wearing the armbands to school.

If the armbands were worn, the school officials would ask the student to remove the armband.

If a student refused to remove it, they would be suspended until he or she decided to come back to school with out the armband on.

Plaintiff Mary Beth Tinker and John Tinker sued

Des Moines Independent County School district under their father.

The school board was violating their First Amendment rights and freedom of speech.

They were not distracting anyone by wearing the armbands and should have been able to wear them to school.

Defendant Des Moines Independent Community

School District. The First Amendment does not provide

right to express opinion at any time. Appearance of armbands were

distracting. Teachers were not able to perform their

jobs.

Amicus Curiae Briefs Charles Morgan Jr. filed a brief for the

United States National Student Association, urging a reversal of the district courts for deciding with the school officials.

Precedent The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of

the Tinkers. Justice Fortas wrote the majority opinion

saying that students retain their constitutional right of freedom of speech while in public school.

Student expression is protected by the First Amendment even in school, so school officials must provide a constitutionally valid reason for regulating student expression.

Dissenting Opinions Two justices dissented, Justice Black and

Justice Harlan. They said that the armbands were

distracting and did get students off topic and think of the Vietnam war.

Justice Black said it was a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he places, and when he pleases.

Long Term Effects School boards and school officials have to

have a valid reason now to regulated freedom of expression.

Also, the Tinker ruling is still cited today in nearly every student, First Amendment case.

Mary Beth Tinker is still involved in teaching about this case.

She goes on a Tinker Tour that not only teaches students about the case, but about their First Amendment Rights.

Works Cited

“Case Summary: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.” Freedom Forum. Oct 2013. Web. 23 October 2013. <http://www.freedomforum.org/>.

Tedford, Thomas and Dale Herbeck. “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.” Strata Publishing, Inc. 2009. Web. 23 Oct 2013. <http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html>.

“Tinker v. Des Moines.” Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court . Street Law, Inc. 2010. Web. 28 Oct 2013. <http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/tinker_v_des_moines>.

“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.” The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 23 Oct 2013. Web. <http://www.oyez/org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21>.