John and Mary Beth Tinker were students in Des Moines, Iowa, who, in December of 1965, wore black armbands to publicize their opposition of American involvement in the Vietnam war. After hearing of the students plan, the school adopted a policy prohibiting armbands. The policy stated if a student was wearing an armband, he or she would be asked to remove it. Any student who refused to remove the armband would be suspended from school until he or she agreed to return without the armband. Two days later, aware of the policy, the Tinkers and a friend wore their armbands to school. They were asked to remove the armbands and upon refusal, were suspended. They returned to school after January 1st, 1966, when the protest was scheduled to end. The Tinker’s filed a lawsuit against the school in a district court, asking for a small amount of money for damages and an injunction to restrain school officials from enforcing the policy. The court recognized the students’ First Amendment rights, but concluded that the school was within its jurisdiction in due to potential disruptions caused by the students’ silent protest. The Tinker’s appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, however, the decision was tied, therefore, the District Courts ruling still stood. As a result, they appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision, the Tinkers prevailed. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the majority opinion which stated that the armbands represented pure speech that was entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The court also held that students are teacher alike did not lose their constitutional rights when the walked through the school gates. Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting... ... middle of paper ... ...nt by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice Brennan, in which he stated; “Official censorship of student speech on the ground that it addresses "potentially sensitive topics" is . . . impermissible. . . . The case before us aptly illustrates how readily school officials (and courts) can camouflage viewpoint discrimination as the "mere" protection of students from sensitive topics…Such unthinking contempt for individual rights is intolerable from any state official. It is particularly insidious from one to whom the public entrusts the task of inculcating in its youth an appreciation for the cherished democratic liberties that our Constitution guarantees.”
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
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
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...
Fraser (1986). During a student assembly, Senior, Matthew Fraser gave a campaign speech to elect his friend to student government. Fraser’s speech was rife with sexual innuendo. Consequently he was suspended and his name removed from the list of possible graduation speakers—he was second in his class at the time. In this case, the Court established that there is a monumental difference between the First Amendment protection of expression for “dealing with a major issue of public policy and the lewdness of Fraser’s speech” (“Key Supreme Court Cases,” 2015). Comparatively, Foster’s high school points out that there is a monumental difference between Foster’s desire to express his individuality and impress girls, and the school’s desire to regulate the serious public concern of gang activity within the school. Indeed, in the petitioner’s application of Tinkering and Chalifoux court cases, the defense notes, in both First Amendment cases the students were addressing a major public issue—political and religion statements. Foster’s message of individuality, however, decidedly lacked a message that would safeguard his First Amendment
With the rights given to Americans by the Amendments, this group of eighteen-thousand petitioners wore black armbands to school during the holiday season of December 1965. The petitioners did this to peacefully protest against the Government’s policy in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The Des Moines, Iowa schools found out about this armband idea and adopted a policy on December 14 that states: anyone wearing the armbands would be asked to remove it and if they did not comply they would be suspended. John Tinker, a fifteen year old, and Christopher Eckhardt, a sixteen year old, are both high school students in Des Moines, Iowa. Mary Beth, a thirteen year old junior high student, is John’s sister. Mary and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools on December 16 and John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their...
Student court cases against schools, or vice versa, are not as uncommon as they may seem. Tinker v. Des Moines was a court case that ended in 1969 regarding students protesting the Vietnam War. The three students involved in the trial wore black armbands to school, which was prohibited, and were suspended. Since the students felt that their First Amendment right was abused by the school therefore they took the issue to a local court, then eventually the Supreme Court. The case has left a mark on First Amendment rights for students since then. The Tinker v. Des Moines court case impacted the United States by questioning the First Amendment in public schools, spreading awareness of student rights, and by challenging future court cases using
Separation of church and state is an issue in the forefront of people’s minds as some fight for their religious freedoms while others fight for their right to not be subjected to the religious beliefs of anybody else. Because public schools are government agencies they must operate under the same guidelines as any other government entity when it comes to religious expression and support, meaning they cannot endorse any specific religion nor can they encourage or require any religious practice. This issue becomes complicated when students exercise their right to free speech by expressing their religious beliefs in a school setting. An examination of First Amendment legal issues that arise when a student submits an essay and drawing of a religious
On December 15th, 1971, the first X amendments to the Constitution went into affect. The first X amendments to the constitution were known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment was written by James Madison because the American people were demanding a guarantee of their freedom. The First Amendment was put into place to protect American’s freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of petition. The First Amendment was written as follows;
The First Amendment is the first section of the Bill of Rights and is often considered the most important part of the U.S Constitution because it guarantees the citizens of United States the essential personal freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and the freedom to petition the Government. Thanks to the rights granted by the First Amendment, Americans are able to live in a country where they can freely express themselves, speak their mind, pray without interference, protest in peace and where their opinions are taken into consideration, which is something not many other nationalities have the fortune of saying. The Founding Fathers were the framers of the Constitution of the U.S., and the responsible for the elaboration of the First Amendment. The majority of the Founding Fathers were enlightenment thinkers who were in love with liberty, and thought that basic political rights were inevitable for man’s nature. After having experienced the tyranny from their mother countries, the Founding Fathers carefully constructed the Constitution of the United States in a way where tyranny was avoided and a government for the people, by the people and of the people was developed, which is clearly reflected in the Constitution. At the time of inception of the United States, the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment in order to ensure that the government would not interfere with Americans’ basic civil rights. The rights outlined on the First Amendment were considered so important by these leaders that many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United Sates until there was a conjecture of amendments that would protect individual rights in the future.
Raskin, Jamin. We the Students: Supreme Court Cases for and about Students. 2nd ed. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. 2003.
Jahn, Karon L. “School Dress Codes v. The First Amendment: Ganging up on Student Attire.”
America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion recommends a practice that is contrary to public morals, such as polygamy, Congress may prohibit such a practice (Weidner, Daniel, 2002). The people of the United States also have the right to assemble peaceably under the First Amendment. The only restriction comes from the word peaceably. Assembly may not be prevented, as long as the proper authorities have reasonable assurance that the meeting will be peaceful (Weidner, Daniel, 2002).
In America, “The World’s Melting Pot”, we are all unique and should be seen as individuals. Wearing a uniform does not allow for students to demonstrate their individuality; they have to dress conforming to the school’s uniform policy. According to Akerlof and Kranton, “...with attempting to establish a sense of community might be the loss of student’s sense of identification with the school, which could in turn yield lowered outcomes in effort and skills”. These policies leave the students questioning themselves and wondering, “Who am I?”. A survey, of 100 random students, conducted at Zapata High School showed that 72% of students reviewed felt that wearing a uniform suppresses their ability to express themselves as individuals. Forcing students to wear a uniform is also going against the first amendment, which clearly prohibits Congress from making laws that violate freedom of speech; it includes freed...
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances” (United States Constitution).
What about those who argue that uniforms are an infringement of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America? Well, the Long Beach city school district allows parents to exempt their children from the uniform requirement. However, only 500 parents or guardians have done so. Why? For one because of the above statistics argues Portner and also because it prevents the association of gang colors, whether accidental or purposeful. Portner also states that uniforms allow students and faculty to determine who does not belong in school and could pose a potential threat to the peaceful environment the district is attempting to foster. And perhaps most importantly, Portner interviewed some students who strongly felt that uniforms improved their self-concept because “peopl...