More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclusion in the Tinker v. Des Moines case
Tinker v des moines arguments for tinker
Tinker v des moines iowa case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
Today, there are student laws regarding disruption that were brought about because of the court case (Sternburg). If what is said is not disruptive in the classroom, create chaos, or invade other 's rights, it is considered acceptable (McPherson 86). The students involved in the Tinker case were lucky since they were protected because they were not disruptive, nor was there offensive speech (“Tinker v. Des Moines: Establishing the Right”). It is important for students to avoid disruptions to prevent offensive speech that could be taken as …show more content…
It was a 1986 case involving a seniors, Matthew Fraser, campaign speech at school that used “sexually suggestive comments and gestures” which created an uproar in the audience (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Fraser was suspended for several days and was not allowed to speak at commencement therefore he made the decision to sue the school district since he felt his First Amendment was violated (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). He was voted against seven to two because he used vulgar language which is not allowed in schools (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Because Fraser was not peaceful or non-vulgar like the Tinker case, he was not able to win the case against the Bethel School
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
The court case Cleveland Board of Education V. LaFleur challenged the maternity policy regarding teachers having to go on unpaid leave involuntarily for 4-5 months due to their pregnancy. Jo Carol LaFleur and Ana Elizabeth Nelson whom were both teachers working under the Cleveland Board of Education when these issues occurred that lead to their decision of filing a suit against the board. They mainly hoped to be able to still continue their teaching well after the 5 month mark that the policy required them to leave. Failure to comply with these rules would have lead to their dismissal of their position or re-employment is not guaranteed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cleveland Board of Education policy violated and went against the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This case was very significant in which it preserved the rights of teachers, especially women.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
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
In the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), John Tinker and his siblings decided to openly protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school (Goldman 1). The school felt that their efforts to protest the war disrupted the school environment. “The Supreme Court said that ‘in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.’ School officials cannot silence student speech simply because they dislike it or it is controversial or unpopular” (FAQs 2). What about theatrical performance? Should certain plays not be performed at school because of inflammatory content? Theatrical performance plays a significant role during various years of a child’s youth, but, alone, has one central aim that allows for tolerance and multifariousness within the “salad bowl” United States. High school theatre arts curriculum’s purpose is to develop appreciation of the doctrines, perspectives, principles, and consciousness of diversified individuals in distinctive epochs throughout history as conveyed through literary works and theatre. If theatre has this sort of impact, why does the school administration, teachers, parents, even the state government, infringe upon the student body’s First Amendment rights? Schools should make no policy that would chastise a student for speaking their mind or expressing oneself, unless the process by which they are expressing themselves meddles with the educational methods and the claims of others. If a student threatens another student under “the right” of being able to speak freely, one would hope a school would take immediate action before potential harm occurs. The First Amendment clearly states that “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.” In reference to students and a school environment, the definition of freedom of speech and expression becomes very unclear as to what they can and cannot say.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
II. Parties with Titles: J. M. Near (Appellant, Former Defendant) v. The State of Minnesota (Appellee/Respondent, Former Plaintiff)
Jahn, Karon L. “School Dress Codes v. The First Amendment: Ganging up on Student Attire.”
In this case, the court ruled that the administrators of schools can edit the content of school newspapers. This court case is just one of the many examples of how the schools are able to sway and control what their students say and what they see, which makes a big impact on the First Amendment rights of all the students who read and who have to write the newspaper. Another case that supports the research question is Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 1987. This case specifically points out that students do not have the rights to make obscene speeches in school.
Furthermore, the opinion of the Supreme Court reveled that students can express their opinions anywhere even when the principal clearly made a rule banning armbands so problems would not be created. The disruptions from armbands could ca...
School dress code is controversial, sometimes being the cause of inner-school violence. The censorship of this raises issues when students complain that their personal rights to express themselves after schools limit what they can or cannot wear. School dress code are the guide lines that schools set that define what is acceptable to wear to school. An example of student dress code censorship was the case involving a thirteen year-old student in Williamstown displaying his political opinion about former President Bush (Nguyen). Because the shirt contained drug references and words calling the president a "crook", an "AWOL, draft dodger" and a "lying drunk driver," he was told to go home after refusing to take it off (Nguyen). This case went to two different courts, a US District Court, and the Second Circuit Court. The US District Court agreed with the school's opinion because they believed the images on Guille's shirt were not appropriate for a school atmosphere (Nguyen). Meanwhile, the Second Circuit Court ruled that the school should not have censored the shirt because even thou...
In the 1969 case of Tinker vs Des Moines, one of the most well-known student rights cases it has considered, the US Supreme Court ruled that students had a constitutional right to wear a black armband to school to protest
Several high school students, including Tinker were suspended for coming to school wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that students have a First Amendment right to express themselves as long as that expression is not disruptive to the school environment. The First Amendment encourages and protects individual expressions, and in this case the students though and expression was favored. The source is effective because court cases like this one have shaped history and have an impact on parents and students that are against school uniforms. This source is important because even though the decision is from 1968 this court case is still used when talking about school uniforms. The source is informational because it is relevant and unbiased. The judges decided on the matter of the case by looking at both sides of the argument and deciding what is best for the
50). Essex cites part of the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court opinion: “School officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of the petitioners…” (p. 50). Essex explains that “…students are entitled to express their views in an orderly fashion” (p. 50). The issue of the shirt was that the student was also disrupting the school environment. Therefore, the principal could had argued that the prohibition was based on that point. However, she did mention to him that the ‘Day of Truth’ words could had been disruptive. If that was her argument to ban the t-shirt she could be standing shaking grounds. During the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette Supreme Court case decision, the Justices stated that the believes of the Jehovah Witnesses did not alter or affect the rights of others and that this case was based on authority v. individual rights. If the student’s legal defense decided, they could have argued that the shirt did not coerce anyone. The school district legal administration did foresee this possible outcome because they reversed the decision of Ms. Howard about the t-shirt. The decision to allowed him to wear his shirt followed the guideline of the Supreme Court by explaining that the words did not forced the student’s religion on