September 12, 2011
Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)
Posted by Christopher Cournan under Discussions[4] Comments
1. Situation:
In December of 1965, 16 year old John F. Tinker, 13 year old Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt met inside of the Eckhardt home with their parents and other petitioners who were upset with the excessive violence happening in the Vietnam War. In protest, everyone inside the home that night decided to wear black armbands during the winter holiday season and by fasting on December 16th and New Years Day. The school district however, had become aware of these protest events and decided to make a rule banning such actions prior to the teenagers showing up to school. The ruling they came up with was that any petitioners with armbands on would be asked to remove their bands and if they refused, they would be suspended until they agreed not to wear the pieces of the clothing. The Tinkers and Christopher Eckhardt became aware of this newly developed rule and on December 16th, Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker wore their armbands with John Tinker wearing his on the 17th. The three students were sent home and suspended until they wouldn’t wear their armbands anymore but none of them would do so, until after the scheduled armband period was over.
After complaints from the students’ fathers, the case was taken to the district court and it was eventually said that, “…wearing armbands for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
One hypothetical situation that could relate to this situation would if a union of teachers were to all wear the same t-shirts on every casual Friday with statements on there stating that they’re not receiving fair contracts would be allowable. As long as the teachers weren’t being loud and obnoxious and interfering with the rights of the children to learn, their actions would be covered under the first amendment.
2. Legal Background:
Tinker vs. Des Moines is relatable to the Chaplinsky vs. New Hamshire (1942). In this case, a man by the name of Chaplinsky was distributing literature on the streets of Rochester, New Hampshire. Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, drew a crowd when he started denouncing all religion as racket and when told by an officer stop saying such things, he continued and a riot started. Chaplinsky, after told again by an officer to stop, cursed out the officer the second time claiming he was only spreading the word of the Bible. He was then arrested for his actions. It was eventually determined in court that, “Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action.”
3. Questions:
In the Chaplinsky vs. California case, was it legal for him to curse out the officer when the officer was violating his right to freedom of religion?
In the Tinker vs. Des Moines case, how far or obscene do you think students and/or teachers can go with their rights to express themselves through their clothing?
Also in the Tinker vs. Des Moines case, what sort of expressive actions or words wouldn’t be allowable in schools because they disturb the teaching environment?
4 thoughts on “Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 15th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
The rights of students present an interesting situation for free speech. Students, especially high school students, are in a different category than adults in terms of free speech rights. In terms of student expression, the first step is to look at if the expression of a group of students affects the rights of the other students to affects the message that a school is trying to promote; in the case of school sponsored events.
In the Tinker case and expression through clothing choices there is symbolic speech at play. I think for the most part if a student wants to protest something political through an arm band or t shirt or something along those lines then the rights of the students to voice their opinions will be protected. However, the second that a student adds unnecessary vulgarity or inflammatory remarks to a arm band or the like, then the school has the right to step in and bar the content from being seen by other students.
On this same note something came up in class that I found interesting. In the Bethel v Fraser case the court said that it is the responsibility of public education to instill moral values in students. I find this interesting because my first response would be to disagree with this statement. I think it is parent’s responsibility to instill moral values in children. I feel like the arguments that people make for not having any references to God in the classroom should be also made for school officials “instilling moral values” in students. However, what happens when a kid does not have his parents around or has a bad home life? Is it then the responsibility of school to instill values? I found this extremely interesting and thought this would be a good thing to discuss further.
September 16th, 2011 at 1:43 am
In response to question 2: I think students should be able to express their political feelings through their clothing in school without punishment as long as it is not vulgar or obscene. In this case, the Tinker students were politically expressing themselves in a way that was not harming others around them. They were simply wearing an armband to show what they stood for, just as perhaps a Christian would wear a cross to represent what they believe.
When it comes to the teachers wearing shirts that peacefully protested their contracts, I do not believe this is the most effective way the teachers could get the message across. This could be distracting to students during their day, yet it is a form of speech and the teachers should be allowed to wear these shirts as long as they do not contain any vulgarity. A better option, however, in this situation, could be the teachers taking their issues straight to the board of education and trying to change how their contracts are.
September 16th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
This is in response to question 3. I think that speech that endangered the teachers or students would not be allowed. I also think that clothes that were obscene or perverted would infringe on other students rights so that should not be allowed. Anything that incites violence should be banned as well. I don’t think racial or religious slurs should ever be used.As students we don’t have as many rights as full fledged adults. I thought about this case and my life relates on how much rights students should get. I think its interesting that public school students have more rights than private school students. I guess because I signed a paper saying that I would abide by their laws my personal opinion was widely restricted. I couldn’t wear certain clothes, talk about the school negatively, or express myself. Its like when one rule is slammed down by another. the country says I have these rights but my school says I do not.
December 15th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Clarification: The hypothetical situation with the teachers wearing t-shirts is different from Tinker, because Tinker dealt specifically with student speech rights, not those of adults.
Also, Chaplinski v. New Hampshire is the “fighting words” case. His conviction was upheld.