Introduction: You are sitting at your desk, taking notes from a teacher, and learning about the Revolutionary war. All of a sudden, you are banned from school and ripped from your studies, all because you believed in Gandhi’s non-violent movements. This same case happened to the Tinker students in Des Moines, Iowa. In the year 1965, the time of the Vietnam war, a group of students came together and wore black armbands with a white peace sign embeded on the side. These armbands were banned by the principals and the school board, with the punishment of suspension until the student was willing to take the armband off. Knowing this, The Tinkers came to school with the armbands, and were suspended. When they tried to appeal to the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the court was first turned down and …show more content…
Within the the Tinker vs. Des Moines case, the constitutional rights rights of the Tinker group were violated in spite of a simple and peaceful protest, the violation of our ‘unalienable rights’, and the way the school targeted a certain symbol that represented an
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
This case Tinker v. Des Moines Schools was a very interesting case argued in 1968. A lawsuit was filed against the school after three students, Two of which in high school and one in middle school were suspended from school. The school suspended the students for wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam war. Two other students wore armbands, but were in elementary school and weren't suspended. The students were fifteen year old John Tinker, sixteen year old Christopher Eckhardt, and thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker.
On Monday July 22, 1965 Mary Beth Tinker and her siblings sat in front of a judge and jury to plead their case. Scared and shaking she sat next to her attorney trying to muster up bavery. Her brother, John, was the first to give his testimony. John testified that he had made it through several periods where none of his classmates or any of the faculty had said anything to him about the black armband. It was not until after lunch that John was asked to go to the principal 's office where he refused to remove his band and wass promptly removed from school.
As seen in previous cases like Tinker vs. Des Moines, students have the right to political say, unless it causes disruption at school of students are promoting something that goes against the law. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines the students were not promoting anything illegal but showed their thought on the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands (Tinker). Argued in court by Kenneth W. Starr in the Morse v. Frederick case, he gave the idea that the foundation for school censorship was the case of Tinker v. Des Moines (Morse). The Justices responded back saying, that case was a different scenario as the students weren 't doing anything against the law while Frederick was encouraging the use of marijuana which was illegal (Morse).
The Tinker versus Des Moines court case involved three minors, John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhart. These three wore black armbands to their schools to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended following this action. Circuit courts and the Court of Appeals in Iowa ruled that the black armbands were inappropriate attire for school. This case was then brought to a higher-up court. Eventually, this case was brought before the Supreme Court.
This shows that after this case study, it was established that US Citizens have the right to a K-12 education, one that is equally funded so that all students are learning on a level playing field. For this case study, the Texas Supreme Court established the right for students to receive a public school education Texas citizens have the responsibility to take action against an issue they find unconstitutional, either by voting or joining an interest group.
The issue in this case was whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This case dealt with a New York state law that had required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This law had also allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found that it was objectionable. There was a parent that sued the school on behalf of their child. Their argument was that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable
In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott the courts were faced with several conflicting interests concerning the fundamental rights of free speech, a core value of our democratic society. The respondent was upset that the four flyers contained discriminatory messages directed at a protected group and filled a complaint stating that those flyers contravene with section 14(1)(b) of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Codes (Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013). The Appellant (The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission) decided to appeal stating that section 14(1)(b) was a violation of section 2 of the Charter. The courts were then forced that ask themselves two questions, does section 14(1)(b) violate section 2 of the Charter and subsequently, if so, can section 1 of the Charter save section 14(1)(b). The subsequent paragraphs will discuss how the courts
Tinker v. Des Moines the Court ruled that students have a right under First Amendment to wear black armbands while being in school. Since Susie Speeker held up a sign with message at the event promoting illegal drug use, Principal Pat Strickland suspended Susie for ten days. School’s policy allowed suspension only those who “use, advocate or promote the use of any illegal drug at a school function.” Susie’s intention by holding the sign was not to promote illegal drug use but because of her mother was a breast cancer survivor and they believe that marijuana should be legalized only for compassionate use.
The wore black armbands in a protest against the government policies during the Vietnam war. The Tinkers tries to fight the suspension with the district court but the district court was in favor with the school so the Thinkers had to take it further. The next step was to take it to the supreme court. The tinkers took it to the Supreme court and the majority vote wat that it was unconstitutional for the school to
Since giving freedom to the students is good, the Tinkers should not have been suspended for wearing the black armbands. John and Mary Beth tinker should had been allowed to wear a black armbands to school protesting the Vietnam War, which include symbolic speech, and that giving freedom to students will help students have a more successful
However, on the 16th and 17th the petitioners wore their armbands and refused to remove them leading to their suspension. The students did not return to school until after their planned protest period was over. The petitioner’s fathers then filed a complaint that asked for an
Per 3 Goss Vs. Lopez Supreme Court Case On October 15, 1975 Nine students were suspended from Central High School from Columbus, Ohio. They had destroyed school property and disrupting students from learning and were suspended for 10 days. One of the students amoung them was Dwight Lopez.
Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Georgia. His father left his family when he was young. That, and other issues as the years passed led his family into money problems. Clarence and his brother were sent to live with their grandfather and step-grandmother. His grandfather had a major influence on his religious beliefs.
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District upheld the right to freedom of speech of students to protest the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands. The case explained the problem that “students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” (Student) As students, we are free to express ourselves through what we wear. As students, we have every right to proclaim our beliefs