Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) According to TIC, in 1969, many students from Des Moines decided to wear black armbands to their school to protest against the Vietnam War. The school officials created a policy on December 14th, 1965 where students wearing armbands would be asked to remove them, if they refuse they would be suspended. Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt disregarded this policy and wore the armbands to school anyway on December 16th, they were suspended. As a result, these three student’s fathers filed a lawsuit in a federal district court, requesting that the suspensions be cancelled. The court's decision was a 7-2 in favor of the students over the school (TIC). In this essay I will explain the arguments of those who are on Tinker’s side, and those who are on Des Moines’ side. The following are some important majority arguments and points that were brought up. According to TIC, The student’s lawyers argued that the school had completely violated the First Amendment by taking away the student’s right to freedom of expression. There was evidence that showed that some students did make angry comments to the protesters outside of class, but
…show more content…
TIC notes that some dissenting points included that the Supreme Court shouldn’t question the actions taken by school officials, school’s should have the privilege of having the broadest possible authority to keep order, the armbands were disruptive because it brought student’s thoughts to the Vietnam War instead of school, and that this incident will lead to further student disobedience (TIC). According to Oyez, Justice Potter Stewart stated that, “ ...children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights” and Justice Byron R. White wrote,”the majority's opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action” (Oyez).
The conclude this essay,
TIC notes that some dissenting points included that the Supreme Court shouldn’t question the actions taken by school officials, school’s should have the privilege of having the broadest possible authority to keep order, the armbands were disruptive because it brought student’s thoughts to the Vietnam War instead of school, and that this incident will lead to further student disobedience (TIC). According to Oyez, Justice Potter Stewart stated that, “ ...children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights” and Justice Byron R. White wrote,”the majority's opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action” (Oyez).
The conclude this essay,