School Uniforms: Tinker Vs. Des Moines

In the case Tinker V. Des Moines a group of adults and students in Des Moines decided that in protest of the Vietnam war they would wear black armbands during school. Although the protest was silent, the school feared the controversy that this would cause and implemented a new policy that forbid students to wear armbands or they would face suspension. When the day came the students were asked to remove the bands and they refused, they were suspended and asked to not return until they removed the armbands. The parents of the students decided to sue the school because they believed the schools action went against the first amendment. The supreme court came to a conclusion after analysing the majority opinion

John and Mary Beth Tinker and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the war in Vietnam. The student refused to take off armbands and then were suspended. Parent sued the school and said it was a violation of their First Amendment. On the ruling the Supreme Court sided with the students said As long as an act of expression doesn't disrupt class work or school activities or invade the rights of others, it's acceptable.

This Supreme Court case involved First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District involved three public school students (petitioners) in Des Moines, Iowa who were suspended from school, because they wore black armbands in protest of the government's policy in Vietnam. The petitioners sought damages and an injunction against the regulation preventing them from wearing the armbands. Their complaint was dismissed by the District Court on February 24, 1969, because the Court determined that the regulation was within the authority of the Board's power though there was no proof that the behavior had "materially and substantially" interfered with the school's ability to conduct school activities.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a group of high school students in Des Moines, Iowa wanted to show their opposition to the deployment of U.S. troops in Vietnam, and decided to wear black armbands during the holiday season. The school system found out about the student’s plan to wear black armbands, so the principals of the Des Moines schools adopted a policy that required students to remove the armbands or be suspended until the student would return to school without the band. Several students, including John Tinker, wore armbands and were suspended from school. As told by the United States Courts, the parents of the suspended students sued the school district because they believed the school district violated the students rights to free speech. The parents lost in the Court of Appeals, and went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students on February 24, 1969, because, “Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the school gates.” (United States Courts)

Tinker v. Des Moines, three students wore anti-war armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. The students expressed that the school violated their First Amendment and their right to free speech or expression. The school officials claim that the three students disrupted the school education activities by wearing the armbands. “The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion” by suspending the students from school (pg.139). Even though they protest silently without disturbing other students. The students took the issue to the court to receive justice for their expression. Tinker v. Des Moines help established student’s first amendments rights in the school system by creating the Tinker test or substantial

John and Mary Beth Tinker were public school students in December of 1965. They were part of an anti-Vietnam War group. In support of their views they decided to wear black armbands to school. The school heard of this idea and immediately made a policy that any students wearing armbands would be asked to remove them and if they refused, they would be suspended until they agreed to come to school without armbands on. Two days later, the Tinker children and a friend wore black armbands to school. They did not remove their armbands and were suspended. The children returned to school after January 1, 1966, the day that their black armband wearing was supposed to cease. But, their father filed suit in the U.S. District Court, in the suit he asked for a small

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This was the main argument from Justice Abe Fortas that came into play at the Tinker v. Des Moines School District Case of 1969. The case involved a small group of students who silently dissented against the government’s policy during the ongoing Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. In response by the school administration, each of those students was suspended from the public schools they attended in Des Moines, Iowa. This case is a prime example of the Constitutionally protected symbolic speech we have

The case of Tinker vs. Des Moines demonstrated the need to find a balance for students and staff in schools to have protection under not just the first amendment, but all of them, while still giving schools authority. John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore armbands to school to protest their hostilities for the Vietnam War. They were suspended from the school for wearing them. The school board decided it was too much of a disruption for the school. Eventually the case was then taken to court by the fathers of the protestors. The case Tinker vs. Des Moines is significant even today, for it shows that not always will constitutional rights win in the court of law.

The Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines originated in Iowa in December 1965 when seven Des Moines high school students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Ultimately they were suspended in which the student’s fathers sued the school district. The court case battled through the District Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court. The ultimate ruling was that Des Moines School District violated the students First Amendment rights. Years later, in Oregon in 1990, teachers a McMinnville High School started a lawful strike and in response, the school district hired replacement teachers. Following, two students wore and distributed buttons and stickers with slogans supporting the strike. The students were suspended which led to the student’s parents suing the school district where the District Court provides a ruling. Similar to Tinker v. Des Moines, Chandler v. McMinnville was ruled that the school violated the students First Amendment rights of the students.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 12th, 1968 to a packed court house. The main constitutional question at hand was if a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and expression. Attorney Dan L. Johnson argued on the Tinker’s behalf, proclaiming that the students had the constitutional right, as per the 1st amendment freedom of speech and expression, to wear the black armbands as a form of symbolic speech. On the other hand, attorney Allan A. Herrick defended the school board’s actions, inciting that the prohibition of armbands was necessary to prevent and stifle any violence or disorder. The topic of discussion during the oral arguments centered largely upon whether Tinker’s protest was disruptive to the class environment. Johnson argued that the anti-Vietnam protest, although sparking some talk, was undisruptive to school, citing that there was no evidence of disruption in any of the classes. Herrick, conversely, argued that the Vietnam War was an inflammatory issue, and that armbands invoked violence, especially since a

In the Tinker v. Des Moines case two public high school students and a junior high student decided to wear black armbands to school to make a peaceful protest against the Vietnam War and to show their support for a truce. They were aware that their school policies had changed a few days prior that stated any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to take it off or be suspended until the student would return to school without it. The students refused but wanted to fight back. They filed a complaint seeking nominal damage.

As a teenager, growing up tends to be a struggle for us. Most girls would say that fitting in is a huge deal. Nine times out of ten, finding that one outfit is difficult when you have all these rules. Dress code at school has been a battle between who can get away with it the most. An unknown author once said, “Self-confidence is the best outfit, rock it and own it.” This quote hit home for me in multiple ways. For starters, teenage girls are having trouble trying to be confident and when we have so many restrictions it is hard to feel comfortable in our own skin. With all these restrictions we feel as if we can’t express ourselves. On the other hand, the guys get away with almost everything when it comes to the dress code. I feel as

Some people thought that they should not be allowed to wear the black arm bands to school. The school was making excuses like "The arm bands are a distraction" to prevent the children from wearing the arm bands. The people in the Supreme Court agreed with the school, that

In this Supreme Court case there was an issue of the ability of a school official to control the amount of non-violent speech from students. The big question was can school officials choose the speech that students are allowed to participate in without showing reasoning of a disruptions and/or stress on the educational environment. The facts of the case were that students in this school system wanted to wear black armbands as a protest to the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. Also the bands represent mourning for the deaths caused by the Vietnam War. Even though the school stated that students were not allowed to wear said armbands the students still wore them. These students were then suspended leading to the court case (First,

School uniforms do not allow students to express themselves through their clothes. They take away the freedom of expression (the first amendment). The 1970 case Richards vs. Thurston was about a boy