Chapter 4Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

Community School District

Mary Beth Tinker

More than two decades later, Christopher Eckhardt remembers what happened as if it were yesterday. “I wore

the black armband over a camel-colored jacket.” There were threats in the hallway. “The captain of the football team attempted to rip it off. I turned myself in to the principal’s

office, where the vice principal asked if I ‘wanted a busted nose.’ He said the seniors wouldn’t like the armband. Tears

welled up in my eyes because I was afraid of violence.

“He called my mom to get her to ask me to take the armband

off.” Christopher’s parents were peace activists; his mother refused. “Then he

called a school counselor in. The counselor asked if I

wanted to go to college, and said that colleges didn’t accept

protesters. She said I would probably need to look for a

new high school if I didn’t take the armband off.

Plus we’d gotten a lot of threats [in 1965]. A man who had a radio talk show threatened my father on the air. Red paint was thrown on our house. A woman called on the phone,

asked for me by name, and then said, ‘I’m going to kill you!

Mary Beth Tinker

Tinker v. Des Moines Community School DistrictIs about

Students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War

Background Results Supreme Court Decision

Division over the war racked the nation during the 1960’s.

.On December 16, 1965 Christopher, John and Mary Beth were suspended for wearing the

armbands.

.On February 24, 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision

declared the suspensions unconstitutional.

.In 1965 a group of public school students , led by C. Eckhardt and

J. Tinker, planned a protest.

.They planned to wear black armbands to school as an expression of mourning.

.Other students joined in the armband protest.

.Their parents protested the suspensions in federal courts.

.The parents contended the students’ First Amendment free

speech rights had been violated.

XXXXX

.Judge Abe Fortas established the students’ action was “akin to pure speech” even though their protest involved no speaking.

.Even though their protest involved no speaking, it

deserved protection under the First Amendment.

.He further stated that neither students nor teachers shed their

freedom of speech at schoolhouse gate.

Supporters saluted the decision. Critics predicted harmful consequences. Justice Black argued that no one has a complete right to freedom of speech and expression.

So What? What is important to understand about this?

The Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. Because wearing a black armband was not disruptive, the Court held that the

First Amendment protected the right of students to wear one.

So why? You ask…Can’t we wear our shirttails out, our dresses short, rings in our noses, belly buttons, or wherever?

Good question…it is still a controversial issue, and there have been a number of Supreme Court Decisions that tend to support dress codes on grounds of something called in

loco parentis, which is Latin meaning, while you are at school, the school is your parent and can tell you what to

wear!

• Bethel School v. Fraser – says a students can’t use suggestive, or foul language in a school assembly. 1986

• Matthew Fraser was barred from being a speaker at graduation because in an earlier speech he had used suggestive language. The court held that because he had a captive audience (school assembly) he did not have the right to subject his language to people who might have found it offensive.

Source – The U.S. Constitution on Line http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html

• Hazelwood School v. Kuhlmeier – says the contents of a school newspaper can be censored by school officials. 1988

• In this case a principal had deleted two articles in the school paper because he felt it violated the rights of the students mentioned in the article.

• New Rider v. Board – a pair of Shawnee students were not supported in an effort to wear long hair. 1973

• Native American boys wanted to wear their hair long, parted in the middle and in braids. They claimed it was part of their heritage.

• New Jersey v. TLO – the right of school officials to search a student’s purse without a warrant was upheld. It also stated that a student can not expect the same rights of adults in other places. However, rules for those searches were established. 1985

• One of those rules is that there must be a good reason for conducting the search.

• It is permitted because the court said the safety of all students was an issue.

• Student known as TLO was caught smoking in the girl’s room. She said she never smoked, so the assistant principal asked her to open her purse.

• The purse contained marijuana, rolling papers, a large roll of $1 bills, a pipe and notes implying that TLO was selling marijuana.

• For your amusement – the assistant principal was named Mr. Choplick.

• Vernonia School v. Acton said using in loco parentis, urine tests for student athletes was upheld. 1995

• The Supreme Courts said this would be a search under the fourth amendment, but would be allowed because the school was trying to prevent drug use among students.

This is the court that decided 7-2 on the Tinker vs. Des Moines Case

Other Cases

• Specific cases of cut off shirts and shorts, body jewelry, etc., have not been accepted by the Supreme Court….which means when a lower court has allowed the schools to have a dress code it has been supported by court decisions.