Impact Of The Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District

According to a United States Supreme Court ruling, public schools have the ability to restrict students’ First Amendment rights. This became true in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Supreme Court case when Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhart wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. In order to understand Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case one must establish the history, examine the case, and explain the impacts.

During time of war in the 1960’s a case from a small town, Des Moines, Iowa, made its way to the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court. It all began when three Children wore a black arm band to school. They were protesting the Vietnam war. These three children were

As for his sister, Mary Beth, who was thirteen, was a top student, but often liked to express her heart. John and Mary Beth’s father Lenard Tinker, who was very conservative, met his wife Lorena at seminary. The parent’s deep involvement in religion led them to “a very strong Quaker-like anti-war pacifism and commitment to racial equality” (Shackelford 373) way of life. Due to the Vietnam war and the family’s Quaker life style, the kids were inspired to make an impact. At a meeting on December eleventh around twenty to thirty people gathered “they made the decision to wear black arm bands at school and they wanted two messages to come out of that. First, […] to mourn the people who have lost their lives in the war from both sides. Second, […] to support the Christmas truce. (Shackelford 374). The advisor of the school newspaper had informed school officials about students wearing arm bands. Later that day, an announcement was made telling the students if they showed up to school wearing black arm bands further consequences would be imposed. On December 16, 1965, the

Des Moines Independent Community School District eventually made its way to the United States (US.) Supreme Court. While at the Supreme Court new opinions were formed by Justices. In a Majority opinion stated by Supreme Court Justice, Abe Forts, “the court held that the arm bands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating” (Zirkel 39). The court also found that the students did not lose their First Amendment right on school property. To justify this statement, school officials must be able to prove conduct is in question and that it would materially and substantially interfere with the school’s operations. As well, stated in a concurring opinion by Supreme Court Justice, Byron R. White noted that “the majority’s opinion relies on a separations between communication through action and communication through words” (Oyez). In contrast, the dissenting opinion stated by Supreme Court Justice, Hugo Black, “The First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well with in its rights to discipline the students” (Zirkel 36). Through the sight of the Supreme Court Justices the final ruling was a 7-2 ruling in favor of John,