Supreme Court Landmark Series: Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Tinker Tots

The Tinker v. Des Moines case is a very important and interesting one considering the freedoms of students within their own school concerning their political opinions and their right to “symbolic speech”. The “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” by Justice Abe Fortas and “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” by Justice Hugo Black are both court hearings from the actual trial in 1969, displaying both the Justices’ views within the trial. “Supreme Court Landmark Series: Tinker v. Des Moines” also looks at the 1969 case, yet this article is a radio interview conducted several years later focusing on the moral of what was to be taken from that experience. All of these passages focus on

Justice Abe Fortas in his argument seems to make an argument that certain kinds of speech should not be prohibited within an educational setting such as the Des Moines Independent Community School District. He makes an argument that as long as the students were not disrupting the general flow and education within the school, then the Tinkers are correct in their suing of the Des Moines school system. He proclaims that the District Court made no such findings of disturbance or interference on the school campus from the students wearing their armbands. “In the present case, the District Court made no such finding, and our independent examination of the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere...upon the rights of other students”. (Fortas 25) Showing the reader that there was no instance found in which the students, by

Des Moines” was a radio interview with law professor Catherine Ross detailing the court case and Catherine's verdict on the subject as well. Catherine makes the argument that students should be able to express free speech and their civil liberties within the “schoolhouse gates”. By restricting their right to do that, you prohibit them from letting themselves be active within their own government. Teaching young people how to exercise their rights of citizenship and allowing them to do it is at the heart of our democracy. So, if you cut off speech while people are learning both their own personalities and identities...you minimize the likelihood that they will be active participants in democracies” (Ross 37). Catherine emphasizes the immense importance of being able to let students participate and practice freedom of speech within their schools. In a similar fashion, Justice Hugo Black explains how the students were not violent within their own rights, and by prohibiting this, limiting their own capabilities as a citizen of the nation. “...the crucial remaining questions are whether students and teachers may use the schools at their whim as a platform for the exercise of free speech -’symbolic’ or ‘pure’-and whether the courts will allocate to themselves...” (Black 31). Justice Hugo Black shows the reader that this treatment towards students and how they are treated within their own school campus is not