Tinker v Des Moines

John Tinker and his sister Mary Beth Tinker decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday (1968). Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.

The Decision
The Supreme Court favor the Tinkers. Justice Fortas was in charge of the majority opinion. He stated that students has the constitutional rights to freedom of speech while they are in school. However with that being said, Justice Black and Harlan did not agree and dissented the decision. The majority votes are in favor of the Tinkers, 7-2.
The Court decided that even in school, students exercise their freedom of speech. Their reasoning was, “students (n)or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” With that reason, the student's constitutional rights are protected by the first amendment even if they're in school. So if the school officials have any other problem with what the students are exercising, they do not have any valid reason for limiting the students and suspending them.

The ruling decision justified their decisions about the Tinker wearing the armbands by stating that  there were no any material or substantial disruptions. They were "silently" protesting about their thoughts and opinions about the Vietnam war. The armbands acts as a "silent, passive expression of opinion”. It is not harming any other students or disturbing classes because of their decision to wear armbands. They didn't break any other school rules like breaking the school dress code or having a loud protest inside the school. They are just merely exercising their freedom of speech. “The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.”Also, it was noted that the school officials only targeted anti-war armbands, but did not prohibit any other symbols in relation of political messages. With that all said, the Court concludes this action “the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion … is not constitutionally permissible, school officials do not possess absolute authority over their students.”

However on the flip side, the dissenting opinion voiced out that “it is a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he pleases, and when he pleases.” In Justice Black's opinion, the Tinkers were still affecting their peers by “divert[ing] them to thoughts about the highly emotional subject of the Vietnam War.” So in conclusion, the Tinker's armbands did cause a disturbance because it attracts other students while they should have been doing their class work and this is what the principal and student faculty was trying to prevent.

The following who are in favor of the Tinkers:
Earl Warren
William Douglas
William Brennan
Potter Stewart
Byron White
Abe Fortas
Thurgood Marshall

Dissenting opinion:
Hugo Black
John Harlan​
 

​

Questions to think about:

- When does our constitutional rights (as students) ends?​

- Does going to school means we're giving up our constitutional rights?



Commentary:

I really think that this is a nice case to study because just like the question that is being asked above, does going to school means the students are giving up their constitutional rights? T.L.O and Tinker's case has been great examples to state that we are not giving up those rights and that we can still practice it. However, there are still school rules and students are under the school's watch so they still have to follow the rules and instructions. But then again, when does our constitutional rights in the school ends? When does it clash with the school rules? Learning about this case made me think so much more about my rights and how it can affect the way of learning in school. It opened me up to another point of view about how to practice my rights and how to not blend it in with the rules at school.

​