DECISION OF THE COURT -- PART III: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

3. Decision of the court – how was the case decided, including an analysis of any concurring or dissenting opinions in previous case precedent.

“In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War” (infoplease.com). “The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression” (law.umkc.edu). The schools did have a right to be scared of problems that might have occurred, but according to law.umkc.edu, it cannot overcome the rights of freedom of speech. “In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint” (law.umkc.edu). Since there was no proof of disturbance toward the school (it was a silent protest, after all), the prohibition cannot be sustained. “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (bc.edu).

The District Court recognized that wearing of armbands for the purpose of expression views in a symbolic manner was within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Abe Fortas wrote for the majority. He emphasized that the students have First Amendment rights, and while schools have the right to establish rules relating to clothing, the length of skirts, hairstyles, disruptive behavior… the Tinker vs. Des Moines case did not involve any of those issues. According to infoplease.com, Justice Abe Fortas said that this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students. “Justice Hugo Black dissented. He pointed out that the case involved a small number of students who refused to obey the instructions of school officials, and argued that allowing this behavior would have a negative effect on schools and on the country as a whole” (infoplease.com).

Works Cited:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/tinker.html
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar39.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1