ISSUE OF THE CASE -- Part II: Tinker vs. Des Moines School Distric (1969)

2. Issue of the case -- what specific concepts and terms were involved – in other words, why is the case before the Court.

The basic issue of the case asks the question, “does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?” (oyez.org). “The school had established a policy permitting students to wear several political symbols, but had excluded the wearing of armbands protesting the Vietnam War” (infoplease.com). Tinker vs. Des Moines tackled many issues concerning the First Amendment’s freedom of speech law. The difficult part of this case is that students were allowed to express their emotions toward something they strongly felt about, just as long as they weren’t disrupting class. With that being said, the students, including the Tinkers were “quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others” (bc.edu). Of course, there were rules to how a student was allowed to dress for school, i.e. no short skirts, no explicit language on t-shirts…, but since the students really didn’t harm anybody, they should have not been punished in wearing the black armbands. After all, it was a quiet protest.

“The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style, or deportment. It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to "pure speech." (law.umkc.edu). The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (usconstitution.net). Since the children who wore the armbands to school was not disruptive and are only clearly expression their rights to freedom of speech, they should have not been punished by the school. Only 18,000 students in the school district wore the black armbands and only five students were suspended for wearing them. There was no indication that the work of the schools or any class was disrupted in any way. No threats were involved nor were acts of violence on school premises present. “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. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom -- this kind of openness -- that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society” (law.umkc.edu).

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