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. 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. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to “pure speech.” It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. 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. Our problem lies in the area where students in the exercise of First Amendment rights collide with the rules of the school authorities. On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. It was closely akin to “pure speech” which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment.įirst Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. He wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent school officials and the respondent members of the board of directors of the school district from disciplining the petitioners. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired – that is, until after New Year’s Day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted. On December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and, if he refused, he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands. The group determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. In December, 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. Petitioner Mary Beth Tinker, John’s sister, was a 13-year-old student in junior high school. Tinker, 15 years old, and petitioner Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, attended high schools in Des Moines, Iowa. While Tinker was an important defense of free speech rights for students, it also emphasized the limits of free speech rights in the school context-namely, schools may limit student speech when it “materially or substantially interfere” with a school’s operations and its central mission, teaching students.Įxcerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Abe Fortas This was not enough to survive a First Amendment challenge. The school only feared potential disruption. In Tinker, there was no actual interference. In his opinion for the Court majority, Justice Abe Fortas held that the students retained their First Amendment rights while at school as long as their expressive acts did not “materially or substantially interfere” with the school’s operation. In a seven-to-two decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the students. The students were disciplined by the school for wearing the armbands, and the students filed a lawsuit arguing that their armbands were a form of symbolic protest protected by the First Amendment. In Tinker, a group of high school students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Des Moines Independent School District is a landmark case addressing the free speech rights of public school students.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |