Case Study: Tinker v. Des Moines It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights...
Retrieved from  https://105.wikispaces.com/09Landmark , March 13, 2010
Tinker vs. Des Moines Mary Beth and John Tinker pose with the armbands they wore to school in protest of the Vietnam War .
Tinker v. Des Moines <ul><li>December 16, 1965 : Several students including Christopher  Eckhardt, John Tinker and Mary Be...
Tinker   Decision <ul><li>Students have the right to freedom of expression. </li></ul><ul><li>May not create substantial d...
Considerations <ul><li>Collision of student rights with school’s responsibility to maintain order </li></ul><ul><li>Must b...
Effects <ul><li>School officials could no longer assume a “parental prerogative” in limiting students’ expression. </li></...
Implications for School Administrators <ul><li>When is an armband more than an armband? Why is it “pure speech”? </li></ul...
Contemporary Application
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Tinker vs. DesMoines - Student Free Speech

8,612 views
7,968 views

Published on

Published in: Education
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Very good presentation. Very informative!!! It's a tricky legal issue. It's kind of sad that the Tinkers had to wait so many years to have the case settled while their lives were disrupted. Do you know if they got any compensation from the school board? If I have to guess, probably not! Sad again! Greetings.....
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
8,612
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
26
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
56
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tinker vs. DesMoines - Student Free Speech

  1. 1. Case Study: Tinker v. Des Moines It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. - Supreme Court majority opinion, February 24, 1969 Presented by Joan Cansdale March 20, 2010
  2. 2. Retrieved from https://105.wikispaces.com/09Landmark , March 13, 2010
  3. 3. Tinker vs. Des Moines Mary Beth and John Tinker pose with the armbands they wore to school in protest of the Vietnam War .
  4. 4. Tinker v. Des Moines <ul><li>December 16, 1965 : Several students including Christopher Eckhardt, John Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker arrive at school wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. They are suspended. </li></ul><ul><li>January 3, 1966 : The Des Moines school board votes to support the armband ban and the students’ suspensions. </li></ul><ul><li>March 14, 1966 : Iowa Civil Liberties Union files complaint in U. S. District Court. </li></ul><ul><li>A tie vote by the U. S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. </li></ul><ul><li>November 12, 1968 : case heard by the U. S. Supreme Court </li></ul><ul><li>February 24, 1969 : Supreme Court reverses District Court’s decision </li></ul>
  5. 5. Tinker Decision <ul><li>Students have the right to freedom of expression. </li></ul><ul><li>May not create substantial disruption </li></ul><ul><li>May not infringe on the rights of others </li></ul><ul><li>Armband = symbolic act of “pure speech” </li></ul>
  6. 6. Considerations <ul><li>Collision of student rights with school’s responsibility to maintain order </li></ul><ul><li>Must be a reasonable expectation of disruption to limit rights </li></ul><ul><li>Schools cannot suppress student expression in order to avoid controversy </li></ul>
  7. 7. Effects <ul><li>School officials could no longer assume a “parental prerogative” in limiting students’ expression. </li></ul><ul><li>Students tested the limits of their freedoms. </li></ul><ul><li>Some states passed their own student free expression laws. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Implications for School Administrators <ul><li>When is an armband more than an armband? Why is it “pure speech”? </li></ul><ul><li>What qualifies as a “substantial disruption”? </li></ul><ul><li>Under what conditions might it be appropriate to limit a student’s right to freedom of expression? </li></ul>
  9. 9. Contemporary Application

×