The document summarizes the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines from 1969. It details how several students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended. The ACLU filed a complaint and the Supreme Court eventually ruled that students have the right to freedom of expression as long as it does not cause substantial disruption or infringe on others' rights, establishing that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. The decision shaped school administrators' ability to limit student expression.

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. Retrieved from https://105.wikispaces.com/09Landmark , March 13, 2010

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. Tinker v. Des Moines 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. January 3, 1966 : The Des Moines school board votes to support the armband ban and the students’ suspensions. March 14, 1966 : Iowa Civil Liberties Union files complaint in U. S. District Court. A tie vote by the U. S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. November 12, 1968 : case heard by the U. S. Supreme Court February 24, 1969 : Supreme Court reverses District Court’s decision

5. Tinker Decision Students have the right to freedom of expression. May not create substantial disruption May not infringe on the rights of others Armband = symbolic act of “pure speech”

6. Considerations Collision of student rights with school’s responsibility to maintain order Must be a reasonable expectation of disruption to limit rights Schools cannot suppress student expression in order to avoid controversy

7. Effects School officials could no longer assume a “parental prerogative” in limiting students’ expression. Students tested the limits of their freedoms. Some states passed their own student free expression laws.

8. Implications for School Administrators When is an armband more than an armband? Why is it “pure speech”? What qualifies as a “substantial disruption”? Under what conditions might it be appropriate to limit a student’s right to freedom of expression?

9. Contemporary Application