Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tinker v.
Des Moines
Slide 2
Slide 3
Two clean-cut, American teenagers the daughter and son of a Methodist minister.
Slide 4
August 1964 two U.S. destroyers were attacked by N. Vietnamese troops in the Gulf of Tonkin
President Johnson ordered retaliatory strikes which became a regular bombing campaign by
early 1965 (Operation Rolling Thunder)
News coverage of the war was increasing greatly, (between 1964 and 1966 the presence of
reporters in Viet Nam multiplied seven-fold) so by April 1965 a more active protest movement
was beginning to develop including 15,000 students marching on Washington
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-protests
Slide 5
Of particular import:
The protest is also in support of Senator Robert Kennedys call for a Christmas truce.
The school bans this practice specifically. Other student expressions including even the
wearing of certain Nazi paraphernalia are not prohibited.
The students know about the ban and attend school anyway. At various points they are
asked to leave, which they do.
The students are told they can return at such time as they agree to attend without the arm
bands.
The students return at the beginning of the new year, which is the point they originally had
agreed their protest would end.
ACLU approaches parents and supports suit.
Slide 6
Court does recognize that the armbands and students wearing them were protesting
peacefully/not disruptive.
Side Note: Burnside v. Byars and Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Education. Both
decided in 1966 on the same day by the same panel. Both hearing cases of students wearing
buttons. Burnside decided for the plaintiffs upholding their rights; Blackwell deciding against
specifically because of the facts of the case, namely that violence did occur. District Court
acknowledged that the decisions of the other district court were due respect, but chose not to
consider them because they werent bound to.
Slide 7
Eight judges: what does this sound like? Our current Supreme Court? A recipe for a deadlocked
verdict? Exactly.
Slide 8
Of note:
In asserting pure speech protections, Fortas cites Cox v. Louisiana a 1965 Supreme Court
case. But Justice Black, in his dissent, uses Cox to assert that free speech doesnt mean you
may address a group at any public place and at any time.
One issue at the heart of this is the focus on the actions of the protesters vs. the people
responding to the protesters in determining whether the speech creates a disturbance.
Majority opinion relies significantly on Burnside, a case which the District Court acknowledged
but refused to apply. One area of relevance for Burnside is in this definition of disturbance.
The Court quotes Burnside in assessing whether the conduct materially or substantially
interfere[s] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.
Slide 9
Relevance
Establishes student/juvenile rights under the Constitution
Muddied the waters a bit on the Courts support for
institutional control.
Helps establish or solidify standards for judgement:
Though in his supporting majority opinion, Justice Stewart debates that the rights of children
are co-extensive with those of adults.
Justice Black strongly dissented about the Reasonableness standard, which, he argued, the
Court had previously done away with.
The rights of others standard to be secure and to be left alone can be tricky. Certainly, if I
grab you and go Hey, look at my t-shirt Im violating this standard. But if I am passively
wearing my message and you observe it, the court has said I am not violating your right to be
left alone as long as my message isnt lewd or urging you to engage in illegal activity (specifically
drug-related activity).
Slide 10
Subsequent Rulings
Bethel v. Fraser (1986)
Schools may ban pure speech that is lewd or vulgar.
Bethel v. Fraser and Morse carve out exceptions to the broad application of Tinker.
Refer class to:
Source: Waggoner, C. R. (2013). The Impact of Symbolic Speech in Public Schools: A Selective
Case Analysis from "Tinker" to "Zamecnik". Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice,
And Research, 3(1), 64-72. doi: 10.5929/2013.3.1.4
Slide 11
Main References
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Waggoner, C. R. (2013). The impact of symbolic speech in public
schools: A selective case analysis from "Tinker" to
"Zamecnik". Administrative Issues Journal: Education,
Practice, and Research, 3(1), 64-72.