Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EDU 210
Case: TINKER V DES MOINES IND. SCHOOL DISTRICT
October 12, 2015
Tinker v Des Moines Ind. School District Questions
1. What legal principle is established by the Tinker decision?
The legal principal established thanks to Tinker v Des Moines, is A
student may express opinions on controversial issues in the classroom
cafeteria, playing fields, or any other place, so long as the exercise of
such right does not materially and substantially interfere with the
requirements of appropriate discipline in the operations of the school
or collide with the rights of others. (Page 98, in the Legal Right of
Teachers and Students book)
2. Does the principle improperly intervene with school discipline?
In the case of Tinker V Des Moines, it does not because their wristband
was not being a disruption within the classroom. They were not trying to
get class to be in a rally with them and support what they support, but
they were doing it in a way that does not disrupt, and that was by wearing
arm bands.
3. Do you agree with the majority or dissenting opinion? Why? Why not?
I agree with the majority opinion, because I believe the students should be
able to have freedom of expression, as long it is not a disruption in the
classroom setting. In school the freedom is limited and I find there is
nothing wrong with the school limiting as long as it is to keep the setting
for educational purposes.
4. Can you think of some examples where a reasonable forecast of disruption
could justify interference in the school setting?
In the school setting there can be several things that students can be
disrupted with. For example if someone wears a shirt that expresses
abortion as a sin and condemns the people that are for it, would be
considered a classroom disruption. Some students may not agree with
such statement, and might find it offensive. Thus the school may have the
right to ban such shirts, because it will disrupt the normal classroom
setting.