"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” While schools certainly have the right to establish rules relating to “the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style,…[or] aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations,” this case does not involve any of those issues. “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. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, …with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.” - Justice Abe Fortas. (1)
In the end, the decision of the Supreme Court was 7-2 in favor of the Tinker family and friend Christopher Eckhardt. (2) The court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Justice Hugo Black and John M. Harlan II dissented. Black believed that the case involved a small number of students who refused to obey the instructions of the school district. He also argued that this behavior could have a negative effect on schools and on the country as a whole. (3) The Court ruled in favor of the kids because the student's political expression and protests were protected by the First Amendment and did not cause a disruption or threat to the school environment. The Court also ruled in favor of the kids because the fourteenth Amendment selectively applied the Bill of Rights to the states, and were not abandoned in the school environment. (4)
Justice Harlan,dissented the case, saying that "I certainly agree that state public school authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities are not wholly exempt from the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment respecting the freedoms of expression and association. At the same time I am reluctant to believe that there is any disagreement between the majority and myself on the proposition that school officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions. To translate that proposition into a workable constitutional rule, I would, in cases like this, cast upon those complaining the burden of showing that a particular school measure was motivated by other than legitimate school concerns--for example, a desire to prohibit the expression of an unpopular point of view, while permitting expression of the dominant opinion." (5)
While many look at the Case and say that the Supreme Court sided with the Tinker students because they were younger and looked innocent going up against the school district, the Supreme Court merely supported the students' right to express their opinion, a widely controversial opinion in the United States and that time, in the school environment. (6) It did not though take away the school's right to maintain appropriate order and discipline.
School press reformers were able to use the Tinker decision to bolster high school journalism. Many faculty advisers interpreted Tinker as a blueprint for keeping school administrators away from school newspapers. (7) Under theTinker ruling, the advisers believed, students could be prevented from publishing articles in a school newspaper only if the articles were libelous, obscene or “materially and substantially interfered with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” (8)
(1) - U.S Supreme Court, "Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." , 1968. Case (21) (Boston College N.p., 12 Nov. 1968.
(2) - Ibid
(3) - Anonymous, "Summary of Supreme Court's Actions." , New York Times (New York City), March 5, 1968.
(4) - Ibid
(5) - ibid
(6) - ibid
(7) - US Supreme Court Media, TINKER v. DES MOINES IND. COMM. SCHOOL DIST. , http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960 - 1968/1968_21
(8) - American Civil Liberties Union, Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969) , http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/tinker-v-des-moines-393-us-503-1969
In the end, the decision of the Supreme Court was 7-2 in favor of the Tinker family and friend Christopher Eckhardt. (2) The court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Justice Hugo Black and John M. Harlan II dissented. Black believed that the case involved a small number of students who refused to obey the instructions of the school district. He also argued that this behavior could have a negative effect on schools and on the country as a whole. (3) The Court ruled in favor of the kids because the student's political expression and protests were protected by the First Amendment and did not cause a disruption or threat to the school environment. The Court also ruled in favor of the kids because the fourteenth Amendment selectively applied the Bill of Rights to the states, and were not abandoned in the school environment. (4)
Justice Harlan,dissented the case, saying that "I certainly agree that state public school authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities are not wholly exempt from the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment respecting the freedoms of expression and association. At the same time I am reluctant to believe that there is any disagreement between the majority and myself on the proposition that school officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions. To translate that proposition into a workable constitutional rule, I would, in cases like this, cast upon those complaining the burden of showing that a particular school measure was motivated by other than legitimate school concerns--for example, a desire to prohibit the expression of an unpopular point of view, while permitting expression of the dominant opinion." (5)
While many look at the Case and say that the Supreme Court sided with the Tinker students because they were younger and looked innocent going up against the school district, the Supreme Court merely supported the students' right to express their opinion, a widely controversial opinion in the United States and that time, in the school environment. (6) It did not though take away the school's right to maintain appropriate order and discipline.
School press reformers were able to use the Tinker decision to bolster high school journalism. Many faculty advisers interpreted Tinker as a blueprint for keeping school administrators away from school newspapers. (7) Under theTinker ruling, the advisers believed, students could be prevented from publishing articles in a school newspaper only if the articles were libelous, obscene or “materially and substantially interfered with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” (8)
(1) - U.S Supreme Court, "Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." , 1968. Case (21) (Boston College N.p., 12 Nov. 1968.
(2) - Ibid
(3) - Anonymous, "Summary of Supreme Court's Actions." , New York Times (New York City), March 5, 1968.
(4) - Ibid
(5) - ibid
(6) - ibid
(7) - US Supreme Court Media, TINKER v. DES MOINES IND. COMM. SCHOOL DIST. , http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960 - 1968/1968_21
(8) - American Civil Liberties Union, Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969) , http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/tinker-v-des-moines-393-us-503-1969