Tinker v. Des Moines
In December 14th, the principals of the Des Moines school and adopted a policy that any student who ore a black armband to school would be asked to remove it, and If he didn’t remove It, the student would be suspended until he came back to school without the armband. A few days later, the petitioners went to school with the black armbands, and they were asked to leave school, and only returned atter New Year’s Day. This court case was introduced to the Supreme Court by the fathers of the petitioners. (Tinker v. Des Moines) There were two opinions to this Case, the Majority and the Minority opinion, and the Minority opinion was correct.
Schools have all the rights to mpose any laws inside school campus, if the students dont agree with these laws, they should change schools. The Minority opinion was that the school had the right to do what they did, to Impose a law against wearing black armbands Inside the campus.
Only $13.90 / page
what can, or can’t be worn In school Is up to the principals to decide. As the court states about free speech and assembly “does not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place at any time” (Tinker v. Des Moines).
This means that although you have the rights to wear he armbands, you don’t always have the right to wear it in a public place, such as a school in this case. The Vietnam War could be a very emotional subject to some students, and those students may not like it to be referred. The armbands were said to have “caused comments, warnings by other students, the poking of fun at them” (Tinker v. Des Moines). This is everything that the school didn’t want. They didn’t want students to pick on each other and they didnt want disorder. Also, in that same school day, a math class was “wrecked” with disputes over the armband (Tinker v.
Des Moines). This just proves the point even more, that the use of these armbands just caused distraction and tumults. This was what the school principals foresaw happening, and that Is why they Imposed that policy. The Majority opinion believes that the students had every right to use those black armbands. As it Is stated In the Majority opinion “They (peuuoners with armbands) caused distraction outside of the classroom… ” (Tinker v. Des Moines). It is true, they definitely caused distractions outside the classroom, which led the conversations to go inside the classroom, isturbing the class.
Apparently, the petitioners wore the black armbands to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities… trying to influence others (Tinker v. Des Moines). This just caused students who had their friends, family, neighbors, etc… killed in war and nurt in war to be disturbed e t me this subject was very sensitive and many people were hurt when it was brought up. What the petitioners claim is that: “the wearing of armbands in the circumstance of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. (Tinker v.
Des Moines). This Just proves that they didn’t take into account the feelings of the people who might feel offended with these armbands. The petitioners also didn’t understand that their lives could also be at risk, if any of their colleagues was really offended, and were to hit them. The principals banned the armbands for a reason: to keep the school safe and to not create any commotion around this touchy subject. Students cannot concentrate on lesser issues when black armbands are very noticeable and call attention to the wounded and dead of the war (Tinker v.
Des Moines). The school suspended the students until they came back without the armbands, and this was a very well done act. If the schools give the students so much liberty, then the students will start believing that it is their right to control the school. The armbands “took the students’ minds off their classwork and diverted them to thoughts about the highly emotional subject of the Vietnam War. ” (Tinker v. Des Moines). As it was stated before, this is everything that the school officials foresaw and didn’t want to happen.
As the person who wrote the Minority opinion, and well, tated: “l repeat that if the time has come when pupils of state-supported schools, kindergartens, grammar schools, or high schools, can defy and flout orders of school officials to keep their minds on their own schoolwork, it is the beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the Judiciary. ” (Tinker v. Des Moines). This means that if the government and the schools continue to let the children wear what they want and do what they want to do, then the whole country would go crazy.