Tinker V Des Moines Kuhlmieir V Hazelwood
Tinker V. Des Moines, Kuhlmieir V. Hazelwood Essay, Research Paper
Tinker v. Des Moines, Kuhlmieir v. Hazelwood
Scott Nagao 3/10/97 Period 7
About 32 old ages ago, in December of 1965, a group of grownups and pupils
from Des Moines, Iowa gathered to demo their disfavor towards American
engagement in the Vietnam War. They decided to have on black armbands and fast on
December 16 and 31 to show at that place point. When the principals of the Des
Moines School System found out their programs, they decided to suspend anyone who
took portion in this type of protest. On December 16 & # 8211 ; 17 three Tinker siblings
and several of their friends were suspended for have oning the armbands. All of
them did non return to school until after New Years Day. Acting through their
parents, the Tinkers and some other pupils went to the Federal District Court,
inquiring for an injunction to be issued by Iowa. This tribunal refused the thought,
coercing them to take the instance to the Supreme Court.
Only $13.90 / page
After hearing their instance,
the Supreme Court agreed with the Tinkers. They said that have oning black
armbands was a soundless signifier of look and that pupils do non hold to give
up their 1st Amendment rights at school. This landmark Supreme Court instance was
known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District.
From the instance of Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. School Board evidently came
some conflicting point of views about the armbands. The school board said that no
one has the absolute right to freedom of look, where the Tinkers said that
merely censoring armbands and non other political symbols was unconstitutional. The
school board said that the armbands were riotous to the acquisition environment,
where the Tinkers said they were non. Finally, the school board said that order
in the schoolroom, where political contention should be discussed, is entitled
to constitutional protection. The Tinkers believed that the armbands were worn
as the pupils positions, and hence should be constitutionally protected and
respected by the school. These were all of import statements in the instance.
Personally, I agree with the Supreme Court & # 8217 ; s determination to continue the 1st
Amendment rights of the pupils in school. Why shouldn & # 8217 ; t pupils have the
same rights as other people? If the pupils wore obscene vesture, ran out of
schoolrooms, or put the school on fire in protest of the war, so yes, I could
see disciplinary action being taken against them. However, the Tinkers merely
wore black armbands. Because this was non riotous or obscene, I feel the
school should non hold punished them.
Another landmark Supreme Court determination came in 1988 in the instance of
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. In 1983 the principal of Hazelwood East
High School removed two articles from the school newspaper. He objected to
these articles because they described three pupils & # 8217 ; experiences with gestation
and divorce. He felt that subjects such as these would be inappropriate for
pupil readers. The school board voted in favour of the principal & # 8217 ; s action.
Cathy Kuhlmeier and several other pupils sued the school territory in the U.S.
District Court of St. Louis. Despite claiming that their 1st and 14th Amendment
rights had been violated,
the Court found no misdemeanors. After taking the instance
to the United States Court of Appeals, their instance was taken to United States
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, nevertheless, besides upheld the principal & # 8217 ; s actions
happening no misdemeanor of their rights. They said that because the newspaper was
run by school functionaries, that it could be controlled by them, & # 8220 ; so long as their
actions? related to legalize pedagogical concerns? & # 8221 ; .
This instance besides had some statements to see. The school territory said
that pupils & # 8217 ; rights are non violated when pedagogues use editorial control for
educational grounds. Kuhlmeier believed that this was unconstitutional. The
school territory said that because the paper was non a public forum that
censoring was appropriate. Kuhlmeier believed that the paper was a public
forum, hence, she should be able to show her sentiment to the community.
Finally Hazelwood School District believed that pedagogues were responsible for
commanding school publications because they reflect on the school itself.
Kuhlmeier believed that commanding school publications stifled the pupils & # 8217 ;
free idea and looks ; it limited them to merely school-approved topics
In this instance, I agree with Cathy Kuhlmeier. I am non stating that
certain topics such as obscene and non-school related subjects shouldn & # 8217 ; t be
censored, because they should. However, in Kuhlmeier & # 8217 ; s instance, I feel that
gestation and divorce are issues that face pupils at school. Because of this,
I believe that the principal & # 8217 ; s actions were incorrect, and that the articles should
have been published.
In comparing, both of these instances shared some really similar qualities.
Both instances were composed of a pupil versus a school territory. Both instances
ended up in the Supreme Court. But the biggest similarity was that both instances
concerned pupils & # 8217 ; rights at school, chiefly the 1st and 14th Amendment, the
freedom of look. Both complainants felt that their rights were being
violated by the determinations and actions made by the school territories.
In contrast, the clip periods in which these instances took topographic point were really
different. In the 1960 & # 8217 ; s, the war in Vietnam was traveling on, and there were a batch
of controversial issues and point of views confronting pupils at schools. In the
1980 & # 8217 ; s, the war was over and at that place weren & # 8217 ; t as many controversial issues
environing pupils & # 8217 ; rights. One instance involved freedom of look through a
school newspaper, the other through articles of vesture, but the major
difference between the two instances were the determinations made by the U.S. Supreme
Court. They agreed with the Tinkers in the belief that freedom of look
through armbands was O.K. . However, they disagreed with Cathy Kuhlmeier & # 8217 ; s
belief in freedom of look through a alleged public forum.
As a pupil, I believe that freedom of look is one of our most
of import rights. Without this right people won & # 8217 ; Ts know who we are ; they won & # 8217 ; T
understand our coevals. Because of the many different definitions of freedom
of look, people will ever be in contention over them. Let & # 8217 ; s hope that
our school territory ne’er faces a job every bit large as the 1s presented in this