Tinker v. Des Moines
Issue
Students from Des Moines met in December 1965 to make deliberation on their support of the Vietnam War. The students meet in the home of one of their own Christopher Eckhart. In the meeting, the students decided to wear black armbands during the holiday season as well as fast on the 16th of December and in New Year Eve. However, the principals of Des Moines school learned of the meeting and decided to counter the resolutions of the students (Sternberg, 2013). The principle devised a policy stating that students found with the armband would be demanded to remove it, and refusal to remove it would attract a suspension from the school. This policy was meant to counter the students from showing their support of the war while in school. On the 16th of December, some students (Christopher Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker) decided to wear the black armbands to school. The school decided to send them home for their action. On the following day, another student John Tinker wore the black armband and was sent back home. The students sent home did not go back to school until the New Year’s Day when the protest was to end. The parents decided to sue the school on behalf of students for violating the rights of expression as stipulated in the constitution. The parents sought an injunction to stop the school from continuing to discipline the students (Sternberg, 2013). The issue of the question, in this case, was if the prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, was a form of symbolic protest, a contravention of the students’ freedom of speech protected and guaranteed by the First Amendment of the constitution. The main point in the case if students freedom of speech in school when made off the schools. The discipline of the school is paramount to enhace the learning operations and the teachers and the school official have a duty to take reasonable action to limit the freedom of speech that interferes with the students discipline.
Relevant Rule of law/ Legal principle adopted
First Amendment: Freedom of speech and expression
The first Amendment restricts the congress or any other institution from making laws that prohibit establishment of religion or free exercise of freedom of speech, press or right of people to assemble. However, freedom of speech is not absolute but rather subject to limitation on issues such as incitement, obscenity, sedition, trade secret or any other set policy. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, there is a great need to regulate and constrain the students’ freedom of speech in the case that their speech would have a significant adverse impact on the student’s life, function, operation, and discipline while in school. The school needs to control the students’ excess freedom and liberties that negatively impact the operation of the student while in school through the use of school policies.
Application of Rule to the facts
The court held that the students are subject to enjoy and experience constitutional rights and liberties while they are both in school and out of school (Shackelford, 2014). However, the dissent was that the students’ behavior while in school needed to be left to the order of education to the administrator judgment. The district court dismissed the case arguing that the school district the action was right as it was directed towards upholding the students’ decision while in school.Therefore, the school district has a right to reasonably act on any issue or aspect that interferes with the discipline of the students while at school as in the case of Tinker.
Conclusion
The decision by the court was right in the interest of ensuring that discipline was upheld, and order was maintained in the school to ensure achievement of the different goals and objectives in school. The enjoyment of the constitutional rights and liberties need to be exercised with moderation to ensure that the rights of other section of the society are not curtailed or prevented. This means that the 1st Amendment does not give people the right to express any opinion at any time. The use of the armband in school would disrupt the operations in the school, such as distracting students’ work or distraction of the school official operations. Failure to combat the use of armbands in school would be construed by all the students as the right thing. The thought would have inclined many students to engage in wearing or armbands and activism associated with it thus adversely affecting the discipline among the students. It is within the school to ensure that organizational operation runs smoothly and effectively using policies to regulate the students. There is a difference in the application of the first amenement in the sense that some people are not protected while others are protected by it. The difference arises in the students emjoyment of the first amendment goes beyond the limitation by violating a policy set by the school.
Case Law
Morse v. Frederick
Issue
During a school event away in the street Joseph Fredrick, a student at the institution, showed up with a banner indicated “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” which is a slang word in reference to the consumption of marijuana. The principal of the school, Deborah Morse confiscated the banner and suspended Fredrick from school for ten days. The principal argued that the banner was against the school policy as it advocated for the use of Marijuana (Banasiak, 2009). Frederick thus sued the school under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the violation of the First Amendment. The issue in this case for determination was if the First Amendment enables the public school to prevent students from displaying messages supporting the illegal drugs while in school supervised events. The second issue was if a public school official had qualified immunity from damages lawsuit in the First Amendment in line with school policy since the principal confiscated a banner that displayed a message promoting the use of drugs. The main issue in the case was if the school would compromise the school policy in the interests of the constitutional laws such as the First Amendment.
The Rule of law/legal principle
First Amendment
The first amenemenent guarantees the the freedoms of speech, press and assembly while prohibiting any activityor process that undermines the right. However, the First Amendment is exercised with limitation and thus its enjoyment must be done within the bopundaries. In this case, public schools can legally prevent students from promoting the use of the illegal substance by showing banners or other material at any event sponsored by the school. The school policy is against the use of drugs and other illegal substances, and thus the institution needed to avoid any attempts and actions in support of the consumption of illegal substances.
Application of Rules
The 1st Amendment does not prevent the school officials from preventing students from displaying banners or speeches that that is against the school policies. The Rule empowers and protects the officials in public schools to take any reasonable action in the interest of upholding the school policy (Banasiak, 2009). The school policies are meant to ensure that the schools are in a position to carry their functions and operations in the interest of achieving the institutional goals. Therefore, public schools are allowed under the law to prevent messages that contradict the school policy in events sponsored are held by the school. Students need to enjoy their freedom with moderation since they are not subject to full rights, as in the case of the adults. On the other hand, the principal is qualified for immunity, and thus the student cannot claim monetary damages in the case, but the case can only be decided on merit. The principle has a right and an obligation to protect students from speeches and attempts that will induce them to behave contrary to the school policy, such as the use of illegal drugs.
Conclusion
The court had a hard decision as it was presented with two issues of students’ rights to freedom of speech and the extent guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. It is clear that students are subject to the enjoyment of all rights guaranteed under the constitution while they are in school. But the rights and liberty need to be limited to certain situations while in school in the application and use of constitutional freedoms. The rights of the students in public institutions need to be held differently from those of adult citizens. The school policies need to be aligned with the constitutions in the interest of the common good of the students. The school policies thus need to ensure that the organizational goals are achieved with fairness and justice. This fact means that the school policy does not in any way contradict the dictates of the constitution. Therefore, the school policy needs to be observed in the school and school-sponsored event to uphold the common good it was meant for. Therefore, the constitution cannot be adopted in defending any issue that contradicts the school policy while in school or in school-sponsored events. The differences in the application of the first Amendment such that is only protects people selectively in this case is based on the fact that students are not subjected to similar rights as compared to the adult citizens.
References
Banasiak, P. (2009). Morse v. Frederick: Why Content-Based Exceptions, Deference, and Confusion Are Swallowing Tinker. Seton Hall L. Rev., 39, 1059.
Shackelford, K. (2014). Mary Beth and John Tinker and Tinker v. Des Moines: Opening the schoolhouse gates to first amendment freedom. J. Sup. Ct. Hist., 39, 372.
Sternberg, S. L. (2013). Outside the Schoolhouse Gate: The Limits of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Comm. Law., 30, 20.
