Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

ADM 507

Dr. Vicki (Morris) French

W. Marshall

May 19, 2014

Summary

Three public school students in Des Moines, Iowa chose to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

This defied a hastily crafted directive of the principal, who then suspended the students for insubordination.

At issue was whether or not any disruption had occurred and whether or not the rights of the students under the First and Fourteenth Amendments had been compromised (Tedford, 2009).

Then (1965) Recent (2000)

Summary (continued)

Prior to being heard by the Supreme Court, the following courts heard the case and decided as noted:

U.S. District Court Decision: Held for School District (D)

U.S. Court of Appeals Decision: Affirmed

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students 7-2. (Aquila, 2008).

Justice Abe Fortas made the now-iconic, often-quoted statement for the majority: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” (United States Courts).

Concerning the dissenting opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan appeals to traditional respect toward those in authority: “…school officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions” (Cornell Law Review).

Summary (continued)

The case introduced what became known as the “Tinker Test” – a series of questions to prove whether or not the self-expression resulted in a disruption of established order.

The “Tinker Test” would be invoked in subsequent self-expression cases for which Tinker was the precedent cited. (Zimmerman, 2009)

Recent Examples

Nixon v. North Local School District Board of Education, (2005).

James Nixon was a middle school student in Ohio who lived in a devoutly religious household. He was known for wearing shirts with various messages promoting his religious beliefs.

On one day, he wore a shirt in which his religious views were claimed to promote disrespect to lifestyles and religions antithetical to his own.

At issue was the extent to which wearing a shirt with religious messages could cause disruption to the school environment and therefore be regulated.

Recent Examples (continued)

The “Tinker Test” was applied and it was determined that there was no substantial disruption as a result of wearing the shirt.

The school was ordered not to further prohibit Nixon from wearing the shirt or one similar.

Should the school have been found to have violated this condition, it would be subject to a civil penalty (Zimmerman, 2009).

Current Application Example

Many school systems across the country recently have begun prohibiting bracelets and other apparel related to the campaign for breast cancer awareness (I heart b******).

If ever there were a case to arise from possessing these items, in addition to the “Tinker Test”, this may be a case of ascertaining community standards. For example: A group of elementary/middle school parents in a conservative, upper income area may find this offensive, yet an urban, blue collar high school community might have minimal (if any) concern.

Best Practices for Current Administrators

Administrators must be aware of current trends in student thought, social group norms and fashion and should be proactive in establishing codes of conduct which allow for appropriate expression, yet are not distractive.

They must remember that they are preparing students for the “real world” in which most choices they make could have adverse consequences.

Best Practices (continued)

First and foremost, policies should be proactive versus reactive. Resolving a problem in mid-course is much more difficult.

It would be advisable to have attorneys well versed in First Amendment law carefully review and/or co-author the school district code of conduct. Once policies are written, they should be disseminated to the school community written in everyday language free of legal bombast (Palmeri, 2003).

Administrators should stay current on the laws and court rulings related to student conduct and the degree to which specific types of self-expression can or cannot be legally supported.

Conclusion

While schools are mainly learning institutions where standards of behavior and public decorum are considered secondary forms of learning, administrators must perform an unenviable balancing act between maintaining standards of behavior and public decorum and allowing students to express themselves and make their own decisions that they will have to make as adults in the workplace and eventually in raising students of their own.

References

Aquila, F. D. (2008). School Law for K-12 Educators: Concepts and Cases. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Case Summary; Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Cornell University Law Review.Retrieved fromhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503

Palmeri, T. (2003, April). Administrative Regulation of Student Expression. Retrieved from http://

www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/palmeri/commentary/palmerionadr eg.htm

References continued

Tedford, Thomas and Herbeck, Dale (2009). Freedom of Speech in the United States, 6th ed.

State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc.

United States Courts; Supreme Court LandmarksRetrieved fromhttp://www.uscourts.gov/multimedia/podcasts/Landmarks/tinke

rvdesmoines.aspx

Zimmerman et al; (2009) Tinker at Forty. American University Law ReviewRetrieved fromhttp://www.amulrev.org/pdfs/58/58- 5/sekulow

%20zimmerman.pdf