ADM 507 Dr. Vicki (Morris) French W. Marshall May 19, 2014 Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ADM 507 Dr. Vicki (Morris) French W. Marshall May 19, 2014 Here are the Tinkers with the armbands which propelled an average family from the heartland of America to the U. S. Supreme Court and changing public education and self-expression in schools across the country for decades to come.

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). On a snowy day in December 1965 in the American Heartland, three high school classmates planned what they believed to be a simple symbolic protest. Little did they know that they would become the subject of media scrutiny and being able to claim that they were part of a landmark Supreme Court case, one which would change the way public schools did business for decades to come. 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). It took just over three years from the day the students began their actions to the day the Supreme Court proclaimed the right to self-expression no matter how unpopular it may be. The Warren Court of that era (1953-1969) was known for some of the most progressive rulings to include Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Engle v. Vitale (1962). Cetrainly, they found a venue sympathetic to their cause in the U. S. Supreme Court.

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) The Supreme Court frequently designates some of its landmark cases to have important “tests” to guide future adjudication. The “Tinker Test” required that substantial interruption of a function or institution must be proven in order for the action to be considered not worthy of constitutional protection.

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. A case of an Ohio middle school student from a fairly religious family being able to wear a shirt in which his religious beliefs were claimed to have offended certain classes of people.

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). Upon application of the “Tinker Test”, it was found that no disruption to established order had occurred. Further, the court ruled that should the school prohibit Nixon from wearing the shirt or its equivalent, they would be subject to civil penalties.

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. A modern example of how the Tinker case may soon find its way into a courtroom proceeding as a precedent should the bearer of such items pictured here display these items and then be prohibited or otherwise suffer adversity as a result.

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. The law as pertains to public education and the conduct which we may expect is kaleidoscopic – an administrator can never seem to keep up with it all. Also, an administrator needs to stay current on trends and norms among the students subject to their authority.

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. Being proactive should prevent problems. It is likely that being proactive rather than reactive would have lessened the likelihood of the Tinker case ever happening or getting to the point it did.

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. Being an administrator is a non-amusing tightrope act. Especially now with the social media world and the potential that exists with the same.

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 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503 Palmeri, T. (2003, April). Administrative Regulation of Student Expression. http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/palmeri/commentary/palmerionadr eg.htm Here are the sources for your further review.

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 Landmarks Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/multimedia/podcasts/Landmarks/tinke rvdesmoines.aspx Zimmerman et al; (2009) Tinker at Forty. American University Law Review http://www.amulrev.org/pdfs/58/58- 5/sekulow%20zimmerman.pdf