Analysis Of Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District In 1965, a group of students decided to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. On December 15th, two students, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt, displayed armbands. The two students were sent home. The day after, John Tinker wore a black armband, and again, was sent home. The parents then sued the school district. The question at hand is whether or not the students’ First Amendment rights are being violated when they are prohibited from displaying armbands, in a public school, in the form of a protest. Both the district court and the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of appeals stated that it was within the schools jurisdiction to suspend the students. The Supreme Court ultimately
Chemerinsky makes it clear that it is important to be aware of hate speech on campus, but it is unconstitutional to prohibit it. He states that in the early 1990s, over 300 cases regarding schools prohibiting hate speech were brought to the courts, and each of them were shot down as unconstitutional. However, it is clear that he believes schools should condemn hate speech, they just need to allow it’s students’ their freedom of speech. Additionally, he believes it is necessary for counter-protestors to voice their opinions as well when hate speech is spewed. I agree with everything that Chemerinsky states. It is critical to allow everyone to have a voice, even if they do not align with the majority's
She claims that the CRO has infringed on the First Amendment rights of many by threatening to withdraw funding from schools that do not cooperate with sexual misconduct policies. Within the policies include a sexual harassment concept, which she states hurts gender justice as well as violates free speech. This is stated on the idea that sexual harassment policies silence sexual expression across college campuses. College campuses deem that such expression is prohibited due to safety; however, Strossen states that they are simply “protecting” people from speech they feel uncomfortable about. I have never thought about sexual harassment this way and it is interesting to hear somebody defend sexual harassment. Strossen references professors being let go due to using sexual references during class, even when it was not in reference a singular subject, which demonstrates how easy it is to offend someone. Preventing sexual speech sets a dangerous precedent that if somebody feels uncomfortable, then they are capable of silencing another’s