This case of the students against the school itself seems highly controversial since people argue about the fairness of the Supreme Court’s decision. To be more particular, The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Des Moines’ side without providing an opinion regarding such reasoning. Consequently, it appears that the court’s decision does not cover the human rights that seem clearly violated in the form of Mary Beth, John Tinkers, and Christopher Eckhardt by their school, Des Moines.
To begin with, the students of Des Moines, Mary Beth, John Tinkers, and Christopher Eckhardt, desired to support the truce in the Vietnam War, which they planned to express by wearing black armbands. However, having learned about teenagers’ intentions, teachers decided to create a policy that noted the necessity of removing the band if the tutors saw one (Oyez, 2021). As a result, the students were suspended because the administration considered such actions as a protest that was distracting all the children at the school from the educational process (Oyez, 2021). Consequently, the Tinkers sued the educational establishment for violating the rights of children and “sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students” (Oyez, 2021, line 2). Nevertheless, the court protected the school and claimed the reasonability and fairness of its actions regarding the suspension of the students.
Furthermore, the majority’s opinion, delivered by Justice Abe Fortas, was antagonistic toward the court’s decision. To be more exact, they reckoned that the students could not lose their rights of speech freedom at school, so they could express their feelings and emotions in the way they did (Oyez, 2021). Another critical point is that they considered the school’s actions full of “fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference” (Oyez, 2021, line 3). Overall, I agree with Justice Abe Fortas’ defense as they respected and valued the students’ rights and evaluated the situation without any biases and, therefore, fairly towards the suspended teenagers.
As for the defense of Justice Hugo L. Black, the statement was mainly based on the students’ actions serving as a distraction for school officials and other pupils. In addition, the defense claimed the ability of the establishment to suspend the teenagers since it “was well within its rights to discipline the students” (Oyez, 2021, line 5). Still, Justice Black was highly focused on the arguability of the First Amendment as it “does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time” (Oyez, 2021, line 5). As a result, I am concerned about Justice Black’s opinion regarding the First Amendment, which makes the argument unreliable. In other words, the desire of dissent to support the district court’s decision by even confusing the terms of speech freedom seems to question the objectivity of its claims.
Therefore, I believe the majority opinion to be solid with the evidence and facts since Justice Abe Fortas clearly claimed the irrationality of the school’s claims and actions. In contrast, the dissent appears to be weak with its arguments due to the wrong interpretations of the First Amendment and empty statements regarding the reasonability of suspension without any backup of evidence (Oyez, 2021). Still, its justification appears to be a simple monologue of preferences rather than a statement of facts derived from the laws’ examination.
Overall, the court’s decision to support the school’s actions seems unreasonable as the students’ freedoms were clearly violated within the walls of the educational establishment. Furthermore, supporting the Vietnam War’s truce does not appear as a protest or distraction, considering that the students did not promote their opinions and simply wore the armbands to express their feelings. Consequently, Justice Abe Fortas’ defense appears to include persuasive arguments regarding the biases of the school officials and, indeed, is more reliable than the statements of Justice Hugo L. Black.
Reference
Oyez. (2021). Tinker v. Des Moines independent community school district.