Tinker v. Des Moines school District - PowerPoint Presentation Example

when Due: Tinker v. Des Moines school District The Collision with the rights of others is witnessed in the Tinker v. Des Moines school District case where a number of students in the Des Moines decided to wear armbands to support for truce in the Vietnam War. The students decided to wear the armbands during the holiday season .This was agreed upon when the students had a meeting at the home of Christopher Eckhardt. Unfortunately, this decision came to the attention of the management of the Des Moines school where the management decided to suspend any student who wears the armband and refuses to remove it in the school premises.

The two students were suspended for the act. This indicated that the school management and the students’ possessed different values that they were conflicting .This made the parents of John Tinker furious and sued the school for substantial disruption and collision with the rights of others.The tinkers presented their case in the U.S District court where the court ruled on behalf of the school starting that the school management did the best thing by coming up with such a rule. This was to avoid the disruption of the school’s activities.

The tinkers did not lose hope for winning the case and appealed the same case in the US eighth circuit appeal but, unfortunately, they lost again. The tinkers never lost hope and appealed the case in the Supreme Court where the court ruled in their favor stating that the armband protest was protected by first amendment speech. The importance of understanding differing values and expressing them persuasively is witnessed in the case where the Tinker’s never lost hope in searching for justice.

This portrayed that the school and the Tinker’s had different values about the norms happening in the society. Furthermore, the desire for justice by the Tinker’s shows that people can make a difference in the world by standing up for what they believe. The freedom of free speech is not a right that is given only to be bounded that it exists in principle but not in fact. The freedom of expression is only exercised in areas that the government has provided as suitable places. The ruling ensured that the school management had no ground to take disciplinary action to the students because the armband did not disrupt education.

This case explains effectively aspect that any speech or action, which does not interfere a situation of the place, is protected by the first amendment speech (Stader, 50-70).Works Cited​Stader, D. (2013). Law and Ethics in Educational Leadership. (2nd. Edition). Boston, ​​​ MA: Pearson.