Tinker v. Des Moines, Kuhlmieir v. Hazelwood

Scott Nagao 3/10/97 Period 7


About 32 years ago, in December of 1965, a group of adults and students
from Des Moines, Iowa gathered to show their dislike towards American
involvement in the Vietnam War. They decided to wear black armbands and fast on
December 16 and 31 to express there point. When the principals of the Des
Moines School System found out their plans, they decided to suspend anyone who
took part in this type of protest. On December 16 - 17 three Tinker siblings
and several of their friends were suspended for wearing the armbands. All of
them did not return to school until after New Years Day. Acting through their
parents, the Tinkers and some other students went to the Federal District Court,
asking for an injunction to be issued by Iowa. This court refused the idea,
forcing them to take the case to the Supreme Court. After hearing their case,
the Supreme Court agreed with the Tinkers. They said that wearing black
armbands was a silent form of expression and that students do not have to give
up their 1st Amendment rights at school. This landmark Supreme Court case was
known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District.
From the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. School Board obviously came
some conflicting viewpoints about the armbands. The school board said that no
one has the absolute right to freedom of expression, where the Tinkers said that
only banning armbands and not other political symbols was unconstitutional. The
school board said that the armbands were disruptive to the learning environment,
where the Tinkers said they were not. Finally, the school board said that order
in the classroom, where political controversy should be discussed, is entitled
to constitutional protection. The Tinkers believed that the armbands were worn
as the students views, and therefore should be constitutionally protected and
respected by the school. These were all important arguments in the case.
Personally, I agree with the Supreme Court\'s decision to uphold the 1st
Amendment rights of the students in school. Why shouldn\'t students have the
same rights as other people? If the students wore obscene clothing, ran out of
classrooms, or set the school on fire in protest of the war, then yes, I could
see disciplinary action being taken against them. However, the Tinkers simply
wore black armbands. Because this was not disruptive or obscene, I feel the
school should not have punished them.
Another landmark Supreme Court decision came in 1988 in the case of
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. In 1983 the principal of Hazelwood East
High School removed two articles from the school newspaper. He objected to
these articles because they described three students\' experiences with pregnancy
and divorce. He felt that topics such as these would be inappropriate for
student readers. The school board voted in favor of the principal\'s action.
Cathy Kuhlmeier and several other students sued the school district in the U.S.
District Court of St. Louis. Despite claiming that their 1st and 14th Amendment
rights had been violated, the Court found no violations. After taking the case
to the United States Court of Appeals, their case was taken to United States
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, also upheld the principal\'s actions
finding no violation of their rights. They said that because the newspaper was
run by school officials, that it could be controlled by them, "so long as their
actions…related to legitimate pedagogical concerns…".
This case also had some arguments to consider. The school district said
that students\' rights are not violated when educators use editorial control for
educational reasons. Kuhlmeier believed that this was unconstitutional. The
school district said that because the paper was not a public forum that
censorship was appropriate. Kuhlmeier believed that the paper was a public
forum, therefore, she should be able to express her opinion to the community.
Finally Hazelwood School District believed that educators were responsible for
controlling school publications because they reflect on the school itself.
Kuhlmeier believed that controlling school publications stifled the students\'
free thought and expressions; it limited them to only school-approved subjects
or opinions.
In this case, I agree with Cathy Kuhlmeier. I am not saying that
certain subjects such as obscene and non-school related topics shouldn\'t be
censored, because they should. However, in Kuhlmeier\'s case, I feel that
pregnancy and divorce are issues that face students at school. Because of this,
I believe that the principal\'s actions were wrong, and that the articles should
have been published.
In comparison, both of these cases shared some very similar qualities.
Both cases were composed of a student versus a