What concerns did Principal Reynolds have regarding the two articles?

Principal Reynolds was afraid that students would be able to figure out who the pregnant students were. He also noticed that the article mentioned sex and birth control. He did not think that students in ninth grade should be reading about sex and birth control.

What was the result of the Hazelwood case?

Decision and Reasoning In a 5-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the principal’s actions did not violate the students’ free speech rights.

What is the significance of Hazelwood vs kuhlmeier?

The landmark January 1988 decision in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier was a giant step back for student press and speech rights. Unlike an earlier Supreme Court ruling that established the so-called Tinker Standard, the Hazelwood decision declared students do shed some of their Constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.

Who won the case Hazelwood vs kuhlmeier?

Decision: In 1988, the Supreme Court, with one vacancy, handed down a 5-3 decision in favor of the school. The Court reversed the appellate court, and said that public schools do not have to allow student speech if it is inconsistent with the schools’ educational mission.

Who was Cathy Kuhlmeier?

The reason: Cowan is the former Cathy Kuhlmeier, one of three former high school journalists who challenged the censorship of their school newspaper in a case that reached the United States Supreme Court. In the 1982-83 school year, Kuhlmeier was a student in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St.

Who won the Tinker case?

Decision: In 1969 the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students. The high court agreed that students’ free rights should be protected and said, “Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates.”

What did the Supreme Court rule in the Tinker case?

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court’s majority ruled that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court took the position that school officials could not prohibit only on the suspicion that the speech might disrupt the learning …

Why did the Supreme Court find in favor of the students in the Tinker case?

What was the Supreme Court decision on the Tinker Case? They ruled in favor of the students. It held that armbands were form of “speech” because the armbands were symbols representing ideas.

Why did the Supreme Court find their suspension unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court found their suspension unconstitutional because the arm bands were considered “Pure Speech.” The armbands did not cause interference with school work.

Did the school district violate the constitutional rights of the students?

Decision. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the armbands were a form of symbolic speech, which is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore the school had violated the students’ First Amendment rights. Students in school, as well as out of school, are “persons” under our Constitution.

What does it mean when a Supreme Court case is called a landmark case?

A landmark case is a court case that is studied because it has historical and legal significance. The most significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain law, often concerning your individual rights and liberties.

What happened to Mary Beth Tinker?

Mary Beth Tinker was a 13-year-old junior high school student in December 1965 when she and a group of students decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the war in Vietnam. The school board got wind of the protest and passed a preemptive ban.

Where did Mary Beth Tinker go to college?

Ithaca College

How did the court distinguish between its decision in the Tinker case and the present case?

The court distinguished its decision between the Tinker case and the Hazelwood case because Tinkers case gave students the right to express their political opinions about the Vietnam War and Hazelwood was a part of the school curriculum for teaching and learning.

How did Tinker vs Des Moines affect society?

The Supreme Court said it does! The Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that students and teachers continue to have the right of free speech and expression when they are at school. The Tinker case is a very important decision protecting student rights.

What was tinkers argument?

The school’s act was unconstitutional and violated students’ right in the First Amendment. The students who wore the armband were quiet and the protest was silent. Only five students were suspended for wearing them. There is no indication that the work of the schools or any class was disrupted.

Why is the Tinker decision considered such an important First Amendment case?

The Tinker decision is such an important First Amendment case because it violates the rights the students had to protest against the Vietnam War. The Tinker decision affects my right to wear a T-shirt supporting a cause I believe in by allowing me the right to wear that shirt.

What was Des Moines argument?

PETITIONER/STUDENTS’ ATTORNEY #1: To sum up, opposing counsel would have you believe that in the Vietnam era Des Moines was a tinderbox ready to explode. They claim that the “explosive situation” — as they describe it — justified the school’s actions in denying students their First Amendment rights.

What distinction does the court make between the cases of Tinker v Des Moines and Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier?

One case involved freedom of expression through a school newspaper, the other through articles of clothing, but the major difference between the two cases were the decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. They agreed with the Tinkers in the belief that freedom of expression through armbands was okay.

What is the Tinker standard?

The substantial disruption test is the major standard developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its seminal student speech K-12 decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) meant to determine when public school officials may discipline students for their expression.