Tyler Eldridge

Edu 210-Law
Tinker v. Des Moines: Study Questions
1) The Tinker decision laid out the principle that, It can hardly be argued that either
students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at
the schoolhouse gate. The decision found that discomfort always comes from
unpopular opinions but schools cannot ban the expr4ession of those opinions unless a
legitimate school disciplinary reason is given.
2) As stated in question 1, the court clarified that appropriate disciplinary reasons for
limiting expression are permissible. In future cases, the protections given b Tinker were
limited and clarified to give schools the ability to effectively manage themselves and their
students.
3) I agree with the majority in this decision. The idea of freedom of expression must not be
limited to a discussion in social studies classes. Free expression must be accepted and
encouraged as a part of a school system seeking to create democratically-minded
students. The dissenting opinion cited a breakdown of school authority which is absurd
when freedom of expression should be a core objective for the education of students.
4) Ultimately, public schools are for the education of students. Activities and expression that
EVER threatens the safety, health, and/or good order of a school are indefensible.
Productive and civil expression should be the ONLY acceptable standards.

Ch. 5 Points-to-Ponder

Question 1.
a. As per Tinker: A student may express opinions as long as the exercise of such rights
does not materially interfere. By distributing materials to classmates, students are
interfering with the instructional process and possibly the appropriate discipline of the
school. The actions may be banned. (Pg. 98)
b. As per Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier: School authorities can censor student
expression in school publications as long as the censorship decisions are based on
legitimate pedagogical concerns. This limits Tinkers reach by saying that posting
materials on a school bulletin board (flyer about the anti-war rally) is within a schools
imprimatur. The school, in my opinion, can deem the flyers as against their legitimate
educational objectives. The flyers can be banned. (Pg. 99)
c. In walking off school grounds during class time, they are severely disrupting the schools
work. This type of expression is NOT protected and can lead to discipline. (Pg. 101
Chart)
d. By holding a rally outside of school instruction time off campus, the students are fully
protected by the first amendment because they are not interfering with the schools work.
(Pg. 101 Chart)