Do you use document-based questions in your classroom?

This fall the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Assess the role played by the Court as the protector of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority in Brown v. Board of Education.”

Check out our previous post for Document A, an excerpt from the Virginia criminal code.

Section of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

>What was the historical context of the passage of this amendment?

>What level of government does this amendment limit? What prohibitions did it create?

_________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.! If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

Do you use document-based questions in your classroom?

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Argue whether or not the Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws.”

Check out our previous post for Document A, an excerpt from the Anti-Federalist Papers.

 Federalist No. 78, 1788

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of the power must perceive that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sowrd or purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may be truly said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment ; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

>Why does Hamilton call the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch of government?

_________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.! If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, document #8, the Concurring Opinion, and document #9, the Dissenting Opinion (Hugo Black), document #10, the Dissenting Opinion (John Marshall Harlan), document #11, a picture of Lorena, Paul, and Mary Beth Tinker, and document #12, a Dissenting Opinion, Street v. New York.

Today’s document is a picture: “A Symbolic Protest Mounted by Vietnam Veterans Against the War,” 1976

Think about it:

Compare this example of a symbolic protest of the Vietnam War with the Tinkers’ actions.

Should the First Amendment protect this kind of symbolic speech?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

]]> http://billofrightsinstitute.org/blog/2011/08/25/tinkervdesmoinesdbqdocument13/feed/ 0 http://billofrightsinstitute.org/blog/2011/08/19/tinker-v-des-moines-document-12/ http://billofrightsinstitute.org/blog/2011/08/19/tinker-v-des-moines-document-12/#comments Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:30:32 +0000 maria santos http://blog.billofrightsinstitute.org/?p=1512 Read more...]]> Do you use document-based questions in your classroom?

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, document #8, the Concurring Opinion, and document #9, the Dissenting Opinion (Hugo Black), document #10, the Dissenting Opinion (John Marshall Harlan), and document #11, a picture of Lorena, Paul, and Mary Beth Tinker.

Today’s document is a Dissenting Opinion, Street v. New York, 1969

…Action, even if clearly for serious protest purposes, is not entitled to the pervasive protection that is given to speech alone. …It may be subjected to reasonable regulation that appropriately takes into account the competing
interests involved.

Think about it:

Restate this document in your own words.

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, document #8, the Concurring Opinion, and document #9, the Dissenting Opinion (Hugo Black), and document #10.

Today’s document is a picture: “Lorena, Paul, and Mary Beth Tinker,” 1969

Think about it:

Do the armbands look the way you expected them to?

Do you agree with the majority of Justices that these armbands would
not cause disruption?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, document #8, the Concurring Opinion, and document #9.

Today’s document is the Dissenting Opinion (John Marshall Harlan), Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969.

[S]chool officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions. To translate that proposition into a workable constitutional rule, I would, in cases like this, cast upon those complaining the burden of showing that a particular school measure was motivated by other than legitimate school concerns—for example, a desire to prohibit the expression of an unpopular point of view, while permitting expression of the dominant opinion.

Think about it:

What action by public school officials does Harlan assert would
violate the First Amendment rights of students?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, and document #8, the Concurring Opinion.

Today’s document is the Dissenting Opinion (Hugo Black), Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969 – Document 9:

…I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases.

The truth is that a teacher of kindergarten, grammar school, or high school pupils no more carries into a school with him a complete right to freedom of speech and expression than an anti-Catholic or anti-Semite carries with him a complete freedom of speech and religion into a Catholic church or Jewish synagogue…[There is no] complete constitutional right to go into those places contrary to their rules and speak his mind on any subject he pleases….

Uncontrolled and uncontrollable liberty is an enemy to domestic peace. …School discipline, like parental discipline, is an integral and important part of training our children to be good citizens. …The Federal Constitution [does not] compel…teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students. I dissent.

Think about it:

Summarize Black’s objections to the majority ruling.

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, and document #7, the Majority Opinion.

Today’s document is Concurring Opinion, Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969.

Although I agree with much of what is said in the Court’s opinion, and with its judgment in this case, I cannot share the Court’s uncritical assumption that, school discipline aside, the First Amendment rights of children are coextensive with those of adults.

Think about it:

What objection does the concurring opinion make about the majority opinion?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case.

Today’s document is the Majority Opinion (7-2), Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Document 7:

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 problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style, or deportment. It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to “pure speech.”

If a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict, or the expression by any student of opposition to it anywhere on school property except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise, it would be obvious that the regulation would violate the constitutional rights of students, at least if it could not be justified by a showing that the students’ activities would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school. In the circumstances of the present case, the prohibition of the silent, passive “witness of the armbands,” as one of the children called it, is no less offensive to the Constitution’s guarantees.

Think about it:

Why did the Court rule that the Tinkers’ armbands were protected speech?

What kind of expressive conduct in public school does the Court say should NOT be protected?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, and document #5 part of the Oral Arguments for the case.

Today’s document is Oral Arguments from the School’s Case, Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969 – Number 6:

Herrick [representing the Des Moines Independent School District]: [T]he right of freedom of speech or the right of demonstration in the schoolroom and on the school premises must be weighed against the right of the school administration to make a decision which the administration, in good faith, believe and its discretion was reasonable to preserve order and to avoid disturbance and disruption in the schoolroom…

[I]t was a matter of the explosive situation that existed in the Des Moines schools at the time the regulation was adopted. …A former student of one of our high schools was killed in Vietnam. Some of his friends are still in school. It was felt that if any kind of demonstration existed, it might evolve into something which would be difficult to control.

Justice Marshall: Do we have a city in the country that hasn’t had someone killed in Vietnam?

Herrick: No, I think not your honor. but, I don’t think it would be an explosive situation in most, in most cases, but if someone is going to appear in court with an armband here protesting the thing, then it could be explosive. That’s the situation we find here….

Marshall: It could be [explosive]. Is that your position?

Herrick: Yes. It could be.

Think About it:

What “explosive situation” does Mr. Herrick claim motivated the school to suspend students for wearing armbands?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.