Check out some of the best posts written by students that received the badge:

One student remarked on the reasonable suspicion standard necessary to search students in schools:

“The question being asked involves having reasonable suspicion that a student is communicating with someone else (whether it be with another student or not) about selling drugs. A school should still not have the right under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to search that particular student’s phone. This Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” If a school authority is truly and reasonably suspicious that a student is using their cell phone or other electronic device during school hours to communicate with another person about selling drugs, said school authority should contact a higher authority (i.e., the police) and obtain a proper warrant to seize and search the student’s device. The Fourth Amendment protects such searches and seizures from happening without “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation”, and that right should not be violated.”

Another student drew a conceptual distinction between searching a backpack, and searching a cell phone:

“Searching a person’s phone and searching a person’s backpack are two totally different things. A backpack is used for school supplies and things you would need during a school day. A phone is a personal connection to other people that doesn’t have anything to do with school. A phone allows us to communicate about and with out of school people and things. What is on phones is personal.”

Another student focused on the Supreme Court’s holding in Safford United School District # 1 v. Redding, which concerned a strip search of a student who had was suspected of having ibuprofen:

“In the Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding I think they went way over board on a girl having ibuprofen on her in school grounds.  They didn’t need to go that far when ibuprofen is legal to have and the girl was only 13 years old. They did not need to strip search her for an ibuprofen tablet. I don’t necessarily think that random drug test follow the fourth amendment they don’t have probable cause to search people or test them for drugs.  I don’t necessarily think its a bad idea but I can see where people would want to deny the test because of their rights.  They shouldn’t have to get tested unless the person testing has a cause to do so. Student athletes should be tested for drugs in case they are using them in a way that could better their skills while playing that sport.  They should be notified that if they are going to play the sport they are probably going to get tested and that if they don’t want to be tested they shouldn’t try out for the sport.  So I think that the fourth amendment does allow schools to look at your phone under certain circumstances.  There is also a fine line as to what circumstances are just and which ones aren’t.”

A student drew a distinction between searching students who participate in extra-curricular activities (in the form of drug testing) and those who do not engage in such activities:

“If a school wants to drug test students who want to participate in extra curricular activities, they can have students take them. Because the extra curricular activities are extra and not a have to do like attending school.  When a student chooses to be in activities beyond just school, they have to follow a good conduct code. Students represent a school and how the system works. When there are drug tests in the student athletes, that prevents those students from taking drugs because they do not want to lose their spot on the varsity line up. A majority of students are apart of one extra curricular activity or another. The Fourth Amendment protects students from a random search. But if say, a drug dog comes onto campus, and detects drugs, that is probable cause to be searched.”

Congratulations to all of the students who participated.  Look for a new badges next year at FantasySCOTUS.org.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of the most significant and compelling civil rights activists in history. He is often recalled as a model of peaceful resistance and a hero of the civil rights movement. He was born in Georgia and became a minister in 1947, and a pastor of an Alabama Baptist church in 1954. He strongly believed that segregation was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and led a boycott of segregated bus lines in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, which led to their integration the next year. Calling for non-violent resistance, he organized the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to fight for civil rights.

In 1963 King spoke at the March on Washington. Standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, King electrified the crowd of 250,000 with his “I Have a Dream” speech. He invoked the Declaration of Independence and its promise of equality. This speech would become one of the most well-known speeches of the 20th century.

In the years that followed, King led civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama. Television cameras captured police brutality on peaceful marchers exercising their right to assembly. While imprisoned for marching in April 1963, King wrote “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, which is regarded as a manifesto of the civil rights movement. King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Throughout his life King spoke often, before many crowds, in an effort to promote and expand liberty and equality for Americans with his right to freedom of speech.

King was assassinated in 1968. His funeral was attended by 300,000 people.  In 2011, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial was dedicated on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The work of King and other civil rights activists illustrates perseverance, courage, initiative, and industry.

To learn more about Martin Luther King, Jr. and other American heroes, see our curriculum Being an American: Exploring the Ideals That Unite Us.

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.