Podcast appearances and mentions of Mary Beth Tinker

John Tinker - Free SpeechDec 12, 2023In 1965, five students from Des Moines wore black arm bands to school to protest America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Those strips of cloth became the subject of a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of those Iowa students, the right of all American students to express their political opinions was strengthened.In the 1960s, the United States began sending troops to Southeast Asia. The nation of Vietnam had been divided into two parts, with North Vietnam friendly to Communist China on its northern border while South Vietnam looked to the United States for support. The United States feared that if communists from North Vietnam took control of South Vietnam, communism would soon overrun all of Southeast Asia.Some Americans opposed sending American soldiers to Vietnam. In their opinion, the war cost too many American lives and too much money. In 1965, a group of Des Moines high school and junior high students met at the home of Christopher Eckhardt to make plans to protest the United States' participation in the Vietnam War. The students agreed to wear black armbands the following week to protest the deaths of American soldiers in the war.Word of the planned protest spread. School principals were afraid that student protests would disrupt classrooms and school activities. They passed a ruling prohibiting armbands. They said that any students wearing them would be sent home and not allowed back to classes until the armbands were gone.On December 16, five students wore armbands to school despite the principals' rule. Three of students, Christopher Eckhardt, Christine Singer and Bruce Clark, were from Roosevelt High School. John Tinker attended North High School and his sister, Mary Beth, went to Harding Junior High.Christopher Eckhardt recalled that several students threatened him, "I wore the black armband over a camel-colored jacket. The captain of the football team attempted to rip it off. I turned myself in to the principal's office where the vice principal asked if 'I wanted a busted nose.' He said seniors wouldn't like the armband." A school counselor told Christopher that colleges would not accept him if he was a war protestor and might need to find a new high school if he did not remove the arm band.When the five students refused to remove the armbands, they were expelled from school. They returned after Christmas break without the armbands but wearing all black clothes.The Des Moines School Board met to review the principals' rule. They supported the ruling because they decided that principals needed the authority to keep order in the schools. The Vietnam War was becoming a very emotional issue across the country, and school officials were afraid that there could be disturbances at school if protest symbols showed up in class.The case did not end there, however. In March 1966, John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, Chris Eckhardt and their parents filed a formal complaint in U.S. District Court arguing that the students' rights had been violated. The District Court dismissed the case, as did a Federal Appeals Court. The case finally reached all the way to the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 12, 1968.The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of all American citizens to freedom of speech. But does that freedom apply to high school and middle school students in Des Moines, Iowa? 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. They do not "shed their constitutional rights at the school house gate," Judge Abe Fortas wrote in the Court's ruling.Does this mean that school officials do not have the right to maintain order in the schools or to prevent things that disrupt classes? No, the Court said. Schools can still restrict students' actions or expressions when there is enough reason to believe those actions would disrupt the school or invade the rights of other students. However, just because an opinion is unpopular or makes other students or teachers uncomfortable, school officials cannot prevent students from sharing their views. In the Tinker case, the Court ruled, school officials had not proved that the students' armbands would significantly disrupt classroom or school activities.The Tinker case is a very important decision protecting student rights. Because five Des Moines students were brave enough to stand up for an unpopular position, all American students enjoy greater freedom to express their opinions.SourceBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

On this special 4th of July episode, we celebrate American women who shaped history. Mattie Kahn, author of "Young and Restless: The Girls Who Sparked America's Revolutions," shares stories that are often overlooked in history books. She highlights how Mabel Ping-Hua Lee, Claudette Colvin, the teens who helped in the Revolutionary War, and more defied expectations and fought for change. Mattie also discusses Mary Beth Tinker's landmark Supreme Court case and its enduring impact on student rights.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Tinker - Free SpeechIn 1965, five students from Des Moines  wore black arm bands to school to protest America's involvement in the  Vietnam War. Those strips of cloth became the subject of a case that  went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of those Iowa  students, the right of all American students to express their political  opinions was strengthened.In the 1960s, the United States began sending troops to Southeast  Asia. The nation of Vietnam had been divided into two parts, with North  Vietnam friendly to Communist China on its northern border while South  Vietnam looked to the United States for support. The United States  feared that if communists from North Vietnam took control of South  Vietnam, communism would soon overrun all of Southeast Asia.Some Americans opposed sending American soldiers to Vietnam. In their  opinion, the war cost too many American lives and too much money. In  1965, a group of Des Moines high school and junior high students met at  the home of Christopher Eckhardt to make plans to protest the United  States' participation in the Vietnam War. The students agreed to wear  black armbands the following week to protest the deaths of American  soldiers in the war.Word of the planned protest spread. School principals were afraid  that student protests would disrupt classrooms and school activities.  They passed a ruling prohibiting armbands. They said that any students  wearing them would be sent home and not allowed back to classes until  the armbands were gone.On December 16, five students wore armbands to school despite the  principals' rule. Three of students, Christopher Eckhardt, Christine  Singer and Bruce Clark, were from Roosevelt High School. John Tinker  attended North High School and his sister, Mary Beth, went to Harding  Junior High.Christopher Eckhardt recalled that several students threatened him,  "I wore the black armband over a camel-colored jacket. The captain of  the football team attempted to rip it off. I turned myself in to the  principal's office where the vice principal asked if 'I wanted a busted  nose.' He said seniors wouldn't like the armband." A school counselor  told Christopher that colleges would not accept him if he was a war  protestor and might need to find a new high school if he did not remove  the arm band.When the five students refused to remove the armbands, they were  expelled from school. They returned after Christmas break without the  armbands but wearing all black clothes.The Des Moines School Board met to review the principals' rule. They  supported the ruling because they decided that principals needed the  authority to keep order in the schools. The Vietnam War was becoming a  very emotional issue across the country, and school officials were  afraid that there could be disturbances at school if protest symbols  showed up in class.The case did not end there, however. In March 1966, John Tinker, Mary  Beth Tinker, Chris Eckhardt and their parents filed a formal complaint  in U.S. District Court arguing that the students' rights had been  violated. The District Court dismissed the case, as did a Federal  Appeals Court. The case finally reached all the way to the United States  Supreme Court on Nov. 12, 1968.The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of all  American citizens to freedom of speech. But does that freedom apply to  high school and middle school students in Des Moines, Iowa? 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. They do not "shed their  constitutional rights at the school house gate," Judge Abe Fortas wrote  in the Court's ruling.Does this mean that school officials do not have the right to  maintain order in the schools or to prevent things that disrupt classes?  No, the Court said. Schools can still restrict students' actions or  expressions when there is enough reason to believe those actions would  disrupt the school or invade the rights of other students. However, just  because an opinion is unpopular or makes other students or teachers  uncomfortable, school officials cannot prevent students from sharing  their views. In the Tinker case, the Court ruled, school officials had  not proved that the students' armbands would significantly disrupt  classroom or school activities.The Tinker case is a very important decision protecting student  rights. Because five Des Moines students were brave enough to stand up  for an unpopular position, all American students enjoy greater freedom  to express their opinions.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Free speech activist Mary Beth Tinker discussed Iowa's state law on "age-appropriate" books in public school libraries. About Books also reported on the latest publishing industry news and current non-fiction books. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Free speech activist Mary Beth Tinker discussed Iowa's state law on "age-appropriate" books in public school libraries. About Books also reported on the latest publishing industry news and current non-fiction books. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mary Beth Tinker, along with her brother and other students, took part in a protest against the US involvement in the Vietnam War. The protest at school lead to a case which reached all the way to the Supreme Court, and would forever change the way that students view their rights. This episode was brought to you by Nutrafol! Go to Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code "ANGRY" to save $10 off your first month's subscription AND free shipping! This episode is ALSO sponsored by Hello Fresh, America's #1 meal kit! go to HelloFresh.com/50angry and use code 50angry for 50% off plus 15% off the next 2 months! AND from NOW until HALLOWEEN Snugg Box is offering 20% off for all of the Angry Feminist listeners when you use code Feminist20 at checkout!! JOIN ME ON PATREON FOR THE ANGRY FEMINIST BOOK CLUB! Join me on Zoom for the BOOK CLUB PARTY on August 30th! Stay tuned for times! Also watch out for TWO bonus episodes this month! https://www.patreon.com/angryneighborhoodfeminist GET YOUR YANF MERCH! https://yanfpodcast.threadless.com/  Do you have a topic that you want the show to take on?    Email: neighborhoodfeminist@gmail.com Social media:     Instagram: @angryneighborhoodfeminist **Don't forget to REVIEW and SUBSCRIBE on Apple Podcasts and Spotify!** Sources: Murder of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/freedomsummer-murder/ ‘https://www.aclu.org/documents/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression https://junior.scholastic.com/issues/2018-19/010719/this-girl-fought-for-free-speech.html?language=english#930L https://humanrights.iowa.gov/icsw/mary-beth-tinker https://www.thefire.org/news/remembering-chris-eckhardt-true-free-speech-hero Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John and Mary Beth Tinker — teenagers in Iowa during the mid-1960s — wore black armbands to school one day as a symbolic protest against the Vietnam War. They were both suspended, and later sued the Des Moines school district for violating their First Amendment rights.The armbands may seem mild compared to the vocal walkouts we see today. But at the time, it was described as “a disturbing situation within the schools.” In this landmark case, the Supreme Court weighed whether freedom of speech extends to public school students. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unprecedented.substack.com

Tinker shared her experiences about her Supreme Court case and the years that followed as she became a student rights advocate. https://loom.ly/YmpViM4 #RidgefieldSchoolDistrict #RidgefieldPublicSchools #RidgefieldHighSchool #MaryBethTinker #StudentsRights #UniteRidgefield #AngelaGardner #SocialStudiesClass #RidgefieldWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Welcome to the Delaware Justice Team, a collaboration between Highlands Bunker, the Delaware ACLU, and the Delaware Call to talk about the work that is being doing around various civil liberties issues.Today, Mary Beth Tinker and Susan L Burke join Rob in the virtual bunker to talk about their historic defenses of civil liberties, from Mary Beth's student activism against the Vietnam War to Susan's defenses of the victims of the War on Terror.Show Notes:Episode 1, Episode 2, Episode 3, Episode 4, Episode 5DOJ's attempt to silence protestersMary Beth's workSupport the Delaware ACLUSupport the Delaware Call

“Critical Race Theory,” also known as CRT, is a phrase that has become shorthand for just about any classroom instruction on racism, past or present. But what is this fight really about? What are these anti-CRT bills aiming to accomplish, and how will they affect schooling in the US? Amna Khalid discusses the rise of anti-CRT bills with Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy; Acadia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs; and former president of the ACLU, Professor Emerita Nadine Strossen of New York Law School.SPEAKER 1: Critical race theory is teaching that white people are bad.SPEAKER 2: We’re demonizing white people for being born.SPEAKER 1: This theory was never meant to be brought into grade schools, high schools at all. It’s actually taught in the collegiate atmosphere.SPEAKER 2: These are systemic things. Ignoring it perpetuates the problem. By acknowledging it, we can find solutions and we can address the problems and the inequality that exists in our country. SPEAKER 3: You gonna deliberately teach kids: “This white kid right here got it better than you because he’s white”? You gonna purposely tell a white kid, “Oh, well, black people were all down and suppressed”? How do I have two medical degrees and I’m sitting here oppressed? [cheers] How did I get that? [cheers]AMNA KHALID: Most parents of young schoolchildren are familiar with the stories--third graders in California are given an assignment: rank yourselves by power and privilege based on your racial identity. Parents in North Carolina say middle schoolers are forced to apologize in class to their peers for their privilege. In an elementary school in Manhattan, children are sorted by race for mandatory training. In some Buffalo schools, students are taught that all white people are guilty of implicit racial bias. Sometime towards the end of last year, parents and politicians freaked out, mostly conservatives, who see all this as a kind of liberal indoctrination of our youth. In at least 26 states around the country, Republican legislators have introduced what are now called anti-CRT bills. CRT stands for critical race theory, a phrase that has become shorthand for just about any classroom instruction on racism, past or present. But what is this fight really about? What are these bills aiming to accomplish and how will they affect schooling in the US? I spoke to three experts about the rise of anti-CRT bills. First is Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy, who says that although CRT was coined decades ago as a purely legal, academic term, it has now all but lost its original meaning. RANDALL KENNEDY: Now, if I'm in a seminar at my law school and we're talking about critical race theory, I'm thinking about a community of people, a community of thought that has its origins in the 1980s, that believes that liberal legalism was inadequate to get us to a state of racial justice. They’re people who believe that mere anti-discrimination would not suffice to redress the terrible injuries of racial oppression. Something much more activist, something much more deep-seated, had to be done to get us to where we needed to go. On the other hand, if we're just talking about on the street, if we're talking about television, if we're talking about radio today, for many people, especially for its most vocal critics, critical race theory is anything that they don't like that has to do with race. It's an open category and it's more of a slogan than anything else. KHALID: Let's move a little bit away from its origins and from the academic context and think about what it's come to mean today, particularly when we're referring to these anti-CRT bills. We've seen a rise in bills that have been drafted across the country, primarily in Republican-dominated states, where there is an attempt to banish, if you will, what they call teaching of critical race theory, particularly at the K-12 level. Now, as someone who is a scholar, a legal scholar, can powers that be do that? Is it legally sanctioned to stipulate what K-12 curriculum should be or is it in contravention of the First Amendment? KENNEDY: It can be done. It's a well-known tenet of American practice that public primary and secondary schooling is largely under the control of local political forces. It's deemed to be perfectly proper for primary and secondary schools, for instance, to inculcate patriotism. You know, that's viewed as uncontroversial. Of course you're going to inculcate patriotism. Of course you're going to inculcate various attitudes that the ascendant political forces in your jurisdiction want to be taught in schools and nourished and lauded. We want our youngsters to know about the Founding Fathers and the greatness of American democracy, et cetera, et cetera. Well, if you can do all of that, I mean, that's inculcation. This is another type of inculcation, or it's saying what we don't want taught. Well, you can do that. You can, for instance, have a school system in which you say, “We're going to banish the teaching of racist ideas.” And in fact, that's what some of these people, you know, are saying right now. They're terming critical race theory itself as a type of racism. And they're saying, “We don't want that taught.” Can that be done? Yeah, that can largely be done at the K-12 level. Yes. KHALID: There's nothing that prevents that kind of move from being undertaken.KENNEDY: That's right. It’s a political question. Basically from kindergarten to 12th grade, what you're taught in school is largely under the control of the local school board, the city school board, the county school board. It's a matter of local democratic politics. And so, it's a political struggle. KHALID:  OK, so, Randy, now I'm going to ask you to take off your legal scholar hat and put on your hat of an educator who is concerned with how we train our students to think. So with that hat on, I'd like you to tell us, are you in support of anti-CRT legislation? KENNEDY: I'm appalled by it. In my view, what's going on is the latest iteration of a phenomenon that we have seen over and over and over again. In my view, this is analogous to what happened in the 1950s: the panic over communism, the panic over socialism. You'll note that those two words often find themselves in close proximity to critical race theory. People say, you know, “Critical race theory is Marxism. Critical race theory is socialism.” There's a long history of stigmatizing ideas that are dissident, especially ideas that are critical of the status quo. There's a long history of stigmatizing such ideas as communistic or socialistic or Marxist. And that's what's going on today. The courts, I don't think, are going to be our salvation. I think our salvation is going to be public opinion. And you asked me, “Well, you know, what should people be thinking?” People should be thinking, “How do I want my children to be trained?” I would think that people would want children to be critical thinkers, would want children to be introduced to all sorts of ideas, including ideas that they don't like, trained in such a way that children can have a critical, skeptical stance toward a wide range of ideas. That, it seems to me, is what we should want in our public schools. And we cannot have that if certain ideas are banished. Let the teachers introduce things that are called critical race theory and let's talk about it: “What do you think of this? How should this be assessed?” The art of assessment is what we should be inculcating in our history and in our social studies and in our civics classes. And we can't do that if we are in a panic and banish ideas that we think we don't like. KHALID: According to Randall Kennedy, critical race theory in 2021 means something very different from what its original proponents intended. Nowadays, the term is loaded. It is political. It means everything and says almost nothing about what is actually being taught in schools. But it's the term that we're stuck with for the time being. The more immediate question then becomes, what are these anti-CRT bills trying to achieve? Jeffrey Sachs teaches Middle Eastern politics at Acadia University in Canada and has been closely following the various legislation.JEFFREY SACHS: These efforts focus their attention on preventing K-12, and in some cases, public universities and colleges from engaging in certain kinds of speech in the classroom, assigning certain kinds of materials, and also, in some instances, preventing the kinds of trainings that schools can require teachers or staff to undergo as part of their jobs. And really, the long and short of it is that this is an attempt to prevent teachers from being trained in or discussing certain ideas that conservatives really hate. KHALID: And what are those ideas? SACHS: The list fluctuates. They tend to focus on things like the idea that one race or sex is inherently superior or inferior to another race or sex, or the idea that somebody, by virtue of their race or sex, is guilty or should feel shame on that basis. I don't think there are many people out there--I certainly, I hope not--who think that a person should feel shame or guilt on account of their race or sex. So, the ideas that are being targeted for censorship by these laws, many of them, when they're presented, they sound like a reasonable law. But when you kind of really drill down into how these laws are being written, you discover very quickly that they're far more sweeping and in some cases, far more sloppily drafted than probably they should be. And they would inevitably sweep up and censor all kinds of speech or classroom content that we want to have included, that we want to have protected. This is really a case where the politics of the issue, I think, are so powerful and the momentum is so great that legislators aren't really thinking clearly or if they are thinking clearly, they have malign intent because the result is laws that really are going to do a lot of damage to both K-12 and higher ed. KHALID: It may be constitutional in the K-12 context, yet that doesn't make it okay, and it doesn't mean that it doesn't come with a set of both anticipated and unanticipated consequences. There's nothing wrong in saying that teaching divisive concepts, which say things like, “If you're from a particular race you’re inherently superior or inferior,” is wrong, and we don't want that happening in our schools. Yet, the issue becomes very nebulous when we begin to think about definitions, what constitutes a divisive concept becomes contentious. SACHS: So, a good example is the law recently passed in Tennessee, which reads that a public school authority or public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction, and also that they may not use any supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts. And then it lists an array of concepts similar to the ones I described earlier. Now, the problem here is that there are all kinds of sound pedagogical reasons why a teacher might wish to include a concept in a course, even a very controversial concept. So an example might be that the teacher wishes to include a primary source written by an author who lived 100, 200, 300 years ago, at a time when certain kinds of divisive concepts were common currency. It might be useful, for instance, for the purposes of discussing historic discrimination or present-day discrimination for a teacher to cite a document that contains a divisive concept. If you pass a law, as Tennessee has, saying that teachers may not include such material in the course, then you are robbing students of their ability to confront and think intelligently about these ideas--ideas that they're bound to encounter at some point in their everyday lives. It should be the jobs of teachers to introduce concepts, no matter how divisive, so long as they do so in a responsible, neutral, and objective way. These laws, in many cases, do not draw that distinction. Instead, they ban any inclusion of these ideas. Tennessee’s is a good example. It bans the mere inclusion of these ideas, even if included objectively and discussed neutrally. That kind of sloppy drafting, if indeed it is sloppy and not intentional, is, I think, a real ticking time bomb. KHALID: The irony is that those who are pushing these laws are the ones who, until very recently, supported a president who was making precisely the kinds of speeches where certain groups were being seen as inferior and which would be very much part of your civics education if you were trying to engage in an educational discussion about democracy in America. SACHS: Absolutely. I mean, under this law, there's many Trump speeches that I'm sure would be ineligible for inclusion in a Tennessee classroom. Setting aside my own opinions about Donald Trump, I think that there is very valid pedagogical reasons for why a civics teacher might want to include a speech by the president of the United States. It's just a no brainer to me. Whether they mean to or not--and I always try to give legislators the benefit of the doubt, but whether they mean to or not, this law, which is currently on the books in Tennessee, would forbid the inclusion of a speech by the president. That seems to me to be insane.KHALID: But hang on, Jeff. People in favor of these bills often point out that teaching at the K-12 level is already highly regulated. Take creationism. You can't make that part of the science curriculum. And for the most part, people are okay with that. So what's wrong with banning CRT then, if that's something we want to keep out of the classroom? SACHS: There's a good reason why this is not a good analogy, because the fact of the matter is we do not ban creationism from public schools, right? We ban the promotion of creationism. We ban, under the Establishment Clause--jurisprudence--Teachers may not promote the idea that the earth or the cosmos was created by a deity. However, teachers are free to discuss that idea. And in fact, they have to if they're going to discuss things like Greek and Roman mythology or Dante's Divine Comedy. So there has to be room in our law and in our jurisprudence to allow people to discuss the idea of creationism so long as they do so in a neutral and objective way. We should extend that same basic courtesy and framework to critical race theory and its attendant ideas. So, people should be allowed in the classroom to discuss the idea that black people are inherently superior or inferior to white people, if only for the reason that that idea pops up in important documents and important conversations throughout history and in the present day. A teacher would be failing in his or her duty if they did not prepare students for the eventuality that they will encounter that idea outside the classroom. People should also be able to discuss the concepts of critical race theory without saying critical race theory is the truth. KHALID: Jeffrey, I'm going to actually move the conversation to discuss a different context, which might help elucidate some of the issues that we would face in the US. And it's one that I feel you're well-equipped to comment on. So, I come from Pakistan. And Pakistan is a very different society, one that has been looked upon in the US as a society that is backwards. And one of the key issues is we have blasphemy laws, which prevent the discussion of anything that insults Muhammad. Now, what constitutes a blasphemy is the issue over here. And in colleges and universities, I remember growing up not being able to ask genuinely inquisitive questions because they were being shut down because they were seen as blasphemous. So, for instance, Mohammad does X, Y, and Z and a single question like, “Well, why was this the best option?” or “Why did he choose to do this?” would be met with such irate censure from the teacher, who clearly did not want to go there for reasons that this could have implications should this be reported outside of class. And I feel like the US discussion about bills about CRT would benefit immensely--we could elucidate the ill effects of these if we just look a little beyond our shores to see what's going on in other countries. You study the Middle East. SACHS: That's such a fascinating comparison. And I think it really does kind of cast a bit of relief, what you're talking about. There's a famous case from the early 1990s in Egypt where something similar to what you're describing happened, where a university professor--of course, academic freedom is severely circumscribed in Egypt then and now. And in the early 1990s, this university professor described the Koran as a historical creation, that it reflected the events of its time and is not necessarily a universal and eternal document the way kind of orthodox Islamic theology presents it to be. For this, for engaging and considering this kind of critical view of the Koran, he was fired. He was prosecuted. He was declared by the courts to be an apostate, and his marriage to his wife, who, at least according to the courts, was still a Muslim in good standing, was annulled, and the two of them had to actually flee the country. Now, that's a very famous and thankfully, at least, a very extreme example, even in the context of Egypt, where these issues can be so sensitive. But it definitely highlights the idea that the moment you fail to draw a distinction between the discussion of an idea and its promotion, then you are robbing teachers and students of the opportunity to confront and critically consider certain ideas. So, while I don't think we in the United States or Canada or wherever face a similar kind of punishment if we run afoul of these anti-CRT laws, the threat is there and the self-censorship will be too. So, there we will definitely see in America teachers (and frankly, in many cases professors as well, because academic freedom is only as powerful under the law as the people who enforce it), at all levels, we will see a kind of self-censorship and a kind of terror in many cases of running afoul of these texts. KHALID: As Jeffrey Sachs suggests, many of these bills do not make a distinction between explaining an idea and endorsing it. But that's just one problem with how these bills are drafted. Nadine Strossen is professor emerita at New York Law School and former president of the ACLU. She takes issue with the way these bills invoke the concept of divisiveness. NADINE STROSSEN: The concept of divisiveness is being bandied about as if it is inherently negative. And that is very dangerous because divisiveness applies to ideas that people disagree with, right? Any time somebody says something controversial or provocative or unpopular, one of the stigmatizing accusations is, “Oh, you're engaging in divisiveness.” Or if you say something critical of government policy or, heaven forbid, of school policy--“Oh, don't be so divisive.” Well, what's the opposite of divisiveness? It's uniformity. It's homogeneity. It's conformity. And that's the opposite of the critical thinking toward which I think we should be striving if we are to educate our young citizens. And interestingly enough, in the Supreme Court's most recent student free speech case from the summer of 2021, the Mahanoy case, the Supreme Court actually said that the school itself has an interest in making sure that students have the right to engage in unpopular expression. That could be, in other words, divisive expression. And not only that the students have that right, but the school even has a duty to teach students the importance of exercising and defending unpopular speech in particular. And that would certainly apply to divisive speech. Now, I also want to go back to the 1969 Tinker case where Mary Beth Tinker and a number of other students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War in the early 1960s, at a time when the war was still very popular, when critics of the war were very unpopular, were assumed to be traitors to the United States and unpatriotic. And it was very upsetting expression because many parents and siblings of these school kids and teachers were off fighting and dying in Vietnam. A recent alum of the school had recently been killed in Vietnam. So this was very divisive emotionally as well as politically. And the school cited those concerns in saying, “Well, that's disruption and we can't have that in the public schools.” And the Supreme Court said, “No, no, no, no, no. Freedom for ideas, especially about matters of public affairs”--That's true for CRT, deals with matters of public affairs--“is critically important. If we were to say that the mere fact that speech can be divisive or upsetting, either personally or politically, that that's not a basis for allowing it to be protected, then we are teaching the wrong lessons about citizenship to these future voters and future leaders of our country.”KHALID: I'm actually really glad that you brought that up, because I think one of the hallmarks of democracy is precisely to not just allow for or tolerate, but to actually foster dissent, to create spaces where dissent is possible. As an educator, what I see happening with these bills is that they reek of an authoritarianism which is trying to produce the kind of conformity that fundamentally hollows out democratic institutions. And it's terrifying. When the public school system is destroyed is when you begin to see the downfall of a society. And it troubles me deeply. STROSSEN: You know, without free thinking and critically thinking and debating and discussing citizens, our democracy is going to crumble because it depends on we, the people, to wield our sovereign power. We can't do that in an informed, meaningful way unless we have nurtured and respected dissent.KHALID: I want to end with Professor Randall Kennedy, who believes that there is a direct line between laws that stifle open inquiry and the very health of our civic society. KENNEDY: The quality of our education is intimately tied up with the quality of our democracy. All of the leading theorists of democracy have talked about the importance of public education. They are bound up with one another. K-12 is the foundation of our educational system. What happens in K-12, tremendously important. In a democracy, if the people rule, it's very important for the people to make decisions about our health, about the use of military force, about all of the things that are significant. Well, if you have a lot of ignorance out there, if you have, out there, people who have not been trained to make wise assessments, if you have, out there, masses of people who really don't have the ability to separate disinformation from good, useful information, the fanciful from the realistic, well, a society that's governed by a badly educated populace is a society on its way down, which is why, you know, the struggle over the schools is so important. KHALID: As a mother of two young boys, I, too, am deeply invested in how racism is addressed in our schools. I definitely don't want my kids coming home and saying things like, “Mama, we were told today that white people are oppressing us.” That's not what I would consider an education. But if legislation is not the answer, and I firmly believe that it's not, then what can parents do to protest indoctrination in schools? We'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue. You can leave a written comment on BooksmartStudios.org or email a voice memo to banished@booksmartstudios.org.If you like what you heard today and want more exclusive content, including access to my extended conversation with Nadine Strossen and an exclusive discussion with Greg Lukianoff, the president and CEO of FIRE and coauthor of Coddling of the American Mind, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to Booksmart Studios. Subscribers get transcripts, extended interviews, and bonus segments. Also, check out my sister podcasts by Booksmart Studios: John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley and Bob Garfield's Bully Pulpit. Please comment and help us spread the word. The success of Booksmart and the impact of our work depends as much on you as on us. Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. And as always, I am Amna Khalid. Cheerio. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Tinker v. Des Moines' majority is read by Mary Beth Tinker, one of the students at the center of this case. The concurrences and dissents are read by Emma Camp, a rising senior at the University of Virginia. Legal Question: Whether the wearing of armbands by public school students as a form of symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment. Action: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students' right to wear the armbands, overruling the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court, at 00:58 Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring, at 26:49 Mr. Justice White, concurring, at 27:38 Mr. Justice Black, dissenting, at 28:10 Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting, at 47:42 This opinion's citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on Tinker, visit FIRE's First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

One challenging aspect of dealing with speech is that it bridges the gap between an individual's thoughts and their action. Now that everything is so accessible and the internet is everywhere, it's important to analyze the kind of influence our words have on each other.  With so much power to connect and communicate in the palm of our hands, we are pushed to be more proactive and to hold ourselves accountable for the kind of discourse that we allow. Consequently, this also prompts us to think of the level of inclusivity that we promote in our social circles.Today, TARTLE looks into the price of putting limits on speech with Jonathan Zimmerman.   Is It Time To Cancel Today's Cancel Culture? How has cancel culture and the evolution of what it means to secure social justice, particularly in the context of social media and the internet, changed the way today's generation navigates speech? “It's funny, that when we become emotionally charged...logic seems to fly out the door and we forget the reason for why certain fundamentals were in place that, I guess, allow us to be emotionally outspoken,” Jonathan explained on the podcast.  Today's cancel culture can be vicious: anybody can be publicly named and shamed for accountability, and boycotting has become a pivotal part of Gen Z's definition of social justice. This collective action serves as an opportunity for the masses to voice their concerns to public figures — but also to participate in a greater cause from the comfort of their homes.  In recent times, Jonathan shared how his Trump-supporting students were afraid of opening up about their political beliefs to the rest of the class. This prompted him to implement a meet and greet from students from another college under a premise that they called “the wedding tables model.”  Students from the University of Pennsylvania would be assigned to sit in circular tables with students from Cairn University. At the center of the room, a carefully selected roster of students from the two institutions would initiate a conversation on their beliefs, which would be on opposite ends of the spectrum. This gave everyone the opportunity to experience opening up to a perceived political rival or enemy — but without the fear of being judged. Similarly, TARTLE  also gives people an opportunity to look beyond political affiliations. It gives people and entities around the world the platform needed to share data truthfully, anonymously, and securely about themselves so that they may find common ground over time — what it means, Alex says, to be a human being across all the 220 countries on this planet.   The Roots of Limiting Free Speech: The Brandenburg Case In 1964, an officer in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) named Clarence Brandenburg held a meeting with fellow members, in the presence of invited media representatives.  Here, Brandenburg made several anti-Semitic and anti-black statements; he also made several hints to the possibility of committing “revengeance” if the federal government and the Court continued “suppressing the white Caucasian race.” Finally, he declared that KKK members were set to march on Washington DC, on Independence Day. While Brandenburg was convicted, fined $1,000, and sentenced to one to ten years in prison, the US Supreme Court later reversed his conviction. It held that a new test, called the “imminent lawless action” test or the Brandenburg test, should be used as a metric for speech. This new test, which continues to be the standard used by the government to punish inflammatory speech: is composed of three elements: intent to speak, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness. Brandenburg's case was important in enforcing an idea Jonathan mentions in the podcast: that no right is absolute. However, if the state is pushed to limit speech in any situation, it must adhere to an absolutely clear rationale for it.   Are Limits To Free Speech, Limits To Peace? Jonathan pointed out that often, there is plenty of discussion about the legal environment surrounding free speech — but not as much about the educational. With campuses touted as protected areas for speech, he calls for people to be more thoughtful about “modeling a different and a better kind of exchange in our schools.” In 1965, thirteen-year-old Mary Beth Tinker wore a black armband to school in protest of the United States' involvement in Vietnam as part of a group protest. She, alongside her brother John, was one of five students that were singled out for punishment.  Immediately after they were suspended, Tinker reported that her family received multiple threats from the public. Despite the lack of an absolute and immediate threat to learning in the school, the lives of Tinker and her fellow students changed drastically after this simple act of defiance. Incidents like this prompt the need for people, particularly from the younger generation, to have venues where they are free to experience each other's humanity despite differences in politics.    Free Speech Facilitating Self-Reflection Jonathan shared his realizations about his own prejudice when he came across a religious missionary while volunteering for the Peace Corps in Nepal: when you really get angry with somebody, it's because you see a part of yourself in them that you don't like. Furthermore, anger clouds the judgment and encourages us to lash out at the individual, instead of the problem at hand. This instinctive emotion pushes us to be aggressive and to defend ourselves against an abstract fear.  In the podcast, Jonathan posits that increased tolerance for others' right to free speech — especially from those who hold views and beliefs on the opposite end of the spectrum — is an important part of the authentic human experience because it's a learning process. Minimizing ideas that are against the ones we hold dear to us as harmful may help protect one's ego; but it inhibits learning, and a perspective of growth.   Closing Thoughts: Free Speech Is A Radical Value — Not A Conservative One In a world where information is so accessible, we are challenged to evolve beyond the instinctual and reflexive part of human nature and start seeing others as unique, complex individuals with experiences, motivations, and perspectives that are just as compelling as our own. Inhibitions on free speech become a crutch we grow reliant on, inhibiting our capacity for growth and leading to self-sabotage. Arguing that certain subjects should not be discussed is, according to Jonathan, also arguing that people are not capable of self-governance — which can be seen in areas and countries where censorship is a norm. Our continued freedom to think, speak, and act is also shaped by the way we choose to respond to other people. When all this is translated into data on the internet, it really makes you think — how much is your data worth? www.tartle.co   Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.   The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.   What's your data worth?   Find out at: https://tartle.co/   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/   Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial   Spread the word!  

Campus activism is as powerful a force today as it was in the 1960s. Join The Podvocate board for its season finale with student activist icon Mary Beth Tinker and special student guest B. Alvarez. This thoughtful discussion probes what it means to be a voice for change and how to marshal the passion of peers to affect meaningful change in the campus community.

"You start to limit free speech, and in the end, it will be denied to the people with the least power. And eventually, it will be denied to you." // Dr. Jonathan Zimmerman is one of the leading education historians today. His work examines how education policies and practices have evolved and where political and social movements intersect with teaching and learning. Dr. Zimmerman holds a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University, and he has authored books on sex and alcohol education, history and religion in school curricula, the history of public schooling, and teaching controversial issues in the classroom. His most recent book, published in April 2021, is titled 'Free Speech: And Why You Should Give a Damn.' // On Episode #47 of the Path to Follow Podcast, Jake and Jon discuss teaching English in Nepal, the origins of Jon's interest in the history of education, how politics and education coexist, what schools are for, the connection between free speech and democracy, the attack on free speech as a fundamentally bipartisan issue, free speech as the "great moral renovation of humankind," cancel culture and self-censorship in elite institutions, speech and violence, Mary Beth Tinker, and Jon's 2021 book, 'Free Speech: And Why You Should Give a Damn.' // Enjoy the episode? Please spread the word and follow @pathtofollowpod on all platforms. More to come! // Many thanks to the all-powerful Cesare Ciccanti for all of his efforts on podcast production. //

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus. DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Aug 28 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 1, 2020)Sep 21 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Sep 28 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 30, 2020.Oct 01 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania Principals Association filed.Oct 01 2020 | Brief amici curiae of National School Boards Association, et al. filed.Nov 30 2020 | Brief of respondents B.L., a minor, by and through her father Lawrence Levy and her mother Betty Lou Levy in opposition filed.Dec 14 2020 | Reply of petitioner Mahanoy Area School District filed.Dec 16 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.Jan 08 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Feb 22 2021 | Brief of petitioner Mahanoy Area School District filed.Feb 22 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Feb 24 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Cyberbullying Research Center, et al. filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National School Boards Association, et al. filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. in support of neither party filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Nation Education Association in support of neither party filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Association of Pupil Services Administrators and Pennsylvania Association of Pupil Services Administrators filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania Principals Association filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of First Amendment and Education Law Scholars filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Huntsville, Alabama City Board of Education, et al. filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice in support of neither party filed.Mar 12 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 28, 2021.Mar 15 2021 | Record requested.Mar 24 2021 | Brief of respondent B.L., a minor, by and through her father Lawrence Levy and her mother Betty Lou Levy filed.Mar 26 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 29 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.Mar 30 2021 | CIRCULATEDMar 30 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Parents Defending Education filed. (Distributed)Mar 30 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Liberty Justice Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Life Legal Defense Foundation filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian Legal Society filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Independent Women's Law Center filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of College Athlete Advocates filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law and Education Professors filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The National Women's Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Jane Bambauer, Ashutosh Bhagwat, and Eugene Volokh filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of School Discipline Professors filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of States of Louisiana, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of First Liberty Institute filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Student School Board Members filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Advancement Project, Juvenile Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Student Press Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of VanHo Law filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Mary Beth Tinker & John Tinker filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of HISD Student Congress, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Teachers, School Administrators, and the National Council of Teachers of English filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 05 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.Apr 16 2021 | Reply of petitioner Mahanoy Area School District filed. (Distributed)Apr 28 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: David D. Cole, of Washington, D. C.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

The Supreme Court hears argument today in its first student-speech case in more than a decade. In this first part of a special Briefly season finale, Adam Hassanein digs deep with plaintiffs and attorneys from the Court's legendary speech cases, who tell their student-speech stories. Guests: John & Mary Beth Tinker (from Tinker v. Des Moines); Matthew Fraser (from Bethel v. Fraser); Cathy Kuhlmeier (from Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier); and attorney Douglas Mertz (from Morse v. Frederick).

On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District. In 2017, a Mahanoy student was kicked off the junior varsity cheerleading team after she posted a "snap" on Snapchat that said "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything" while hanging out with a friend at a convenience store on a Saturday. Represented by the ACLU of PA, the student challenged the school's punishment and won four ensuing court decisions. In this episode, we hear from the student, Brandi Levy, along with ACLU-PA Legal Director Vic Walczak and Mary Beth Tinker, one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court's landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines. They talk about what's at stake in this case and why students should have the constitutionally protected right to express themselves. Oral arguments will be livestreamed on April 28 at 10am at this link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?510036-1/mahanoy-area-schools-district-v-bl-oral-argument Learn more about this case here: https://www.aclupa.org/en/cases/bl-v-mahanoy-area-school-district "Punished for a Snapchat: Why School Shouldn't Police Students' Speech Outside of School" https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/punished-for-a-snapchat-why-schools-shouldnt-police-students-speech-outside-of-school/

As Adam Laats said, "when it comes to schools, the most important thing is who you are, and where you live." In today's rebroadcast, introduced by Jason Stern, we explore how K-12 education has developed in the US since the 1600s, what teachers can and can't teach, what rights students have in public school, and how the federal government gets involved. This episode features Jason Stern, Mary Beth Tinker, Dan Cassino, Kara Lamontagne, Adam Laats and Campbell Scribner. Support our continued production of the show with a donation today!

This episode, I sit down with Mary Beth Tinker, the plaintiff of the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, defining how First Amendment rights are interpreted regarding students and teachers in schools. In our discussion, we talk about her story in how her case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, her current advocacy for First Amendment rights and children's rights in the fifty years since the Tinker ruling, and have a discussion about the protesters of today and the current state of our democracy. Follow Mary Beth on Twitter at @marybtinker, and go check out her website tinkertourusa.com.Special shout out to Mr. John Rauschuber, I hope you enjoyed this episode. One year after taking AP Gov with you, I still crave your praise and attention. For more updates on this podcast, you can follow this podcast on Instagram at @nosedivepodcast. Written and edited by Ryan Loyola. Additional production and help from Kora Fortun. Cover Art by Jamie Mazur and Ryan Loyola. Theme music: “Groove It Now” by Jayman from Our Music Box.If you’re interested in creating your own podcast, make sure to click the link in the show notes to start your podcasting journey with Buzzsprout!https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=971719If you’ve enjoyed this episode, make sure you download, subscribe, and leave a five-star review!

Mary Beth Tinker, a plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, discussed the importance of free speech for youths to combat injustices such as inequality and poverty. UVA Law professor Micah Schwartzman ’05 introduced Tinker. The keynote was part of the Virginia Law Review symposium “Speech Inside the Schoolhouse Gates: 50 Years After Tinker v. Des Moines,” supported by the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy. (University of Virginia School of Law, Jan. 24, 2020)

In this episode, hear from free speech activist Mary Beth Tinker. Tinker was a petitioner in Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark case that affirmed the free speech rights of children in schools.

John and Mary Beth Tinker—teenagers in Iowa during the mid-1960s—wore black armbands to school one day as a symbolic protest against the Vietnam War. They were both suspended and later sued the Des Moines school district for violating their First Amendment rights. The armbands may seem mild compared to the vocal walkouts we see today. But at the time, it was described as "a disturbing situation within the schools." In this landmark case, the Supreme Court weighed whether freedom of speech extends to public students. If you love Unprecedented, you can support the show and more great podcasts from WAMU by heading to wamu.org/donate.

John and Mary Beth Tinker visit the KRUI studio to talk about their activism since their direct involvement with the well-known Supreme Court Case, Tinker v Des Moines.

In part two of our series #1AUSA–conversations on the First Amendment’s past, present, and future, live from last year’s National Conference on the First Amendment at Duquesne University–you’ll hear stories of ordinary citizens who have had an extraordinary impact on the First Amendment. The first panel, on First Amendment history and landmark cases, is moderated by Duquesne President Ken Gormley with panelists NCC Scholar in Residence Michael Gerhardt, radio and television commentator Hugh Hewitt, NYU professor Stephen Solomon, and Tulane Law School Professor Amy Gajda. Next, one of those landmark cases is brought to life as President Gormley sits down with Mary Beth Tinker, a plantiff from a pivotal First Amendment case, and First Amendment historian Shawn Peters. Later, Ohio Governor John Kasich shares his thoughts on the special place that First Amendment protections hold among bedrock American freedoms. This episode was presented by Duquesne University and The Pittsburgh Foundation. For more information about the National Conference on the First Amendment, visit www.duq.edu/1a.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As Adam Laats said, "when it comes to schools, the most important thing is who you are, and where you live." In today's episode, we explore how K-12 education has developed in the US since the 1600s, what teachers can and can't teach, what rights students have in public school, and how the federal government gets involved. Today's episode features Mary Beth Tinker, Dan Cassino, Kara Lamontagne, Adam Laats and Campbell Scribner. Subscribe to Civics 101 here!

Dr. Nancy Patterson is an associate professor of Education at BGSU. In this episode, Dr. Patterson discusses her research “But I Wanna Say What I Wanna Say: Ohio Student and Teacher Perspectives on the First Amendment.” In her research, which she worked on in Spring 2018 while an ICS Faculty Fellow, Dr. Patterson interviewed K-12 students and their teachers about the first amendment and its place in the classroom.   Transcript:   Jolie Sheffer:                          Welcome to the BG Ideas podcast, a collaboration between the Institute for the Study of Culture and Society, and the School of Media and Communication at Bowling Green State University. Jolie Sheffer:                          I'm Jolie Sheffer, an Associate Professor of American Culture Studies and Director of ICS. Jolie Sheffer:                          This is the second of two episodes featuring the ICS Spring 2018 Faculty Fellows. ICS is proud to sponsor Fellowships to promote the research and creative work of faculty here, at BGSU. Those who receive awards are freed from one semester of teaching and service to devote unimpeded time to the projects they have proposed. These projects must be of both intellectual significance and social relevance in hopes that their work will generate conversations across disciplines, and engage both academic and broader community audiences. Jolie Sheffer:                          Today we are joined by Dr. Nancy Patterson, a Professor of Education in the School of Teaching and Learning in the College of Education and Human Development. Dr. Patterson earned her PhD in curriculum and teaching from the University of Arizona. Her research areas center on democratic classroom and school pedagogies, and academic freedom and equity in assessment. Dr. Patterson is here to discuss her current project, entitled, But I Want To Say What I Want To Say, Ohio Student And Teacher Perspectives On The First Amendment. Jolie Sheffer:                          Dr. Patterson has conducted interviews with K-12 students as well as their teachers for this project. Her work is informed by current case law about First Amendment protections and her interviews focus on interpretations of the First Amendment and free speech in Ohio classrooms. Jolie Sheffer:                          I'm very pleased to welcome Dr. Nancy Patterson to the program as one of ICS's Spring 2018 Faculty Fellows. Thanks for joining me, Nancy. Nancy Patterson:                Thank you. What an honor. Jolie Sheffer:                          We're very excited to have you here. Can you talk a little bit more about the project you're working on and how it began? Nancy Patterson:                Oh. It probably began when I was seven. I don't know when I... I've always had a... I'm from an educator family, and I always have had a strong sense of voice and choice in our family and felt that when I was in school. I think I really needed more. Some people become teachers because they have a favorite teacher. I became a teacher because I needed a favorite teacher. Nancy Patterson:                I've been in education for many years. When I began at BGSU... Actually, when I began as a PhD candidate to create my dissertation project, it was all about inquiry and student engagement with content and flipping the way we teach so that students experience something first, label it afterwards, and discuss it, rather than teaching and lecturing students in a classroom. I've had that going on a lot, for a long time, in my professional career and in my personal life. Nancy Patterson:                And then, once I came to BGSU, I began training teachers and visiting many classrooms. It's always been a strong commitment of mine to use best practices. It's interesting that we know these things work with students, yet we don't find them in the field as readily as you would think, or as frequently. Not so common. So, that's where the project emerged from. Nancy Patterson:                I've done previous studies with teachers and was very concerned about teacher self censorship. I did some Ohio studies where I found, in fact, that testing and standards were having a chilling effect on teachers' abilities to make their own curricula decisions. So, we always thought teachers were the gatekeepers, but the gate has slammed shut a little bit since No Child Left Behind in 2001. Nancy Patterson:                So, emerging from studies of teachers and having a sense and learning over the years that there aren't many studies done with adolescents because of the difficulty of getting permission, that's when the idea started to germinate. So, I work with so many teacher candidates a year, I really wanted to get back in the classroom and visit with students. Nancy Patterson:                I planned it quite carefully so that it would have a full year so that I'd be able to really dig in and not just do survey research, have conversations. That's why ICS was a good match for me. Jolie Sheffer:                          One of the things that, as you know, part of the mission of ICS is to encourage collaboration across traditional disciplines. Your work is very much centered in teacher education, but you're also drawing on First Amendment case law, as well. Could you talk a bit about what you found compelling about putting these in conversation with each other and the ways in which maybe the existing scholarship on teaching of social studies hadn't necessarily addressed in the same way that you do? Nancy Patterson:                It started because I was trying to find out what protections the law would provide for teachers who were teaching about controversy. The case law was dismal, not good support in the current configuration, or past configuration of the Supreme Court since the '70s. There haven't been rulings in favor of teacher rights. Teachers are defined as agents of the state. So, it actually has a huge impact on teachers, what the law says. Superintendents and principals use those laws in similar ways for high schools. I primarily addressed high school. We're in a culture where people get sued so frequently, and schools are political places. Of course, the administrators pay attention to what is okay to do with students. Jolie Sheffer:                          Some of the case law that you have referred to is really quite interesting and funny. Could you talk about some of those key moments that, at least maybe earlier moments, in '68 and at other times, have really expanded or clearly created conversations around what kinds of speech are protected and what are the limits of that in schools? Nancy Patterson:                Right. As I read along, the limitation piece became really very critical. You wouldn't think that students would care about case law, but when I walked in high schools, right away I started telling stories. One of the stories that caught everyone's attention was the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. That case was an interesting, I think, probably, period piece like some of them, if they'd be retried today, there might be different findings. But the students were really interested that a young man put up a sign that said Bong Hits 4 Jesus on a big banner in front of a lot of students coming back from, I think it was an Olympic event, because it was Salt Lake Olympics in that year, in 2005, coming up. And so, the Olympic torch was coming through town and the students were just coming back from that event. Busloads of high school students saw the sign. Nancy Patterson:                The speech was limited at the Supreme Court level. The biggest argument was that students can't promote illegal drug use, and there were conversations about whether or not he was doing that. That's a case that lit up the students. It's also interesting for adults to talk about. I do believe that there may be different decisions in the current context. But it still stands, as does the famous Tinker case from 1968. Jolie Sheffer:                          Tell us a little bit about that case. Because that's in a moment of great student activism. Nancy Patterson:                It was similar to today. Jolie Sheffer:                          Yeah. How did that case, what issues did it bring to public attention, and how did the courts decide where the boundary is for what is protected and what isn't protected speech? Nancy Patterson:                As far as I know, it's one of the four Supreme Court cases involving student First Amendment rights, and it was the earliest one. I believe that Mary Beth Tinker, one of the defendants, is still giving tours. In fact, she's speaking at a social studies conference later this year with us. Nancy Patterson:                It continues to have an impact. It was foundational for teacher and student rights because these four seventh graders won their case. Their parents obviously filed the case for them. They wore black armbands with peace signs to school. They were asked not to come back with those arm bands. They did. They were suspended. Jolie Sheffer:                          And this was protesting the Vietnam War? Nancy Patterson:                This was in 1965, I believe the case began. It wasn't settled until '69. So, yes, it was war protest symbols. The Court upheld their right to do such as long as it was disturbing the educational environment. The famous quote that we all continue to live by is that teachers and students don't leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. Nancy Patterson:                The students really resonated with that, too, especially in the current context with taking in knee in high school. So, that wasn't only an NFL thing. It happened on soccer fields. I learned from my interviews that it happened during the half time with band members. So, that sort of has ignited youth. Jolie Sheffer:                          Yeah, we really are in a moment where, I think for a long time the rhetoric has been that students are apathetic. But you can't say that in the current moment with the taking a knee, with the Parkland students and walking out of school against violence and things. So, with this backdrop, with all of your interviews of current high school students, how do they understand their free speech rights? Nancy Patterson:                I did a sorting activity with, I think, 28 focus groups of four to six students. I put their First Amendment rights out on the table. I assured them about Tinker, that the First Amendment rights were, in fact, their rights. And, I asked them which one they felt was most important. Speech was, hands down, everyone's first choice. Perhaps because... They told me it's because they use it all the time. They don't feel like their religious freedoms are threatened. They don't really care about newspapers, which is a whole different topic. They are very adamant about their love of that freedom. I know that it's only increasing their awareness of it, because they have such freedom on social media, which for how long, we do not know. It's probably the next thing that'll be litigated as far as limitations. Nancy Patterson:                They not only... They see it as their conversations that they have with each other. But they also argued that they would prefer to have more time in classrooms to deliberate. They seemed to enjoy our conversation so much. Jolie Sheffer:                          Tell us about how the process of you being part of these schools and having access to these students, how did you go about that? I can imagine one might think that administrators would be wary about having you come in to talk about this. What was your process and how was your experience of working with students, teachers, and administrators on this project? Nancy Patterson:                I think that's a great question. That's how the year unfolded in the beginning with me very conscious of the access. Any researcher is challenged by getting access, especially to adolescents. I was very heartened by the welcomes I had. I believe it's because I have relationships with teachers across the state because I'm a methods professor and I maintain those relationships. Nancy Patterson:                I initially approached my students who are now my colleagues who are now teachers, and they know me. I think otherwise, it might have been very difficult. I try to... A colleague of mine who was helping me conduct the research tried to help me contact some districts where I didn't know teachers and we couldn't get in. Nancy Patterson:                Also, I was concerned about our relationship with the local school district here, and particularly and especially, and the first thing I did was to contact our superintendent and ask for a meeting and explain the study. I was required to do that legally. I think I would have done it anyway. But federal law requires that I have approval, especially with minors. So, the access worked out pretty well. Out of the twelve I contacted, seven schools, five districts invited me in. I was well rewarded, because the students obviously loved the topic. The students obviously have great interest and concern, lots of great ideas. It was different than a survey, so I had... I think it was relationships with people. The study was all about that. Jolie Sheffer:                          In all of these conversations that you had, what were some of the most salient issues or themes that came up for the students? Nancy Patterson:                Yes. I interviewed teachers, as well. I knew what the teachers were going to say. I've studied teachers in their environments for many years. But, wow, the students were surprisingly communicative. They may not know what their rights are, which is not really on them, it's on us, on the teachers. But once they did, they were very interested in giving their opinion. So, I would say valuing speech above all. Being afraid of getting in trouble or just not actually ever having thought about how to access their rights to free speech. That was the second one. Some quite severe self censorship. They don't know who to talk to. They haven't learned how to use their rights. They seem not to have much agency. Nancy Patterson:                First of all, you have to know about them, and then you have to know creative and respectful ways to use them. So I think that's the fear of adults, that they'll just say whatever they want. I want to say what I want to say. But they're not going to. I think they're going to say what they need to say. They just need a little bit of help from adults. Nancy Patterson:                And then, there was a lot of... I've already referenced the knowledge, the need to know thing. They need more avenues and more practice at using these various skills. Nancy Patterson:                We also had more than one set of students, probably at a couple of different schools, talking about their teachers also self censoring. So teachers not being able to say who they were, teachers not having time to promote deliberative discussion, evidence based argument. They would like to see their teachers have a little more freedom, as well. Which was an interesting observation on their part. Jolie Sheffer:                          That was one of the things that really interested me, that really caught my attention in your talk, about students really want to learn how to have civil discourse about contentious issues. Nancy Patterson:                Yeah. They don't want to get in trouble. Jolie Sheffer:                          But they don't want to... Right. They're not looking for an excuse to just mouth off. They're looking to learn how to work through the issues that the grown ups are also struggling to talk about. Nancy Patterson:                I did have a very rare example of someone who thought it was unfair that they weren't allowed to use profanity. But in general, they were reasonable requests. Nancy Patterson:                One example is of a cell phone policy in a particular school. One student was saying we should have more freedom to use our cell phones, and another student was saying, well, why do you need your cell phone? We have what we need and we can use our cell phones outside of school. The student's response was, okay, maybe it's not that we want complete and total freedom with our cell phones, but we would just like to be able to present our argument. Very mature. And that's a responsible expectation we don't get to have everything we want, but we should be able to have the freedom to ask and some kind of a pathway. Jolie Sheffer:                          Another thing that I found really interesting is you talked about how discussion about First Amendment rights and debate and all of that doesn't happen equally for all students. Could you talk a bit about how our current educational practices provide room for some students to get training in this, and other students get left behind? Nancy Patterson:                Yes. This is a tragedy and it was very apparent. I interviewed mostly students of American government. Either they had had it, or they were in it. The reason I did that was because I thought they would have some grounding and a little bit of prior knowledge. I wanted to speak with older students who had more experience with school. So, I would go for a day and I would have all government students. Very often, they all had the same teacher. So I would, inevitably, work with an AP group of students. So, I would say out of the seven schools, there were four AP classes that I talked to. It might have been one or two focus groups. Usually, the AP classes, also, they're overrepresented in my study because those are the students that stepped up and volunteered. They were... Jolie Sheffer:                          AP is advanced placement? Nancy Patterson:                Advanced placement. Students can elect to be in these classes. Some schools have an application process for you to be in it. Ultimately, they take a test in the spring that's a very intensive written test about inquiry and use of documents. So they're training for that all year. They take that test in the spring, and it can award them college credit. It's a very serious group of students, but they... They had more practice talking, you could tell that. And they had more content knowledge. They had more examples from history of people who have acted. So, all of the things that I found that were problems that students were suggesting were the five things that I came up with. The AP students seem to have overcome those. Nancy Patterson:                I haven't finished my data analysis yet, and I really should stress that these are preliminary findings. But, I do believe there's probably some significant difference, not a good word to use, because it's not a... Jolie Sheffer:                          No. We're not talking statistically. Nancy Patterson:                Yeah. We're not. But I think the urban, the rural, and the suburban schools, the students will... I'll see some differences. I don't know exactly what those are yet, but probably similar to the AP advantage. Jolie Sheffer:                          What you've kind of inferred from that is student not in the AP track, their time is being taken up with more conventional testing, much more, leaving less time for this kind of inquiry? Nancy Patterson:                I think so. The AP students, I believe that they can use their AP exam to exempt them from the state test. I think it's also a cultural difference, not necessarily all about the testing. But it's a way we track students. Sometimes that's important and sometimes that's good. But I think with something as critical as your First Amendment rights and the foundations of your work that you're doing as a citizen, everybody needs to get that in a consistent way. Nancy Patterson:                I don't just mean learning your First Amendment rights. I mean practicing speaking and practicing petitioning and practicing the skills. Nancy Patterson:                Maybe the students that aren't in AP know their rights, they just have less practice. Jolie Sheffer:                          In exercising. Nancy Patterson:                In exercising them. Mm-hmm (affirmative). Jolie Sheffer:                          The media has rather extensively covered issues of free speech and First Amendment rights on college campuses. But we don't hear it the same way about K-12. How have some of these issues affected the ways in which younger students understand the right to free speech, and teachers? What are the lessons they're taking from the more high profile examples and, how does it operate differently within high schools? Nancy Patterson:                Well, they're minors, so they are far more protected, and I think that's legitimate. That's entirely appropriate. But then, again, maybe not so much difference because a freshman college student was, a very short time ago, a high school senior. I think that the college studies are predictive of what's happening in high school, and I think the college studies... I think the studies I've read of surveys of high school students probably need to take a look at what's going on with the college data. The questions that are being asked in college, I used some of them in high school, and I think they're really good. Would you shout down a protester? Who has the right in that situation? Nancy Patterson:                The finding from the recent Brookings study, that 19% of college students in a national survey think that violence is appropriate to silence uncomfortable or offensive topics. Those studies informed what I looked at. I think we should pay very careful attention to them. Perhaps the Knight Foundation needs to expand what it's doing in high schools. I'm going to ask them. Nancy Patterson:                They've done longitudinal surveys and I think we need to get that out. The Museum First Amendment Center is also doing some really good work of the general population. We're hearing from the general population, we're hearing from college students, we're hearing from high school students that maybe across those three databases there could be some more vetting of questions and more publicity of those findings. Jolie Sheffer:                          It is quite interesting in your role, you've been to high school students who, before too long, will be college students thinking about these things. But you're also seeing working with college students becoming teachers who will be going back into high schools to teach. Nancy Patterson:                Right. Among the 19% are people who want to be teachers, I'm sure. Jolie Sheffer:                          Really, these are conversations that we're having them separately, but it's really part of a single system and we're trying to train people to be engaged citizens and yet, we're, ourselves, often uncomfortable having these conversations. So, yeah. How can we expect the students to do better? Nancy Patterson:                Right. And those 17, 18 year olds are caught because they're just... they're not quite minors. Maybe we can do something to work with early voting in more deliberate ways. I think a lot of times, that's what happens in schools. The students say, well, I can't do anything yet. Well, that's not true in any sense. They can be involved in public policy. Jolie Sheffer:                          Well, that is one of the things that you said. Some students, in responding to your questions, thought that they didn't have First Amendment rights yet. Nancy Patterson:                Yeah. Indeed. I'm not sure where that's coming from. That's a huge misconception. Jolie Sheffer:                          But there is a sense that, for some students, this sense that they are kind of outsiders to political engagement until they hit that birthday, in some ways. Nancy Patterson:                Yeah, that's strange. Because they're driving, they're doing all kinds of things as young adults. They're young leaders. I like the model of First Amendment schools. I've heard about it, I've never visited one. I'm not sure how active they are. But in my view, that kind of a school wouldn't hide any of these things. Not that schools are purposefully hiding from students or denying them, but it's just a lack of emphasis on the democratic practices that we should practice in school. John Dewey talked about it years ago, democracy in education. I do believe that schools mirror society, society mirrors schools. Is our society what we want to see in schools? Is there a way that schools can drive the agenda of democratic practices and activism more? Nancy Patterson:                I think it's scary to give kids power. Jolie Sheffer:                          Yeah. What are some of the... Think about what works well, what are some of those best practices that you've seen with teachers trying to foster free speech? What are some of those best examples of strategies, methods, pedagogical practices that really do get students thinking critically and learning to exercise their rights? Nancy Patterson:                There are so many. I think over time, the numbers of programs and nice models have amassed. The Ohio Council for the Social Studies is behind this agenda. We try to provide... promote and provide professional development for teachers that is grounded in these types of best practices. But there's a program from the Center For Civic Education that's historic, a couple of them that have been around for a long time. One's called We The People. I like it because it involves all students in a particular government class. You cannot cherry pick. But the students learn Constitutional principles and they participate in state hearings, and they can win. Findlay High School wins regularly in Ohio. They'll be in DC next week, or in Virginia, I believe. That's not something just for AP students. That's for all kids in a particular class. So I like those kinds of programs. Nancy Patterson:                Project Citizen teaches younger students how to identify public issues and identify stakeholders, try to build public policy. That's in a petition piece. Something's wrong here with our government, how do we use government to fix it? Nancy Patterson:                I think just, they're not whole scale changes, but just on a day-to-day basis, giving half of the time in your class to an interactive activity of some sort. There are many different kinds of discussion strategies that work. I love one called Structured Academic Controversy where students are put in quads. So, it's not a tradition debate format where six kids can be involved. But, it's a debate format where every person in your classroom is involved. It's more of a discussion and argument analysis activity. Students become an expert on opposite sides of a controversial topic. They end up having to argue the opposite side of the issue. Nancy Patterson:                It's not exciting, I've found. I've noticed over the years that I've taught it to method students, it completely chills out the emotion in an argument so you can get to the argument. The emotions go away. Jolie Sheffer:                          Right. So it isn't just about winning or being louder, but you actually have to think through every... there are complexities and what's the other side [crosstalk 00:28:47] Nancy Patterson:                And it's an old thing. I mean, we've known about it since the late '60s. I think that teachers know these things. When I talk to teachers, they said, we don't need more professional development on how to have an active classroom or to teach civic education, we need the time to do it. Unfortunately, that's a huge policy issue for education nationally. Jolie Sheffer:                          Yeah. Can you talk about some of their... What teachers have said to you about what they feel is taking time away from that? Nancy Patterson:                They have much to cover. I've seen their standards. I've been involved in their standards. The studies I've done about assessment in Ohio and nationally have shown that these tests have a chilling effect on teachers. They default to a more sage on the stage approach to delivering information. But we've also done studies that have shown that students don't remember that kind of teaching, so maybe the short term regurgitate it for the test, and there hasn't been any deep shift in their schema or the ways they think. Nancy Patterson:                I've also met teachers how managed to do that anyway, in spite of the test. They use an inquiry based model and their students still do well. That was one of our Ohio studies that I did with a friend. We found that giving students time to deliberate in class, they perform well on tests anyway. I think it's some kind of a test paranoia, perhaps, on the part of some of us. The test is there, you have to teach to it. Well, really, the curriculum is there and when you teach to that, the test just comes. Jolie Sheffer:                          You've talked about teachers sort of censoring themselves a lot or feeling nervous about sharing personal views or political opinions or things like that. Now that, in this era of social media awareness and constant connectivity, do teachers talk specifically about that as a complicating factor and how they navigate what they share when they're increasingly visible and sometimes targeted for personal opinions shared on social media? So, how does social media fit into some of this stuff? Nancy Patterson:                I know what we do at the College of Education. There are too many cases of people losing their jobs, so we advise our students to take their profiles down entirely. However, I've seen, and I follow my former students who are now my colleagues, and I see healthy Twitter feeds and I see all kinds of good things going on. When I taught AP with one of my students at BG High School, that's when I started to tweet because it was great to be in touch with the students. Nancy Patterson:                I think that you can use it to make connections. That whole idea of addressing controversial topics is a different thing. That's just a regular professionalism habit to be adult on your social media. I think maybe things are changing a little bit. People are learning better how to use it responsibly. But, for certain, the courts are not supporting teachers in the teaching of controversy. Nancy Patterson:                I have been advised by the General Counsel of the National Education Association, I did a special issue on academic freedom a number of years ago, and he contributed an article. His suggestion was the courts are not favorable right now. They're calling teachers agents of the state. There's a case called Garcetti, a whistle blower case that's been used against teachers in numerous court cases. He and others are recommending that what teachers should do is work at the local level to make sure the school board supports the teaching of controversial topics, make sure everyone's informed when you're doing these things, that you have the support of your administration. Nancy Patterson:                There are schools, there are many schools, that are doing these things successfully. It's just extra work for the teacher and extra care, which I always encourage my students to consider how important that is. It's worth the extra work. I saw a lot of good things happening with teachers. But they're just so busy, too. They're really constrained by time, as well. Jolie Sheffer:                          I like... you are an active Twitter user. In terms of reaching the students, what kinds of conversations do you see happening on Twitter? And, how does social media allow for them to communicate and work through some of these ideas about free speech and their rights maybe differently than they do in the classroom? Nancy Patterson:                Nobody follows me, so I have no idea. [inaudible 00:33:56] The students I worked with at the high school a few years ago, they said that it's just so much work to get a good tweet that gets retweeted. I am not the best person to answer. I also think that Snapchat's where it's happening, and I don't do that. I've tried. My nieces have tried to help me. Jolie Sheffer:                          It's hard to keep up with the constant... Nancy Patterson:                It's a lot. Jolie Sheffer:                          ... change of where those conversations are happening. Nancy Patterson:                I was really committed to the voice of students in this study and I wanted people to know. So when I have an important thing I think that can contribute, that's when I get on social media. We'll see what happens. I've been off for a year and I know how quickly things change as far as how we communicate. We'll see what happens with my method students in the fall. The last time I was in the classroom, I wasn't really tweeting. Jolie Sheffer:                          As you know, ICS is invested in fostering conversation outside of academia as well as within BGSU. At your talk, you had teachers and students of education here, you had community members. Nancy Patterson:                I had some high school kids. Jolie Sheffer:                          You had high school kids there. What are some of the questions, the broader questions you're trying to raise with your work? Why do you think this is such an important and relevant topic now? Nancy Patterson:                Something happens entropy wise. I think we devolve as cultures, and history shows this, into lack of attention toward the human rights of all people. But I also think there's... while there's this entropy that takes us down into war and conflict and injustice, there's also something in the human spirit that sparks this generation, or any generation, to react against that. I think the message is that we have possibly overcomplicated education to the point where it's not meeting its intended purpose of building a healthy society, creating a happy and safe and prosperous democracy. I believe that education is the foundation for that. So, the awareness is democracy in schools needs work. It's always something that needs to be defended in each generation and maintained. It's like a garden. It'll go wild in two days with a lot of rain, so we just have to be vigilant. Nancy Patterson:                I think the students are speaking pretty loudly. I also don't think it's that difficult to do, it's just somebody tending that garden and getting in there and doing a little bit of elbow work, a little bit of hard work. Jolie Sheffer:                          Any lessons you'd like to... From what you've learned and what you've been thinking about and researching and studying, any lessons you would want to share or pieces of advice that you want to give to current students or to future teachers out there based on what you know? Nancy Patterson:                Yes. I think it has to be a community of learners that gets this done together. The students have shown us that they can get things done. History has shown us that youth and all different types of groups of people can achieve things together. I think that we need to take care of our organizations that work toward those goals. I think our social studies teachers should help each other out and be part of our local organizations. Nancy Patterson:                I hope we have a swing back. People are not joiners anymore and these are not issues that affect a few people. I think that's the work. I don't know how to mobilize people. I hope that we have plenty of time to do that, in which to do that before we lose some sense of civility for... It's going to be hard to get back if that goes away. And if a generation of youth is communicating in a way that we don't understand, we're going to lose them. Nancy Patterson:                I would love to get back to you on that when I've pondered my data. I do have two wonderful veteran teachers. One of them stepped up on the night of the study, came up to me and said, I'd really love to help you. I would also encourage anyone who hears this, I have so much data and so much information, if anybody's interested in helping fund further studies or help us analyze the current data, there is so much to do. Jolie Sheffer:                          Right. Thank you so much, Nancy. It's a pleasure talking to you and hearing more about your project. Jolie Sheffer:                          Our producer is Chris [Krivera 00:39:15]. Special thanks to the College of Arts and Sciences and the Bowling Green High School Center for the Performing Arts who hosted Nancy's talk. Thank you.

In this episode, I have the distinct honor of speaking with Mary Beth Tinker who brought a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court and challenged the idea of free speech in public schools. Welcome to the Government Gurus

Her journey started with wearing a black armband to school and proceeded to the landmark United States Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969). But it by no means stopped there: Mary Beth Tinker, namesake of the “Tinker” decision, continues to be a free speech icon.   On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we share with you an unabridged version of a 2016 conversation between Tinker and attorney Robert Corn-Revere, in which Tinker sheds light on her case and the state of student speech rights nearly 50 years later. Show notes: Podcast transcript Abridged video of the conversation Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) The picture of a young Mary Beth Tinker with her mother and father, as described in the episode Past podcasts with Robert Corn-Revere: Free speech at the U.S. Supreme Court, Censorship: the ‘bastard child of technology’, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission debate www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Student activism is back in America’s schools. Young people mobilizing around gun safety and social justice issues are heading back to school. We talk to Mary Beth Tinker, who took her fight for the right to protest at school all the way to the Supreme Court back in 1969. And we hear from noted First Amendment scholar Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, who tells us what rights students have to raise their voices—or wear t-shirt slogans—in schools today. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Student activism is back in America’s schools. Young people mobilizing around gun safety and social justice issues are heading back to school. We talk to Mary Beth Tinker, who took her fight for the right to protest at school all the way to the Supreme Court back in 1969. And we hear from noted First Amendment scholar Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, who tells us what rights students have to raise their voices—or wear t-shirt slogans—in schools today. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick talks to Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, about the current state of the gun debate. Plus, Mary Beth Tinker, of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, joins us for an inspiring message on student free speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick talks to Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, about the current state of the gun debate. Plus, Mary Beth Tinker, of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, joins us for an inspiring message on student free speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In late 1965, a 13-year-old student named Mary Beth Tinker wore a black armband to Warren Harding Junior High School in Des Moines, Iowa, to support a truce in the Vietnam war. The school suspended Mary Beth Tinker for violating a a policy the district had enacted to forbid just such protests. Through her parents, Mary sued the school. Tinker v. Des Moines made its way to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the school violated the students’ First Amendment rights by prohibiting armbands without sufficient evidence that they substantially disrupted the regular operation of the school. But in the years since this landmark case, the Supreme Court has sided more and more with a school’s right to restrict or punish speech. Host Ken White dives into the Tinker v. Des Moines case and how it has impacted freedom of speech for students on campuses today. While Mary Beth Tinker’s rights were upheld, many plaintiffs in First Amendment cases today have faced less sympathetic courts. Ken and his guests discuss the cultural and historic factors that have led to that retreat. The episode features the thoughts and perspective of Mary Beth Tinker herself, who remains an activist for student free speech. Ken also interviews Frank LoMonte, a professor of journalism and the recent head of the Student Press Law Center, an advocacy group that helps protect the rights of high school and college journalists.

This episode was inspired by my outspoken teenage daughter. During my daughter's civics class, the Supreme Court case Tinker vs. Des Moines (1965) was discussed. Mary Beth Tinker was just 13 years old when she protested against the Vietnam War. War has always found opposition from citizens but one would think that someone so young... The post EP 73 – American Free Speech Activist Mary Beth Tinker appeared first on Greed for Ilm.

You don't have to be big and strong to defend the Constitution. You just have to be brave and determined. Just ask Mary Beth Tinker, who wore a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War despite warnings that she would be punished. Then she took her case all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Join us and we'll tell you what happened next.

Frank Bond and Sonya Gavankar talk to First Amendment trailblazer Mary Beth Tinker about her lifelong dedication to educating students and the general public about the critical importance of free speech.