American hiamerican histor products are available on the online store. Go to cspan store. Org to check out all of the cspan products. Today marks the 50th anniversary of a Landmark Supreme Court case, tinker v. Des moines. In just a moment well be talking to one of the key players in that case. John tinker will be joining us from des moines, iowa. But first, courtesy of cbs news, Walter Cronkite on the evening news 50 years today. The Supreme Court today endorsed the right of student protests so long as the protest does not disrupt order or interfere with the rights of others. But a dissenting justice hugo black said the ruling begins a revolutionary era of permissiveness fostered by the judiciary. The 72 decision upheld the right of three des moines teenagers to wear black antiwar arm bands to high school. The court said students do not leave their freedoms of speech and expression at the school door. That courtesy of the cbs news and two of the key players in this case, Mary Beth Tinker and john tinker. From des moines, iowa, is john tinker. Good morning, thank you for being with us. Good morning. Its great to be with you. And we apologize that your sister mary beth could not be with us. We understand theres been some ice and weather in the greater des moines area, so we appreciate you trekking out and being with us on this sunday morning. Give our audience thats right. Were give our audience a brief overview of this case. Were having quite a well we wore black arm bands to protest the war in vietnam back in december of 1965. When we were suspended, we decided to sue the School System for violating or First Amendment right to freedom of expression and we lost at the district court, the Federal District court here in des moines. We appealed to the Appellant Court in st. Louis and there they split four to four. So we appealed to the Supreme Court, u. S. Supreme court. There had been a previous case coming out of the fifth circuit where students had been given the right to wear freedom buttons around the Civil Rights Movement. And so with the split then between the two circuit courts, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and at the Supreme Court, as you mentioned, we won 72. Our goal for the next hour, and we should also point out, we welcome our viewers on cspan3, American History tv, is to talk not only about the significance of this case but also 50 years later, how and why it is relevant today. From the majority opinion, Justice Abe Fortas with the following, quote, First Amendment rights applied in the School Environment are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students are teachers shed their Constitutional Rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Can you explain the significance of that decision . Well, this is the first time that the court the Supreme Court had recognized that students in the Public Schools are persons under the law and therefore they are endowed with their First Amendment rights with the proviso that they not disrupt the educational environment. There cannot be a material and substantial disruption of the environment and they cant infringe on the rights of others. But this is the first time that had been articulated by the Supreme Court. And so that was a significant change in the way that students in the Public Schools were seen. And we should point out that while today is the anniversary of the historic Supreme Court ruling, the genesis really begin in the mid1960s. Lets go back to what the country was facing in that time period. Lyndon johnson had just been sworn in to a full fouryear term and the war in vietnam continued to escalate. As we look at the figures courtesy of the defense department, there are an estimated 184,000 u. S. Soldiers in vietnam. And look at the increase from the Previous Year where there were just over 23,000 soldiers and the death toll from a few hundred in 1964 to nearly 2,000 in 1965. So explain what you, your sister, what others thinking at that time period. You were what, 15, 16 years old at the time . Yes. I was 15 years old. I should explain that my sister and i both came up we grew up within the Civil Rights Movement. Our parents were both active in the Civil Rights Movement. Ill just tell a short story here we lived in a small town in iowa that only had one black family and the kids in that family were not permitted to use the public swimming pool. And my father was a methodist minister in that town. He brought that issue to the city council there and instead of just correcting it and allowing the kids to go to the swimming pool, they denied the kids permission and the church where my father was a pastor thought that that was a divisive issue in the church. And so they didnt renew his contract. So he moved to des moines. He was appointed to a Different Church and in des moines my mother sort of made sure that we had black friends. She became involved with the Civil Rights Movement in des moines and, indeed, we did have black friends. And when we invited them to come to our church, that church also did not want to have black people in their church. And so they also did not renew our fathers contract. At that point he began working for a quaker organization, the American Friends Service committee, and his title there was Peace Education secretary. His job was to bring in speakers about World Affairs and to basically promote peace. And so thats the environment that we grew up in. And so by the time the war in vietnam was building up, it was natural for us to be opposed to it. And so by the by thanksgiving time of 1965 there was a large demonstration in washington, d. C. There were two charter buses from iowa. Mostly, they were College Students from the State University of iowa, Grinnell College and the university of iowa, but there were also other peace activists. I asked for permission to be on that bus trip and to go to washington, d. C. , and i was able to go. On the way back from that, there was a discussion on the bus what we might do to continue to protest the war and the idea was raised that we would wear black arm bands. Black arm bands had also been worn during the Civil Rights Era to memorialize the three girls that were killed in birmingham. The four girls, i should say, and the three civil rights workers that were also killed. There were black arm bands worn around that. So it was very natural to wear black arm bands to mourn deaths on all sides of the conflict in vietnam and also we wore them to promote the idea of Robert Kennedy had for a Christmas Truce that year. So when the School Authorities found out that we were going to wear arm bands, the principals got together and they decided that the arm bands would not be permitted. We decided to wear that we really should wear them anyway and so we wore the black arm bands. A completely silent symbol of our opposition to the war. We were suspended from school. There was a Community Decision really among the Peace Community in des moines and in iowa that we would go ahead and pursue the matter in the courts. So thats how it got into the court system. Were talking with john tinker. Our phone lines are open. Were dividing our phone lines, if youre a student or teacher, 2027488000, for all others, 2027488001. We have a picture of your home in des moines. We know that by the case came down in 1969, your family had moved to st. Louis, missouri. To get a sense of what was happening on december the 16th, 1965, you wore the arm band, you were in the high school at the time along with christopher ekhart. Your sister mary beth was in middle school and you have two younger siblings who were in Elementary School. They too wore the arm band, correct . That is correct. We all were opposed to the war. We all felt that it was a horrible loss of life that was going on in vietnam and we were all mourning the deaths. So, yes, we did all wear arm bands. Ill say that the morning that mary beth wore the arm band i was delivering newspapers and it occurred to me that we hadnt had a Group Discussion of it was not just our family and christopher ekhart who worn the arm bands. I was a member of the unitarian youth group and pretty much the whole youth group had decided to wear arm bands. But after we found out that the School Authorities had banned the wearing of arm bands, we hadnt had any kind of a Group Discussion. So while i was delivering newspapers, i was thinking that we really should get together and i got on the telephone and called people up and told them to hold off until we could have a discussion of what we were going to do about that. But mary beth had already gone to school and she left early and, chris, when i got ahold of him, he said, i dont care im going to wear it anyway. And he went ahead to school. After the two of them were suspended the first day, we did have a meeting at chriss house that afternoon. We tried to call the president of the school board and he told us that it wasnt an important issue and that we should wait until january and take the matter to the school board. But that would have been after the Christmas Period and we thought it was important to support the Christmas Truce and we thought that we had a First Amendment right to wear the arm bands. So the rest of us wore the arm bands and we were suspended the next day. Did you ever get an apology after the fact from either the principal, school board members, teachers, others who said you couldnt wear the arm band . You know, we never got a formal apology, but i dont i dont feel one is really required at this point. The des moines School System has been very welcoming to us and has really treated us very well and provided opportunities for us to talk to students and been very they seem to be very supportive of the case as it sits now. Why is your case, 50 years later, relevant today . Well, think of all the issues that students have. Theres obviously the gun violence issue, the parkland shooting being very large a year ago in florida, but any number of School Shootings have taken place, Global Warming is an issue that students are very concerned with, and there are local issues that students encounter. The suppression of student speech often occurs because schools are embarrassed because the students are pointing out problems that the School Administration may be causing. Anyway, the students all throughout the country have things that they want to say and i think its good for our society if they are allowed to say it. Lets get to your phone calls as we look back at the 50th anniversary of this landmark case. One of the cases we featured in our landmark cases series. Michael from coral springs, florida, good morning. Caller good morning. I got to say, this is a real honor to do this. Mr. Tinker, your name is on the ap examine every year. Its kind of cool to talk to you. Thank you, michael. Caller what ive always wanted to ask and im glad you segued into it. Are we just fortune that you guys were protesting something noble like the war or the other reference you made now to some kids want to protest about civil rights and other noble causes. What if eight students came into the School Wearing swastika on arm bands or something another something thats abhorrent. The decision didnt really address what you guys were protesting, just your right to wear them. And so how would you respond to that . Michael, thank you. Well, thats right. Our case looking back on it, it was it was fairly simple in some ways because it was a silent symbol. We werent standing up on the desk proclaiming anything. We were just wearing our arm bands. And it was obviously a political statement that we were making. And so it fit it fit right down the center of what free speech is all about. And so that is fortunate in a way. If you had a swastika or a hate symbol of any kind, i think it would complicate the matter because the disruption to the educational environment is a very important consideration because in our country we have compulsory education and Public Schools are what they call a creature of the state. And so they its the kind of doublesided issue. We have to have an appropriate educational environment and yet because its a creature of the state it has to it has to be true to the Constitutional Rights that we have. So it is a fortunate coincidence of a nondisruptive protest, purely political statement. Our guest, john tinker, a petitioner in the case tinker v. Des moines. It was heard in the fall of 1968 and the decision handed down on this day in 1969. Did you have a chance to listen to the oral arguments . This is kind of a sad story for me. I arrived at the airport in cedar rapids in plenty of time for the 11 00 p. M. Flight, but i had had a long day and when i got to the terminal, full of people, i fell asleep and when i woke up, everybody else was gone. I was kind of surprised that nobody had bothered to just shake me on the shoulder or something to wake me up. But there it was. I dont know if the fact that i had a beard and long hair at the time had anything to do with that. But anyway, i missed that flight and then in the morning i could only get a standby flight and i got bumped off of the flight that connected from chicago to washington. By the time i got to washington and my father came and picked me up at the airport, it was all over. I have since been able to hear the oral arguments and theyre quite interesting. If anyone in the audience would be interested to hear those arguments, they are available online. And theyre available on the cspan website as we carry oral arguments at cspan. Org. You can also go to landmark cases for our 90minute program on this case. Cases for our 90minute program on this case. Greg from holy oak, massachusetts, thank you for waiting. Good morning. Caller good morning. Id like to ask mr. Tinker what his views are on kids not being able to wear their maga hats and shirts to school. Thank you. My personal belief is that we should permit all forms of nondisruptive expression in the schools, especially ones that have political components. There was a case in california where students had wanted to wear American Flag shirts to school on cinco de mayo, which is a mexican holiday, and my sister and i mary beth and i did write an amicus brief on behalf of those students that wanted to wear the American Flag. So i would support the wearing of maga hats or maga shirts. I disagree with that position, but i would certainly support their Free Expression to wear those. Is that the original arm band now on your arm this morning . No, this is not. This is an arm band that has been printed up by the tinker tour, which is a project that my sister, mary beth, has organized and its a commemorative of this 50th anniversary. And the website is . The original arm band the original arm band was just simply black, it didnt have the peace symbol on it. So weve kind of elaborated it a little. The website is tinkertourusa. Org. Mary beth tinker who was part of our landmark cases series described what happened in 1965. Of course, i was very, very nervous because i was a shy kidney wai akid anyway and i was 13 years old in eighth grade. People were talking about what to do and i decided to go ahead and try to be brave like the other kids that i had seen as examples on the news and things, and so i had an arm band and i just had it on and i picked up my friend connie as i usually did on my way to school and she said, you better take that off, and youre going to get in trouble. So then when i got to school i met i saw my one of my favorite teachers mr. Moverly after lunch and he gave me a pink pass and i went to the office and i looked around the office and i looked at mrs. Tanner and the vice principal. They said to take off the arm band because its against the rules. I tell the students in the schools now in the great stance of courage and conviction i said, okay, and i took off that arm band and i gave it to them. I learned an important lesson, you dont have to be the most courageous person in the world, you can be you, you can be you, you can be shared, you can be shy and you can still make a difference because thats what happened. Mary beth tinker along with her brother who made history in the landmark case in the ruling 50 years ago, john tinker is joining us from des moines. Also if you want to follow us on twitter cspanhistory we have a who will. The question is do students today have enough free speech rights at school . As part of our American History tv programming. Among those 26 saying its about right, 13 saying too much, 61 saying not enough. Weigh in on the twitter poll, again, follow us at cspan history. Richard is next from red lands, california. Good morning. Caller good morning. Go ahead, richard. Caller how are you doing, sir . This is richard from california. I just moved out here from well, not just moved out here, but i came from des moines to southern california. I left i lost my fiancee well, like i said, my wife fiancee to cancer and we moved out here and ive got my son out here in school and he is now 13 years old and the schools are having like sexual abuse going on, Something Like that, and im just not understanding it and the kid aint getting the right scoring and nobody calls me in to talk to me or to say, you know, we need to address this or that. You know, its just weird how they do the schooling out here than what were used to. I just want to say god bless you guys and okay. Richard, thank you for the call. John tinker, do you want to weigh in on that point . Well, thank you, richard. Im sorry to hear about your fiancee. School officials have a really a tremendous task and i have nothing but admiration for them and what theyre trying to do. It is a difficult role that they are in. With regard to our case, you had mentioned earlier justice blacks dissent in our case saying that now is a time that the students were going to run riot ous in the schools and that generals has not happened. Originally mad straighters some of them felt that they werent going to know how to handle this freedom of expression that the students now had, but a lot of them have figured out a good balance and its really often an Educational Opportunity when you have problems in the School Related to expression. Remember that the students in school are not just learning math and science and history and things like that, theyre also learning how to be citizens in our democracy. And so its very important that the First Amendment be respected and that students are taught to respect the First Amendment and not not think that its just something that we say because it sounds good, but that the First Amendment is something we really believe in. Our landmark cases series which included not only the tinker case but also New York Times v. Sullivan griswold v. Connecticut, katz v. U. S. And greg versus georgia all of them on our website landmark cases. Cspan. Org. And this plaque at Harding Middle School in des moines commemorating what your sister did for her role in spect history and continued to work as an advocate for First Amendment rights. Back to your phone calls. Diane in new york city. Good morning. Caller hi, im 12 years old and in my seventh grade history case were learning about your case. I was wondering whether you thought the civil or homophobic slurs targeting some students should be protected under the First Amendment rights of students and school. Diane, can you stay on the line while john tinker answers that. I want to follow up. Caller okay. My feeling is that and this is not the official legal position or the case law necessarily, but my feeling is that some expression verges into virtual assault. I know that assault is defined purely as physical violence, but a threat can really cause physical consequences on the receiving end of the threat. Theres quite a bit of controversy over the issue of hate speech. I am generally very supportive of speech and i think that our society is better off if people do express in words their opinions of things, but i know that threats can verge in toward the actual nature of violence. So its a complex issue. Speech outside of school that affects what goes on in the school, its a very difficult issue. I think that generally speaking we should avoid suppression of speech and that any control of speech should be done with circumspection and a great deal of concern that we not infringe on the speaker, but i hope that our society can find ways to work out its problems, especially without resorting to physical violence. I think thats thats a very bad breakdown, obviously. But the only way we really have is with words, so we really depend on our ability to communicate in words in order to avoid more serious breakdown in society. So im very hesitant to restrict what anyone might say. And, john tinker, you mentioned speech, of course, the underlying argument in that 72 decision handed down 50 years ago today, the First Amendment to the u. S. Constitution which provides, of course, freedom of speech. As a reminder it says, quote, Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the rights of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I want to go back to diane, if youre still on the phone from new york city. Caller yes. So youre 12 years old, Mary Beth Tinker was 13 at the time. We have a photograph from them. John tinker was 15. Do you think you would have the courage to do what they did more than 50 years ago on issues that youre facing today in high school or Elementary School or middle school . Caller well, i think that if it was affecting if it was affecting our country that it would be affecting me, too, and that i would want to play a role in that and speak out. Diane, thank you very much. Where do you go to school, by the way . Caller i go to Riverdale Country School in the bronx. John tinker, what are you hearing from this 12yearold . I think thats wonderful. We need that kind of courage from our students and im sure they will carry that courage with them as they grow older and become more active citizens, voting citizens. I think thats a very good attitude to take. You are in des moines, iowa, and that is where rachel is joining us. She is a teacher. Good morning, rachel. Caller good morning. Im a middle schoolteacher in des moines, iowa, and our students study your case and its a great honor to speak to you, mr. Tinker. My question concerns i think you mentioned it just now concerns the internet and speech on cyberspace. The court seems conflicted on how to apply the standards set in tinker v. Des moines and how students rights dont stop at the schoolhouse gate and cyberspace is something else, something kind of thats both at the schoolhouse gate and beyond. So my question is how do you think the standard set by tinker v. Des moines should apply to student speech on the internet which can be, as you said, very disruptive in the school. Im just wondering what your thoughts are on that and a thank you so much. Rachel, before we get john tinkers response whats your reaction from your students when you teach these case to them . Theyre fascinated by it, that its something that was influential to our society at large and student rights and that it happened here in des moines and its something local that happened in their community and they love it. Rachel, thank you for the call. John tinker . Thank you, rachel. Its an honor for me to be here speaking with you, too. Its a difficult problem, the cyberspace, and freedom of speech. My view is that we should be distinguishing between speech which is conveying ideas and speech which is threatening and is an attempt to intimidate people. Now, how that can be done by the courts, im not sure. The distinction between inside and outside of the schoolhouse gates is becoming blurred, but i will just go back to my general position regarding freedom of speech and the importance that it holds four our democracy and that we should be very careful when we consider limiting speech. I would encourage our culture, our society, to teach kids to try to see things from the other side. When you have hate speech, you have someone who is trying to inflict damage or intimidation on another person and you have a person who is on the receiving end of that. An old principal in law and in ethics and in morality is to look at things from the other side, from the other point of view. And its not always easy. If it were easy, we wouldnt have these problems. But its an Educational Opportunity for an adult with a mature sense of right and wrong and ethical and moral principles. Its an opportunity for an adult to help the students understand what theyre saying and how its going to be received at the other end. And i know that there are cases where that works. And so i would encourage teachers to help their students find a mature a mature position. Dan zarenson attorney argued your case on your behalf, how old was he at the time and what did he tell the justices . Well, dan johnston was 29 years old when he took our case. He told the justices that freedom of speech is very important. They asked him whether whether speech inside the schools should be coextensive with speech outside the school and i believe he answered yes, and that is not exactly the position that the court took when abe fortis wrote his majority opinion. Its not exactly the same freedom of speech that you have inside the school that you would have on a street corner, on a soap box. The educational environment is fundamental, its absolutely important to the functioning of the schools and so a speech that would be disruptive of the educational environment cannot be permitted, but abe fortis said that in order to limit speech in the schools it must be materially and substantially disruptive. He says that minor irritations, minor disruptions have to be tolerated because thats the nature of our society. That in our society were going to have disputes and were going to have contentions and that we cant try to cut them all out. We can only control it if its going to be materially and substantially disruptive. Or if theres a reasonable fear that its going to be to the School Environment. Abe fortis who of course wrote the majority opinion, justices that are land and black the two dissenters in what was a 72 decision handed down 50 years ago today. Two other quick points, among those suspended your friend christopher eckhart, who was he . Chris eckhart actually became the class president of his class. He went to the Unitarian Church, i attend the both the quaker meeting and the Unitarian Church so i knew him through that. His parents maggie and william were very strong civil rights advocates and very strong peace advocates. We knew them, our family knew our families knew each other, so we had the four parents that were both very strong, chris also very strong peace activist and a good guy. He was not really a close friend of mine, but we knew each other and i respected him. He, as i said, became the class president of his high school and so the student body as a whole respected him. By the time the case was decided 50 years ago today you had moved to st. Louis, this was the preinternet, precable tv, no smart phones in 1969. How did you find out about the decision . Well, when my family moved to st. Louis i was attending the university of iowa, so i was living in a dormitory there at the university of iowa and i was in my room and a reporter from the daily iowan, the School Newspaper at the university called me up and informed me that we had won our Supreme Court case and he asked me how i felt about that, and i said, well, im glad. I was happy that we won our case but i was also i realized that it didnt end the war for us to have won our case. We had worn the arm bands to protest the war and the war continued for some years after we won our freedom of speech case. So it was really two different issues. Our victory was not the victory on free speech was not really our primary goal. Our primary goal was to end the war through our i mean, we understood we were a small part of that effort. Lets go to gary, a teacher in connecticut. Good morning, gary. Caller good morning. Im a retired teacher and retired engineer and i wanted to relate some of the trials and tribulations i went through in high school being opposed to the war in vietnam. Just to set the picture, i considered myself conservative, i was clean cut, jacket and tie, and whatnot, but i had studied history and history told me that the war in vietnam was a big mistake. In the five history classes i took debates would often arise on the war in vietnam and i would take the view of being opposed to the war. As a result of that and having written several editorials to the School Newspaper and to the local newspaper, i was fired from my job. At the end of my senior year in 1967 there was a history award that was to be given out in my school and i had had all as in the five courses that i took, i had a perfect score on the history s. A. T. And the head of the History Department who was a dar chairman to the local community denied me the award because she said i hadnt really learned history if i was opposed to the war in vietnam. So it was a real struggle of being ostracized just for holding a point of view that i thought was historically correct and i think history has proved it was. Thank you, gary. Wow. Well, thats quite a story and im sorry that happened that way. I can only say that maybe say it to your whole audience, that if you think you are a patriotic american and you feel the way to express that patriotism is to suppress and cause problems for somebody that disagrees with your opinion, in my opinion you are not really being a patriotic american. The court the Supreme Court vindicated us in a sense. They said they didnt pronounce upon the war in our opinion, but they said that what we did was completely an american thing to do, and to express your opinion about war or any other issue is a very american thing to do. If were going to bring our country healthfully into the future we need to be able to express our opinions, and not just express them, we need to be able to hear other people when they express their opinions. So youve told a story which illustrated a time in history when people were not so good at doing that and i hope Going Forward into the future we can improve on that score. Eric is a teacher joining us from new york. Good morning. Welcome to the conversation. Caller its a great conversation and, john, just to say, i was 15 years old also in 1965 up here in new york going to school and its been very interesting. I called in to ask if we could expand the discussion somewhat because i think if im going to make a point that there was a larger issue, the right to protest is very, very important and thats been the theme here. I went back and, you know, i go back and read a lot of history, you know, as a teacher still and 1951 we got involved in vietnam and all the way through eisenhower and kennedy into the 60s we were involved more and more and more and it wasnt from what i researched until 1964 where there was an incident, the gulf of tonkin incident, might have been an attack, american ship, might not have been really attacked, but then congress authorized military involvement at that basis. And then in 1968 congress repealed the gulf of tonkin resolution. Now, what i mean by expanding the discussion is the whole notion that we can be involved in the vietnam war and even other wars since then without congress authorizing it and how they have cast aside their constitutional responsibility. So, john, what im asking, you know, im thinking this must have been part of your protest, not to just protest for the sake of wearing an arm band, but was that your consideration, how, you know, congress was, you know, not authorizing this military involvement, when thats a primary responsibility for congress, and can you give your thoughts on how thats part of the whole matter and all here. Id like to hear. Thank you from new york. John tinker. Thats a very important point to make, a very important question. Personally at the time we were opposed to the war because of the suffering, the death and the destruction, and also for the hope. We wore our arm bands hoping that the Christmas Truce that Robert Kennedy had proposed would be taken seriously and possibly could lead to an ending of the war, but to your point, this is all post world war ii, you know, the russians, the soviet union was our ally in world war ii to defeat the nazis and the japanese also, and following that that war, world war ii, there immediately began an arms race between the west and the soviet union, and the growth of this huge destructive potential in the Nuclear Arsenals of both sides. The fear its in my view the Nuclear Weapon is an instrument of terror and the threat of the Nuclear Weapon is tantamount to terrorism. The mad, the mutually assured destruction, we were all living with a sort of a suicide pact. Is that the kind of life that we want . If you read the quotations i often carry them with me, but i dont have them right now Dwight Eisenhower our president in the early 50s who had been the supreme allied commander in world war ii warned us strongly against the growth of influence by the military Industrial Complex because he saw that there was there was a profit motive that was driving the militarism. The thing is when war and the threat of war and the threat of death, terrorism, it causes people to behave in a very primal way, it kind of moves our behavior closer to the brainstem, if you will, and we lose we lose awareness of our Higher Consciousness and our higher value systems. As you pointed out, there hasnt been a declared war since world war ii. So congress has really given away its prerogative to be the declarer of our wars, and i think that is a real problem in our country. I very much would like to get back to having a more judicious consideration of when we should go to war and when not. I forget the number of conflicts that were involved in at the moment, but if you look back to the iraq war, you see a war that was put together on false, even dishonest reasons and the vast destruction that that caused and the vast amount of treasure that it cost us. And that trillions of dollars could have been well spent here doing things that we need to do. And so the growth of the military Industrial Complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us against has actually occurred and we are in that we are in that era now of that being the rule. The military budget grows year by year, the threats of military action are now taken on lighter and lighter circumstances. The threat now against iran and against venezuela, those are very significant things. Our support for the saudis in yemen. These are the same saudis that cut up the journalist for the Washington Times in the Saudi Embassy in turkey and our president dismissed that as, well, that happens. Thats a horrible thing that happens, but remember that the saudis buy so much of our military equipment. Look at our look at the ethical and the and the moral position that that is taking. Many of us grew up with religious traditions that that is completely abhorrent to and i think as a society we need to consider what we are doing. And we as citizens need to figure out some way to turn it around and get back to a truly civilized society. And, john tinker, your reference to Jamal Khashoggi opinion journalist for the washington post. Weve had dozens of tweets, but this one by jim buck summarizes this sense of what our viewers are thinking this morning. He writes the following does tinker v. Des moines address only those position that is we might consider political or is it relevant to other possibly disruptive expressions . How do you respond to that . Well, i it does address the central core is speech political speech is the most protected speech in the u. S. System, but im a believer that all sorts of expression needs to be protected if its not disruptive and if it doesnt violate the rights of others. Im reminded of the way the nazis considered abstract art as somehow a violation of society. There are all kinds of expressions besides political expressions that are central to being able to express human values. Human values are very complex and thankfully so. Our society is made up of many more things than politics and political law. The arts are very wide and varied and i think we need to enable expression in all forms of the arts as well as in political speech. So im a proponent in freedom of expression. Im a proponent in freedom generally. If it does not destroy our society and if it doesnt violate the rights of others, youre going to find me personally generally in support of it. We welcome our listeners on cspan radio. We are talking about the case tinker v. Des moines, a landmark case, the decision was handed down 50 years ago today. I know you and your sister have been traveling not only through the greater des moines area but across the country talking about the days and its relevance today. I want to introduce our audience to margaret schneid, a journalist at mark ri douglass high school. Here is what she told our gathering on friday in des moine moines. Hi. My name is Rebecca Schneid and as mary beth said i am the editor and chief of the eagle eye, the newspaper at Marjory Stoneman douglass high school. Last year on february 14 it was the site of a shooting which killed 17 people, but i dont think that thats what Marjory Stoneman douglas is all its known for now. We are not known as a school of victims were known as a school of fighters, fighters who understood our rights, our First Amendment rights to speak up for what we believe in and we were determined and percent veernt to advocate for the rights we thought we deserved, a right to live. I think if youre going to take anything from today it should be that it doesnt matter your age, we were 14, 15, 16, 17, if you are old enough to be affected by the ills of society youre old enough to have a say in it and speak it for it and stand up for what you believe in. I have not just seen that as the survivor of a school shooting, i have seen that as a student journalist. Before february 14 and after february 14 i wrote about stories that were important to me and my classmates whether they be lgbtq plus or gun violence in new york city and on the streets or rape culture, diversity and each are just as important as the others. If any of these issues or anything else is important to you i encourage you to stand up for your rights and to also speak up for them, write about them because i have seen that Student Press and student voices are the most important thing in this country right now and they are the things keeping us together and holding politicians and everyone else accountable for their actions. Whatever that you believe in, whether that be any of the issues that i said or something else, write about them, speak about them and effect change. Thank you. That event in des moines, iowa, which will air later today on cspan 3s American History tv. We will get back to your phone calls. Eugene joining us from clinton, maryland, a teacher. Good morning. Caller good morning. I want to tell you that im a 77yearold man who wanted to protest something when i was in Elementary School and what i wanted to protest was the requirement of singing the National Anthem by Francis Scott key. One of the reasons that i wanted to protest it is that Francis Scott key was a holder of slaves. He was racially bigoted and he wrote that bombastic, that violent National Anthem. Now, now that im 77 years old i am protesting. I am protesting that all youngsters throughout the United States of america should learn the negro National Anthem by james Weldon Johnson. James Weldon Johnson wrote the anthem in the 1900s, his brother set it to music in 1905. And if you would go to wikipedia right now and looked up james Weldon Johnson, you will find that years ago there was a contest between james Weldon Johnsons lift every voice and sing and Francis Scott keys the National Anthem. Well, james Weldon Johnsons anthem won but the judge rejected it and now we have the National Anthem full of the bombastic violence. And so i say to all people, no matter what your age, if you cant do it when you are young as i was and growing up in the rural segregated place in virginia, do it when you get old. Eugene, thank you for the call. Justin trudeau, what a john tinker, what are you hearing . I think thats an excellent idea. Thats a wonderful comment and it points out the need to bring it up, to say it, to bring that to us to let us know that and lift every voice and sing is a wonderful song. And i agree, the Francis Scott key song really is a glorification of war and i think the lift every voice and sing would be a better National Anthem. I dont know how other people feel about that and i think its open to debate, i think everybody should should say what they think about that and let us know, but i think thats an excellent idea. You heard from Rebecca Schneid as you and your family and sister mary beth continue to travel to talk about the significance of this case. What are your general observations about this generation . Well, thank you, rebecca, for your comment. I have had the opportunity to meet with journalists from parkland, florida, and the school there that had the terrible shooting, 17 students killed. To the student journalists, they are very aware that another court case hazelwood v. Kulemire which limited press freedom in the schools is an important impediment to student journalists in some parts of the country, although there have been 14 states which had which have opened up their School Newspapers to freedom of the press. I think thats a very important thing to do. The students today are more aware and more active by far than the students were in my when i was at school. I think its a very positive development, i think our society will benefit greatly from it. So i encourage student journalists and students of all kinds to speak up, say what you think, let us know what you think. I think its very essential to our society that you do so. Andy, good morning, from seminole, florida. Caller good morning. Im just retired now, im 60 years old, so im that age when the gulf of tonkin resolution was made and certainly you would have to admit that the congress was swayed by what might very well having an overplayed incident. And i will move on. Regarding the students, yes, absolutely the students need to be vocal and they should be given full rights. The problem i have most recently, and you can tell what my political leaning is, is the Citizens United case which opened the pandoras box even wider of corporate purchasing of the elections, they just moved it up into the ad phase and instead of being just lobbyists, now they can actually just fund elections. What do you think about the chance that it would be reversed or will roberts probably lean in the direction of stereo dee sigh sis, which is looking into the past and hold that hold that stand . Thank you, andy. Because of course the fundamental premise of that case as you know, john tinker, is also freedom of speech. Right. Thank you, andy. Very important question. The Citizens United decision is one of the most bizarre decisions that i am aware of. To say that money and speech are the same thing, i mean, honestly, cant we distinguish between money and speech . I mean, money is money, speech is speech. How we spend money, especially weve had a divergence in wealth since the 1970s where the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer since way back then, back in the eisenhower years the maximum marginal tax rate was 91 . Now im not sure what it is, its around maybe 20 or 30 . Somebody else can tell me. But to equate money with speech is a very strange thing. If money were speech, i would be able to go down to the store and talk my way into whatever i wanted. And money is not speech. And when you equate money and speech, youre basically handing your democracy over to the people with the money. Whether thats corrected at the Supreme Court or whether its corrected through legislation, i hope it is corrected. Its going to be hard to correct because that same money people talk about buying congress. Well, its not totally like that, but it is it is significantly like that. Money does rule a lot of congress people. Their opinions follow the money. So if youre going to have a democracy, you really have to have one person one vote, not one dollar one vote. I think its a central issue and i think we need to elect a congress that will overturn it if the Supreme Court itself wont overturn it. In our final half minute let me bring you back to this case, 50 years ago today. Why is it relevant today . Well, its relevant today because the world is not has not shed its problems. In a lot of ways there is an indication that it has hardly progressed on some of its problems and some of its problems have become much worse. So freedom of speech in the schools, among the students who have the future in front of them is absolutely essential in my opinion. John tinker joining us from des moines, of course, part of the landmark case tinker v. Des moines. Thank you for being with us. Thank you for having me. Its a pleasure. Lectures in history, american