Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community
School District
1969
Petitioners: John P. Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker,
and Christopher Eckhardt
Respondents: Des Moines Independent Community
School District, et al.
Petitioners’ Claim: That suspending them from school
for wearing black armbands to protest the
Vietnam War violated the freedom of speech.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners: Dan L. Johnston
Chief Lawyer for Respondents: Allan A. Herrick
Justices for the Court: William J. Brennan, Jr.,
William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall,
Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting: Hugo Lafayette Black,
John Marshall Harlan II
Date of Decision: February 24, 1969
Decision: The Supreme Court struck down the school regulation
that resulted in the suspensions.
Significance: Students do not give up their freedom of speech in
school.
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
D r a m a
2 0 5
Whose war is it?
FREEDOM OF
SPEECH
The Vietnam War, which lasted from 1955 until 1974, was a battle between
North and South Vietnam. North Vietnam wanted to unite the country under
communism. South Vietnam resisted with help from the United States. By
the end of 1965, there were 180,000 American troops fighting in Vietnam.
Although the war was ten years old in 1965, there was no sign that
North Vietnam would be defeated. Many Americans became opposed to
the war. Some thought a civil war in Vietnam was not America’s concern. They were angry to see young American die while fighting for
another country. Others were generally opposed to human beings killing
each other. Vietnam War protests became common in America.
Mary Beth and John
Tinker were
suspended from
school for wearing
armbands protesting
the Vietnam War.
Reproduced by
permission of the
Corbis Corporation.
Peaceful protest
In December 1965, a group of adults and school children gathered in Des
Moines, Iowa. They met to discuss ways to voice their opposition to
America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. They eventually decided to
wear black armbands with the peace symbol for the remainder of the holiday season. They also decided to fast, meaning live without eating, on
December 16 and on New Year’s Eve.
2 0 6
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
D r a m a
The students at the meeting included sixteen-year-old Christopher
Eckhardt, fifteen-year-old John P. Tinker, and thirteen-year-old Mary
Beth Tinker. Christopher and John attended high schools in Des Moines,
and John’s sister Mary attended junior high school. They decided to join
their parents by wearing black armbands and fasting too.
The principals of the Des Moines public schools learned about
these plans. They were worried the protest would cause trouble because a
former student who had been killed in Vietnam still had friends at one of
the high schools. Some students said they would wear different colored
armbands to support the war. To avoid any conflict, on December 14 the
principals adopted a policy that any student wearing a black armband
would be asked to remove it and would be suspended if he refused.
Christopher, John, and Mary knew about the new policy but decided to follow their plan. John and Mary wore their black armbands to
school on December 16, and Christopher wore his the next day. Although
the armbands did not disrupt school, all three students were suspended
and told not to return until they removed the armbands. The students did
not return until after New Year’s Day, when their protest ended.
Meanwhile, the students and their parents filed a lawsuit in federal
district court. They asked the court to stop the schools from punishing
them for wearing the black armbands. The district court dismissed the
case, saying the schools were allowed to prevent disturbances. The students appealed, but the federal court of appeals affirmed (approved) the
district court’s decision. They then took their case to the U.S. Supreme
Court. They argued that the schools had violated their right to free speech.
Free speech in school
With a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students.
Writing for the Court, Justice Abe Fortas said wearing black armbands to
protest the Vietnam War was a form of speech called “symbolic” speech.
Symbolic speech conveys a message or idea with symbols or actions
instead of words.
The First Amendment protects all kinds of speech, including symbolic speech. It says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging [limiting] the freedom of speech.” State and local governments, including public schools in Des Moines, Iowa, must obey the freedom of speech under
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Fortas said students have free speech rights under the First
Amendment just like adults. “Students in school as well as out of school
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
D r a m a
2 0 7
Ti n k e r v.
Des Moines
Independent
Community
School
District
are ‘persons’ under our Constitution.” Students do not give up the freedom of speech when they go to school. Justice Fortas said this means
schools can interfere with free speech only when it is necessary to prevent actual disruptions.
FREEDOM OF
SPEECH
The evidence showed that the students had not caused any disruptions.
Instead, they had made a peaceful protest against the Vietnam War. The
schools stopped them because other students might not like the protest; but,
the freedom of speech protects the right to say things other people might not
like to hear. After all, these same schools let students wear buttons to support political campaigns, and even allowed one student to wear an Iron
Cross, the symbol of the German Nazis from World War II. Justice Fortas
said the freedom of speech prevented the schools from allowing some political speech but punishing Christopher, John, and Mary for their protest.
Children should be seen and not heard
Justice Hugo Lafayette Black wrote a dissenting opinion, meaning he
disagreed with the Court’s decision. Justice Black said the First
Amendment does not give people the freedom to say anything, anywhere, anytime. “Iowa’s public schools . . . are operated to give students
an opportunity to learn, not to talk politics by actual speech, or by ‘symbolic’ speech.” Justice Black thought schools should be allowed to prevent speech that interferes with the job of learning.
Justice Black feared the Court’s decision would give students the
right to disobey school rules anytime they wanted to exercise free
speech. He said “the Federal Constitution [does not compel] the teachers,
parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American
public school system to public school students.”
Since Tinker, the Supreme Court has limited the freedom of speech for
students in school. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), the
Court said Bethel High School was allowed to suspend a student for giving
a speech during a school assembly that referred to sexual intercourse. The
Court said schools can limit free speech in order to teach good morals.
Suggestions for further reading
Evans, J. Edward. Freedom of Speech. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications,
Inc., 1990.
Farish, Leah. The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and
the Press. Hillside, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1998.
2 0 8
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
D r a m a
BOMB THREAT
Does the freedom of speech allow a student to write a story about
exploding a nuclear bomb in class? That question arose at
Tallwood High School in Virginia Beach, Virginia, in May 1999.
Christopher Bullock, a sixteen-year-old junior, wrote the story for
a required state writing test. The story’s main character gave a speech
to announce a gift for his school. Strapped to the character’s chest,
the gift turned out to be a nuclear bomb that the character exploded at
the end of his speech. He said, “I have chosen this gift because
school has given me nothing but stress, heartache, and pain. . . . I
hope you all enjoy the light show for what little time you have left.”
Tallwood High School suspended Bullock after learning about
the story, and the police filed criminal charges. Bullock
explained that the story was a fantasy and not a real threat.
According to attorney Ann Beason, the freedom of speech protects the right to write a fantasy story about a bomb threat. The
police eventually dropped the criminal charges, and Tallwood
allowed Bullock to return to school.
King, David C. The Right to Speak Out. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook
Press, 1997.
Klinker, Philip A. The First Amendment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Silver
Burdett Press, 1991.
Mathews, Jay. “Student’s Fantasy Violence Has Real Consequences.“
Washington Post, May 29, 1999.
Mathews, Jay. “Va. Student Cleared in Bomb Essay.“ Washington Post,
June 11, 1999.
Pascoe, Elaine. Freedom of Expression: The Right to Speak Out in
America. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press, 1992.
Steele, Philip, Philip Skele, and Penny Clarke. Freedom of Speech? New
York: Franklin Watts, 1997.
Zeinert, Karen. Free Speech: From Newspapers to Music Lyrics. Hillside,
NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1995.
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
D r a m a
2 0 9
Ti n k e r v.
Des Moines
Independent
Community
School
District