Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Background Information
Understanding the facts and constitutional questions
🔗 Connecting to Our Guiding Question
When, if ever, should the government be allowed to limit a person's constitutional rights in order to protect the community?
This case asks: Should schools be able to limit students' First Amendment free speech rights (by banning armbands) to protect the school community from potential disruption? Consider how this case balances individual rights to express political views against the school's interest in maintaining order and preventing conflicts.
What Happened?
In 1965, during the Vietnam War, three public school students in Des Moines, Iowa decided to protest the war. Mary Beth Tinker (13), her brother John Tinker (15), and Christopher Eckhardt (16) planned to wear black armbands to school to symbolize their opposition to the war.
When school principals learned of the plan, they created a policy banning armbands. The policy stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, and refusal would result in suspension.
On December 16, 1965, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were suspended. The next day, John Tinker did the same and was also suspended. The students did not return to school until after the holiday protest period had ended.
The Tinker family sued the school district, arguing that the students' First Amendment rights to free speech had been violated. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Big Question
Can schools prohibit students from wearing armbands to express their political views? Do students have First Amendment rights to free speech in school?
What You Need to Know
The First Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
This means the government cannot stop people from expressing their ideas. Schools are part of the government, so this applies to them too.
The question is whether students keep their constitutional rights when they enter school, or whether schools can limit speech to maintain order.
Important Facts
- The students wore armbands silently and did not disrupt classes
- The school allowed other political symbols (like Iron Crosses during WWII)
- The school only banned armbands related to the Vietnam War
- No actual disruption occurred - the school acted based on fear of potential disruption
- The students were peaceful and did not interfere with other students' learning
- This was during a very controversial war that divided American society
Vocabulary
Argument Sorting Activity
Work with your group to sort these arguments
Instructions: Read each argument below and select which side it helps from the dropdown menu. When you're finished, click "Check Answers" to see your results.
The Two Sides
Tinker Family
Students don't lose their First Amendment rights at school. Peaceful, non-disruptive expression like wearing armbands is protected speech that schools cannot punish without showing actual disruption.
Des Moines School District
Schools need authority to prevent disruptions and maintain order. Allowing political protests could lead to conflicts between students and interfere with the educational mission.
| Argument | Answer |
|---|---|
| Students do not lose their constitutional rights when they enter school. | |
| Schools need authority to maintain order so students can learn effectively. | |
| The students' armbands were silent and did not disrupt classes or bother other students. | |
| The Vietnam War was very controversial and could cause serious problems in schools. | |
| The school allowed other political symbols but banned only anti-war armbands. | |
| School officials should be able to prevent problems before they happen, not wait until after disruption occurs. | |
| Wearing armbands is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. | |
| Students must attend school and should focus on education, not political protests. | |
| No actual disruption happened - the school acted only on fear of possible problems. | |
| Teachers and principals know their schools better than judges and should decide what might cause disruption. | |
| The First Amendment protects unpopular speech, especially about political issues. | |
| Schools have a responsibility to teach good citizenship and appropriate behavior. | |
| Banning speech just because officials disagree with the message violates the First Amendment. |
Key Terms for Arguments
Important concepts to understand when debating this case
The legal test from this case: schools can only limit student speech if it would cause significant interference with school activities.
The concept that the best way to counter bad speech is with more speech, not censorship.
Connecting to Today
How these constitutional questions still matter
Student free speech remains a hot topic in schools across America. Consider these modern situations:
School Walkouts
Students have organized walkouts for various causes - climate change, gun violence prevention, and social justice. Schools must decide whether to allow, punish, or accommodate these protests.
Think about: Are walkouts more disruptive than armbands? Should that change whether they're protected?
Clothing as Speech
Students continue to challenge dress codes that ban political messages, flags, or symbols. Some argue these rules unfairly target certain viewpoints.
Think about: When does a t-shirt message become "disruptive"? Who decides?
Controversial Topics
Schools debate how to handle students expressing views on polarizing topics like immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, or political candidates. Is expression that offends other students "disruptive"?
Think about: Should schools protect students from hearing viewpoints they find offensive?
Discussion Questions
- Should the rules be different for silent, symbolic protest (like armbands) versus vocal protests (like chanting)?
- How can schools maintain order while still allowing students to express themselves?
- Does a student's age matter in deciding how much free speech protection they should have?
Additional Resources
Go deeper with these resources