Ethics CasesSport

Cases · International Olympic Committee / U.S. Olympic Committee · 1968–2021

Tommie Smith, John Carlos and the 1968 Podium Protest

At the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, gold and bronze medalists in the 200 meters, each raised a black-gloved fist during the U.S. national anthem to protest racial injustice. Silver medalist Peter Norman of Australia wore a badge supporting their cause. IOC President Avery Brundage ordered the two Americans suspended from the U.S. team and expelled from the Olympic village. They faced abuse and death threats at home, and Norman was reprimanded by Australian officials. Decades later, all three were widely honored, and in 2019 Smith and Carlos were inducted into the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Hall of Fame. The IOC still restricts protests on the podium. The case raises questions about political neutrality, athlete expression and how institutions judge protest over time.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Smith wins the 200m in a world record; Smith and Carlos raise fists on the podium.
  2. Smith and Carlos are suspended from the U.S. team and expelled from the Olympic village.
  3. San José State University unveils a statue of the protest.
  4. Australia's House of Representatives apologizes to Peter Norman.
  5. The Australian Olympic Committee posthumously awards Norman its Order of Merit.
  6. Smith and Carlos are inducted into the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Hall of Fame.
  7. The USOPC forms the athlete-led Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice.
  8. The IOC allows some athlete gestures before competition but keeps restrictions on podium protests.

The ethical issues

  • Political neutrality: whether the Olympic podium should be free of protest.
  • Athlete expression: the right to speak on injustice.
  • Proportionality of punishment.
  • Retrospective judgment: honoring protesters once punished.
  • Solidarity: the costs borne by allies.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Smith and CarlosExpression, careers and safety.
Peter NormanSolidarity and his reputation.
IOC and national committeesNeutrality and control of the Games.
Black AmericansVisibility for civil rights.
Other athletesFair competition and their own views.
Fans and broadcastersThe Olympic experience.

The case

On October 16, 1968, Tommie Smith won the 200 meters at the Mexico City Olympics in a world-record 19.83 seconds. Peter Norman of Australia was second in 20.06, and John Carlos of the United States third in 20.10.[1]

Background

The protest grew out of an organized movement. Sociologist Harry Edwards, founder of the Olympic Project for Human Rights, had urged Black athletes to boycott the Games. Smith and Carlos’s actions were reportedly inspired by his arguments.[1] Smith later described the grievances behind it: “We were concerned about the lack of black assistant coaches. About how Muhammad Ali got stripped of his title. About the lack of access to good housing and our kids not being able to attend the top colleges.”[1] That night he said, “If I win I am an American, not a black American. But if I did something bad then they would say ‘a Negro’. We are black and we are proud of being black.”[1] In his autobiography, Silent Gesture, published nearly 30 years later, he said the gesture was a “human rights” salute rather than a “Black Power” salute.[1] Carlos also wore his tracksuit top unzipped to show solidarity with blue-collar workers in the United States.[1] On the podium, the two turned to face the U.S. flag and kept their fists raised until the anthem ended.[1]

Norman’s role came from his own convictions. He was a critic of Australia’s White Australia Policy and expressed sympathy with their aims. It was Norman who suggested that Carlos wear Smith’s left-handed glove.[1] When Sydney hosted the 2000 Olympics, he was not invited to take part in the celebrations, although he helped announce Australian teams as a sports administrator in Melbourne.[1]

The rules and governance

Brundage’s position rested on the Olympic principle of political neutrality. Critics pointed out that Brundage, who led the U.S. Olympic Committee in 1936, had made no objection to Nazi salutes at the Berlin Games.[1] The question of athlete expression has persisted. Before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, British athletes were reportedly asked to sign clauses restricting political statements and refused.[1]

The IOC’s 2021 change to Rule 50 kept the podium off-limits. Gestures were allowed on the field of play before competition, but not during medal ceremonies.[3]

The protest

Smith and Carlos received their medals shoeless, wearing black socks to represent Black poverty. Smith wore a black scarf representing Black pride, and Carlos wore beads, which he said were for people who had been lynched.[1] All three medalists wore badges of the Olympic Project for Human Rights, a group of athletes protesting racism. Carlos forgot his black gloves, and Norman, who supported their cause, suggested that they share Smith’s pair. As the U.S. anthem played, each raised a gloved fist and bowed his head.[1] The crowd booed as they left the podium.[1]

The punishment

IOC President Avery Brundage said the protest was a domestic political statement unfit for the apolitical Olympics. He ordered Smith and Carlos suspended from the U.S. team and banned from the Olympic village. When the U.S. Olympic Committee refused, Brundage threatened to ban the entire U.S. track team, and the two were expelled.[1] An IOC spokesman called the protest “a deliberate and violent breach of the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit.”[1] Contrary to a common belief, the IOC did not make them return their medals.[1]

Time magazine wrote on October 25, 1968: “‘Faster, Higher, Stronger’ is the motto of the Olympic Games. ‘Angrier, nastier, uglier’ better describes the scene in Mexico City last week.”[1] At home, they and their families received death threats. Broadcaster Brent Musburger called them “black-skinned storm troopers.”[1] Robert Clark, president of San José State University, where both had studied, defended them.[1]

Norman was reprimanded by Australian officials and was ostracized in the Australian media.[1][4] He was not sent to the 1972 Olympics despite running qualifying times, though opinions differ on whether this was because of the protest. When he died in 2006, Smith and Carlos were pallbearers at his funeral.[1][4]

Recognition

In 2005, San José State unveiled a statue of the protest.[1] In 2012, Australia’s House of Representatives apologized to Norman, and in 2018 the Australian Olympic Committee posthumously awarded him its Order of Merit.[1] Smith and Carlos received the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the 2008 ESPY Awards.[1] The Australian apology passed on October 11, 2012, with no dissenting voices. It acknowledged “the bravery of Peter Norman in donning an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge on the podium” and apologized “for the treatment he received upon his return to Australia, and the failure to fully recognise his inspirational role before his untimely death in 2006.”[5] The motion noted that his 20.06 seconds still stood as the Australian record.[5] In 2019, Smith and Carlos were inducted into the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Hall of Fame.[2] They were inducted as “legends” in a class announced on September 23 and inducted on November 1 in Colorado Springs. The citations for both said each had “courageously stood up for racial equality during the civil rights movement.”[6]

Monuments

The San José State statue, designed by Louis Laumen, does not include Norman. At his request, his place was left empty so visitors could stand there, with a plaque inviting them to “Take a Stand.”[1] On October 9, 2019, a statue of Norman was unveiled at Lakeside Stadium in Melbourne’s Albert Park.[1] When the Australian Olympic Committee honored Norman in 2018, its president, John Coates, said, “we’ve been negligent in not recognising the role he played back then.”[1]

Aftermath

The national committee that once expelled Smith and Carlos changed its own position. In August 2020 the USOPC set up an athlete-led Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice, which examined the right to protest, athlete expression and advocacy, institutional culture, and acts of racism and discrimination.[7] The USOPC now states that athletes’ “right to advocate for racial and social justice … absolutely aligns with the fundamental values of equality that define Team USA.” It also says its own rules “do not replace” IOC Rule 50, which still governs every participant at the Games.[7] The IOC’s 2021 change still kept the medal podium off-limits for protest.[3] Smith and Carlos stood on the podium in 1968, and that remains the one place the rules still rule out.

The core dilemma

The Olympic movement says political neutrality protects the Games and athletes from pressure. Smith and Carlos argued that silence about racism was itself a political choice. Was their protest a breach of rules that deserved punishment, or an act of conscience that the rules should have accommodated?

Competing values

  • Neutrality vs. expression.
  • Order vs. conscience.
  • Unity of the team vs. the individual’s voice.
  • Judgment at the time vs. judgment of history.

Strongest arguments

For the IOC’s position: the Olympic podium honors athletes from all nations. Allowing protests could invite competing political messages and pressure from governments.

For Smith and Carlos: the protest was silent and peaceful, highlighted a real injustice, and the Olympics were not neutral when they excluded or ignored injustice. The punishment was severe.

Applying the frameworks

Rights

A rights lens centers athletes’ freedom of expression and the right to protest injustice, against institutional claims that the Olympics must remain apolitical. It asks who decides what counts as “political,” and whether such rules are applied consistently.

Virtue

Virtue ethics highlights the courage of all three athletes, including Norman’s solidarity at great personal cost. It asks what moral courage looks like for athletes with a global platform.

Kantian (duty)

A Kantian lens asks whether punishing peaceful protest treats athletes as means to an image of neutrality. It also asks whether athletes have a duty to speak against injustice when they have a unique opportunity to be heard.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are a U.S. Olympic Committee official in October 1968. Two of your athletes have raised fists during the anthem, and the IOC president demands that you expel them. The stakeholders include the athletes, the rest of the U.S. team, the IOC, fans at home and abroad, and the civil rights movement. The codes in play are the Olympic Charter and the USOC’s own rules.
  2. Gather facts. What exactly did the athletes do? Was it peaceful? How have other political gestures at the Games been treated?
  3. Test options. Options: (a) expel the athletes; (b) refuse and accept the risk to the whole track team; (c) negotiate a lesser response. Weigh team interests and IOC authority against the athletes’ rights and the justice of their cause.
  4. Check codes and law. Would you be proud of your decision 50 years later? Are rules on political expression being applied consistently?
  5. Decide and document. Record the decision and the reasons.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate openly with the athletes and the public, and advocate for clearer and fairer rules on athlete expression.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: the protest; the expulsions; later honors.
  • Contested: whether podium protests should be allowed today.

Why this case matters

The 1968 protest is one of sport’s most famous images. It remains central to debates about whether and how athletes may protest at the Olympics.

Key terms

Agency
An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.
Framing
How the choice of angle, language and emphasis shapes the way a story is understood.
Codes and guardrails
Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Was the IOC right to punish Smith and Carlos? Would the decision differ for a protest supporting a cause the IOC favored?
  2. Should the Olympic podium be a protest-free space?
  3. Why are protesters often condemned at the time and honored later? What should that teach institutions today?
  4. What responsibility did Peter Norman's officials have toward him?
  5. Does the IOC's 2021 guidance strike the right balance?

Sources

  1. 1968 Olympics Black Power salute — Wikipedia
  2. Tommie Smith, John Carlos to be inducted into U.S. Olympic Hall of Fame — Sports Illustrated
  3. IOC extends opportunities for athlete expression during the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 — International Olympic Committee
  4. Peter Norman — The Guardian
  5. Parliament Apologises to Peter Norman (text of the motion passed Oct. 11, 2012) — Andrew Leigh MP (mover of the House of Representatives motion)
  6. U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Hall of Fame, class of 2019 is announced — U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee, via U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Museum
  7. Racial and Social Justice Demonstrations — U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee