Imagine being punished for letting students talk about freedom – on Constitution Day. That’s exactly what happened to our client, a history teacher who allowed a respectful, brief, and student-led discussion about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Instead of encouraging dialogue, school officials silenced her and labeled her a problem for promoting independent thought.
What makes this case so alarming is the message it sends to classrooms across America: Teachers who allow open discussion, risk their jobs. This teacher’s only “offense” was allowing her eighth graders to process current events and connect them to the First Amendment. For that, administrators placed a disciplinary memo in her file and ordered her to “shut down” any spontaneous discussion of undefined “controversial issues.”
The ACLJ sent a demand letter to Hawaii education officials on behalf of our client, outlining our objections to the disciplinary action.
Take action with us, and add your name to the petition: Defend Free Speech NOW.
On September 17, our client fulfilled the federal requirement to teach about the Constitution. Using an approved lesson on the Bill of Rights, she guided students through the freedoms protected by the First Amendment: speech, religion, assembly, and the press.
Then came a teachable moment. A student mentioned Charlie Kirk, saying he “was killed for his speech.” The teacher recognized that her students were processing a national tragedy – a young conservative voice gunned down for expressing his views – and briefly allowed discussion.
She asked, “Who are some other people who were killed for their speech?” Students named Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln. Another student mentioned the recent attempt on President Trump’s life.
When one student inappropriately suggested that another attempt “wouldn’t be so bad,” the teacher immediately corrected the comment, emphasizing that violence is never an acceptable response to ideas. The conversation ended there.
That afternoon, the vice principal interrupted a department meeting to announce that teachers must “shut down” all discussion of controversial issues. He hinted that “something specific happened in someone’s class” and soon summoned our client for a meeting.
He admitted that the complaint had come from the parent of a student who was not even in the class. No parent of the actual participants had raised any concern. Yet administrators moved ahead with disciplinary action.
A week later, our client received a memo warning that any discussion of “controversial issues” without prior approval and parental notification must be stopped immediately – and that failure to comply could lead to disciplinary action. This memo was placed in her personnel file. When asked why a supposedly “non-punitive” memo was being placed in her file, the principal replied it would give them “a leg to stand on” for future discipline. That is arbitrary government power at its worst – exactly what the Constitution forbids.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination was one of the most chilling attacks on free speech in recent American history – a young man murdered because someone disagreed with his views. Students deserve to understand the constitutional principle at stake: In America, we answer bad ideas with better ideas, not violence.
By punishing this teacher for allowing a short, relevant discussion, Hawaii officials are teaching students the opposite lesson: Controversial topics are off-limits and that bureaucrats, not the Constitution, decide what speech is allowed.
The ACLJ’s legal letter identifies three core constitutional violations.
1. Vagueness
The directive is unconstitutionally vague. Administrators have never defined what makes an issue “controversial.” As her colleagues observed, “Everything in history is controversial.” When teachers can be punished based on a single complaint, speech is chilled. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that such vague restrictions are unconstitutional.
2. Viewpoint Discrimination
This rule was applied selectively. The same administrator who disciplined our client once led debates on the Second Amendment and modern gun policy when he was a teacher. Yet he punished her for a far briefer discussion of First Amendment rights. Later, the principal even told her she could only teach the First Amendment “in the context of 1789” – a restriction that makes genuine civic education impossible.
3. Compelled Violation of Rights
The policy forces teachers to violate students’ constitutional rights. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court declared that neither “students [n]or teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” Schools cannot suppress student speech unless it causes a material disruption. Requiring this teacher to silence lawful discussion about the First Amendment itself compels her to breach her students’ and her own rights.
The ACLJ has demanded that Hawaii education officials:
- Withdraw and expunge the disciplinary memo;
- Assure our client that no further action will be taken; and
- Clarify that teachers may allow spontaneous student discussions during approved lessons.
If officials refuse to comply, we are prepared to pursue every legal remedy, including a formal legal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.
The stakes here extend far beyond one teacher in Hawaii. Every teacher in America must know they can fulfill their professional duty to provide robust civic education without fear of reprisal. Every student deserves to learn about constitutional principles – including the tragic reality that people have paid the ultimate price for exercising the freedoms those principles protect.
Take action with us, and add your name to the petition: Defend Free Speech NOW.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member