School Disciplines Teacher for Student-Initiated Charlie Kirk and President Trump Free Speech Discussion on Constitution Day

A teacher dared to let her students think for themselves – and was punished for it. After a tragic national event, when students briefly discussed the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the attempted assassination of President Trump for their free speech, school officials silenced our client and branded her a problem. Adding to the insult, this student-led discussion occurred on Constitution Day – a day when teaching of the Constitution is federally mandated.

What makes this case particularly egregious is the context - and the chilling message it sends to teachers and students across America. This teacher was punished for allowing her students to briefly discuss the tragic assassination of Kirk – a young conservative voice who was killed for exercising his First Amendment rights. If there was ever a moment that demanded we teach our children about the vital importance of free speech and the dangers of political violence, this was it.

Instead, school administrators chose censorship over constitutional education. They placed a disciplinary memo in her file threatening future sanctions and told her she must immediately “shut down” any spontaneous student discussions on undefined “controversial issues.”

The ACLJ has sent a demand letter to Hawaii education officials on behalf of our client, a middle school eighth grade history teacher, outlining our objections to the disciplinary action.

Take action with us and add your name to the petition: Defend Free Speech NOW.

What Really Happened

On September 17, 2025, our client fulfilled a federal mandate requiring all schools receiving federal funds to teach about the Constitution on Constitution Day. She taught an approved lesson on the Bill of Rights – a lesson that had been reviewed, approved, and included in the course syllabus distributed to all parents.

During the lesson, the teacher asked her students what rights the First Amendment protects. Her students correctly identified freedom of speech and freedom of religion. She added freedom of assembly and freedom of the press, defining these terms for middle school students who are just beginning to understand their constitutional heritage.

Then came the teachable moment when a student spontaneously raised the name of Charlie Kirk, stating that he “was killed for his speech.” Understanding this was just days after the conservative commentator had been gunned down for expressing his views and students were still processing this recent tragedy, the teacher did what good teachers do. She facilitated a brief and appropriate exploration of the topic. She also asked, “Who are some other people that were killed for their speech?” Students identified Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln. One student mentioned that someone had tried to kill President Trump for his speech.

Then another student made a deeply inappropriate comment – suggesting that an assassination attempt against President Trump “wouldn’t be so bad.” The teacher immediately corrected the student, explaining clearly and firmly that you cannot kill people because you disagree with their views.

Yet that same afternoon, the vice principal interrupted a social studies department meeting to announce that teachers are not allowed to discuss “controversial issues” and that if controversial issues arise in student discussions, teachers must “shut it down.” He ominously noted that “something specific happened in someone’s class” and that he would be calling in that teacher. Minutes later, our client received a text requesting an immediate 3:00 p.m. meeting.

During the meeting, the vice principal revealed that a parent – of a student who wasn’t even in the class – had called to complain about the classroom discussion of Charlie Kirk. None of the parents of students who were actually part of the class discussion ever complained. The school’s unwarranted response was fundamentally flawed from the outset, yet administrators proceeded with disciplinary action anyway.

On September 24, our client received a “Summary of Conference” memo stating that “if controversial issues arise spontaneously without administration approval and parent notification, discussion must be put to a stop immediately. Failure to comply with the above directives may result in disciplinary action.” This memo was placed in our client’s personnel file as a permanent record that could be used against her in future disciplinary proceedings.

Why This Free Speech Discussion Matters

Charlie Kirk’s assassination represents one of the most chilling attacks on free speech in recent American history. A young man with a platform and a message was gunned down because someone disagreed with his views. His death should serve as a stark reminder to every American – and especially to students – about the precious nature of First Amendment freedoms and the absolute impermissibility of responding to speech with violence.

What happened here is unconscionable. Our students need to understand that in America, we protect even speech we disagree with – that the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not violence. They need to learn that figures like Charlie Kirk, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless others who were targeted for their beliefs represent both the promise and the peril of living in a free society.

By disciplining this teacher for allowing this brief, appropriate discussion, Hawaii school officials are effectively teaching students the opposite lesson: that controversial topics must be avoided, that certain names cannot be spoken, and that administrators – not the Constitution – determine what ideas are permissible.

The Constitutional Violations Are Clear

The ACLJ’s demand letter details multiple constitutional violations. The directive given to this teacher fails every test of constitutional scrutiny.

First, it is unconstitutionally vague. School officials cannot define what makes something “controversial.” Our client’s colleagues correctly observed that “everything in history is controversial.” Without clear standards, teachers face discipline based on which parent complains or which administrator is on duty that day. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that vague restrictions on speech create impermissible chilling effects on First Amendment freedoms.

Second, the policy is applied in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner. The same administrator who disciplined this teacher had previously facilitated classroom debates about the Second Amendment and modern gun policy when he was a teacher. Yet our client was punished for a far briefer discussion of First Amendment principles. When the school’s principal got involved, he went so far as to tell her she could only teach about the First Amendment in the context of 1789 and could not discuss how it applies to modern America – a pedagogically absurd restriction that would make constitutional education meaningless.

Third, and most troubling, the policy compels this teacher to violate her students’ constitutional rights. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision inTinker v. Des Moines makes clear that neither “students [n]or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Schools cannot suppress student speech absent material disruption. By demanding that our client immediately silence constitutionally protected student discussion – about the First Amendment no less – administrators are asking her to violate both her students’ rights and her own.

An Impossible Choice

School officials have created an impossible compliance scenario. Federal law required our client to teach about the Constitution. The Constitution required her to respect students’ free speech rights. Her approved syllabus included the Bill of Rights. Yet, administrators now claim she should have suppressed protected student speech the moment Charlie Kirk’s name was mentioned.

This teacher made the right choice: She followed the Constitution. For this, she received a disciplinary memo in her personnel file. Perhaps most revealing, when she asked why the memo was being filed if it wasn’t punitive, the principal admitted it was being placed in her file so the administration would “have a leg to stand on” when they want to discipline her in the future. This is the definition of arbitrary government power – exactly what the Constitution prohibits.

What Happens Next

The ACLJ has demanded that Hawaii education officials immediately withdraw and expunge the disciplinary memo, assure this teacher that no adverse action will be taken against her, and confirm that teachers are not required to silence spontaneous student discussions during approved lessons. We have given them a deadline of October 23rd to respond.

If they refuse, we are prepared to pursue all available legal remedies, including filing formal complaints with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.

The stakes here extend far beyond one teacher in Hawaii. Every teacher in America needs to 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.