A Florida high school teacher is standing firm after being forced to remove a poster of conservative activist Charlie Kirk from his classroom.
As reported by Breitbart News, William Loggans, who teaches law honors and economics, was ordered by district authorities to take down the poster after a student complaint, despite the display bearing an inspirational quote with no overt political content. The decision, Loggans claims, smacks of selective targeting in a school where other teachers showcase controversial or political imagery without consequence.
Loggans didn't hold back, telling Fox News, "There’s plenty of other posters and flags and stuff in teachers’ classrooms in the same school and on their doors that should also be considered controversial or political. But I just feel like I’m being targeted because this is a conservative figure." His point cuts to the core: why is a quote about the power of speaking up deemed unacceptable when it’s tied to Kirk, while other displays skate by?
The poster featured a line from Kirk, who was tragically assassinated during a speaking event at Utah Valley University on September 10, reading, "Never underestimate the power of your voice and the impact you can have on the world when you speak up for what you believe in." If that message isn't suitable for a classroom, one wonders what inspiration is allowed under the district's murky guidelines.
Loggans also told WESH that school officials admitted the poster itself wasn’t controversial and carried an uplifting tone, yet they insisted on its removal because Kirk himself is seen as a polarizing political figure. This reasoning feels like a flimsy excuse to silence one side of the ideological spectrum while letting others decorate their walls with impunity.
Compare this to the posters of Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Ronald Reagan that Loggans keeps in his classroom, none of which drew complaints or administrative action. The double standard here isn't just glaring; it’s a neon sign pointing to viewpoint discrimination.
In response, Loggans has filed a grievance against the school, alleging that his right to fair treatment is being trampled. With attorney Anthony Sabatini in his corner, he’s pushing back against what they see as a clear bias in how classroom content is policed.
School leadership, meanwhile, defends their stance by referencing a memo from Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas, which warns that an educator’s public views can erode trust if they make students or families feel unwelcome. But applying this to a benign quote on a poster stretches the memo’s intent to absurd lengths.
Kamoutsas himself clarified in a social media post that the memo targeted teachers making vile remarks about Kirk’s assassination, not innocuous displays like Loggans’. That disconnect between the state’s guidance and the district’s overreach only fuels the sense of unfairness in this case.
Kirk’s assassination sent shockwaves far beyond this Florida classroom, with millions mourning the loss of a bold voice for conservative values. Yet, disturbingly, some educators across the country openly celebrated his death, revealing a chilling undercurrent of hostility in certain academic circles.
A South Carolina teacher was fired for claiming "America became greater" after Kirk’s killing, while a drag queen teacher in Idaho resigned after similar remarks, as Breitbart News detailed. These reactions, though extreme, highlight why figures like Kirk remain lightning rods even in death.
Mike Benz, Executive Director at the Foundation for Freedom Online, noted on The Alex Marlow Show in September that teachers and professors were among the primary groups reveling in Kirk’s murder. His observation about funding tied to such attitudes raises unsettling questions about the ideological currents shaping education today.
Loggans’ stand isn’t just about a poster; it’s about whether schools can cherry-pick which ideas are too “controversial” to be seen. If a harmless quote from a conservative figure gets the axe while other political imagery stands, the message to students is clear: only approved thoughts are welcome.
This case also underscores a broader cultural skirmish over who gets to define acceptable speech in public institutions. When administrators bend over backward to avoid offending one student’s sensibilities at the expense of a teacher’s rights, they risk creating an environment where conformity trumps critical thinking.
Ultimately, Loggans’ grievance could set a precedent for how far schools can go in policing expression under the guise of neutrality. As this plays out, it’s a reminder that the classroom should be a battleground for ideas, not a sanitized space where one side’s heroes are erased from the wall.
