Albemarle County’s School Board adopted a policy last night that prohibits student groups who are said to endorse or promote violence, harassment or hate. Critics pointed out that the policy could be used to ban student groups outside of school. TPUSA is prohibited from hosting speakers in the classroom. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sent a letter to the school board yesterday (without footnotes). JAB

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit organization that advocates free speech in the United States, is concerned about proposed revisions to Albemarle County School Board policy on student organizations and activities. The amended policy, as written, would violate the First Amendment which protects the right of students to free speech. The policy is written in a way that violates the First Amendment, which protects students’ right to free expression.

The proposal comes after a controversy involving TPUSA’s club speaker invitation. This has raised serious concerns about the Board targeting the group based on its views or those of its guests speakers. FIRE urges the Board to reject any proposed revisions, and to respect the First Amendment rights of students.

I. Factual Background

The TPUSA Chapter at Western Albemarle High School, WAHS, invited Victoria Cobb, President of The Family Foundation to speak at a lunchtime event titled, “Two Genders One Truth” in September. WAHS Principal Jennifer Sublette originally ordered the presentation.

The club cancelled the event due to the “complexity,” “controversy,” and “mature” topic.

The Founding Freedoms Law Center wrote to Albemarle County Public Schools to protest the cancellation. They explained that this was unlawful viewpoint discrimination. In the letter, it was noted that a different student group, Gender and Sexuality Alliance Club, had been allowed to have lunchtime meetings on related issues.

The administrators reversed their course immediately after receiving the letter, and allowed the TPUSA to continue. The event sparked community debate, and even led to a failed lawsuit to stop it. Board member Allison Spillman called the planned speech “hate-speech” and “has no right to be in our schools.” She was “beyond angry” about it.

The final date was November 19.

The Board directed the Superintendent to review the Policy IGDA which governs students’ activities and recommend any necessary changes. Staff presented a proposed amendment to the policy on March 5th, 2026. This included a ban on any student groups that “promoted or endorsed

Violence, harassment, hatred, or discrimination against an identifiable individual or group on the basis of race, color religion, ethnicity national origin, ancestry gender, gender identification, sexual orientation or disability, or affiliation with organizations that practice such acts.”

The policy will also prohibit noncurricular student groups, such as TPUSA from hosting guests speakers during school hours, even if they are not in class. Any student organization that wishes to host a guest

Speakers would be required to submit a request for approval to the principal or designated person for review. This should include the purpose, the content and the duration of their speech.

Charlie Kirk, co-founder of TPUSA.

II. The revised policy would violate the First Amendment as well as the Equal Access Act

The Board claims that these revisions are part a broader review on student activity policies. However, the sequence raises serious concern about the fact that this proposal could be aimed at limiting the TPUSA’s ability to express itself and possibly forcing the chapter to close. Regardless of what prompted the policy review process, certain revisions proposed are in direct conflict with federal law and the First Amendment, which protects the rights of student organizations.

Students do not give up their First Amendment right at the schoolhouse door. Administrators may only restrict student speech when it would “materially and substantially disrupt” the school’s operations or “invade the rights of others”.

There is no generalized “hurt feelings” defense to a school’s restriction on student speech.

Under these principles, a prohibition on student organizations–including noncurricular clubs–that “promote or endorse violence, harassment, or hatred toward an identifiable person or group” based on specified characteristics violates the First Amendment. Three constitutional issues are involved.

The policy is too broad because it bans a lot more speech than what causes a substantial disruption in the school or violates others’ rights. The policy prohibits any speech, even if it is deemed to be promoting violence, harassment or hatred by school officials. While this speech may cause a substantial disruption in the school, or reach the level of harassment that can be punished, school officials will ban all speech of this nature, regardless of whether or not the speech crosses the line. The subjective and expansive language threatens punishment to student organizations for expressing their opinions on controversial political topics.

It seems to be the main point. This proposal comes after the TPUSA event “Two Genders, One Truth”, which one board member called “hate speech”. Worse yet, it would ban student groups that don’t even support or promote these forbidden views, but are somehow “affiliated” to a group who do. Student organizations are allowed to express themselves and associate with other groups for the purpose of expression, as long as there is no evidence that there has been a substantial disruption.

This is not the first instance that the Board has received a warning not to impose overly broad restrictions on student speech. The prohibition is discriminatory because it does not adhere to the standards of “substantial disturbance” or harassment. First Amendment prohibits government officials to suppress speech because they disagree with the message expressed. Even a government policy which “equally prohibits disparagement” of all groups is a viewpoint discriminatory and therefore a “particularly grave” First Amendment violation.

Third, it is unconstitutionally vague, because there are no clear, objective standards. The policy needs to be specific and clear enough to make sure students know what speech is prohibited, and to avoid arbitrary or unfair enforcement. The proposed policy is subjective

It is not acceptable to use terms such as “promote”, “hatred”, or “propaganda” without any definition. Spillman, the Board member, may think that saying there are only two genders promotes hate of transgender individuals. Others believe that supporting transgender sports athletes or girls’ locker rooms is a way to promote hatred.

Promotes harassment of young girls. A student group that supports Israel’s invasion in Gaza may be considered by one administrator to endorse violence against Palestinians. Another administrator, however, might believe that a speech accusing Israel perpetrating genocide is a form of hatred towards Israelis. The term

The term “affiliated”, too, is not defined and can be interpreted to mean anything from formal relations to perceived ideological alignment.

The Constitution forbids school officials from making subjective and unpredictable decisions about whether or not a student group has violated the policy.

It is unconstitutional to include the proposed provision regarding approval of guests speakers. The Board may adopt administrative procedures that govern the use of school buildings and invite a guest speaker. However, they must include “narrow and objective standards” as guiding principles.

The principal’s decision. The principal’s decision.

“Disliked speakers” is a violation of the First Amendment.

The policies are discriminatory.

Non-curricular student organizations are evaluated based on their content and point of view, as well as the speeches of their guests speakers.

If these policy changes were motivated by a disagreement with the views expressed by the TPUSA Chapter and its invited speakers or a desire for avoiding controversy, this only exacerbated the constitutional issues. The government must refrain from regulating speech if the motivational ideology, opinion or perspective expressed by the speaker is the reason for the restriction.

FIRE calls on the Board to meet its constitutional obligations and withdraw the proposed limitations for student organizations. It also urges them to allow WAHS’s TPUSA to continue as a student group that has the same rights as other student groups. Please respond to our request by March 26th, 2026.

Aaron Terr

Director of Public Advocacy

Stephanie Jablonsky

Senior Program Counselor, Public Advocacy