Anita Meston (Image: Alliance Defending Freedom)

It all started when Anita was asked to cover a Year 8 history lesson, in which students were to discuss the proportionality of the bombing of Dresden at the end of World War II. The attention levels of her 12- and 13-year-old students being, as in any classroom, mixed, she suggested whether the topic of proportionality had parallels in current events, like the Israel-Palestine conflict following the Hamas attack in October 2023.

Some of the students perked up. One boy stood up and shouted that he was “pro-Israel”, and asked if Anita was too. She responded – briefly, honestly – that she was, before returning to the subject of the lesson.

So much so that the following day, Anita was summoned to the headteacher’s office, told that she was not allowed to give her personal views in the classroom, and informed that her services would no longer be required.

And to what end? Effectively, to censor religious beliefs and personal views that some deemed undesirable. Simply being pro-life, pro-Israel, and politically conservative (students had tried multiple times to engage Anita in discussions about Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, to which she responded briefly, if at all, before returning to the lesson) resulted in sudden dismissal.

Critics might argue that Anita could have simply abstained from answering. But is “abstaining” really what we want from the people shaping the next generation? Shouldn’t teachers be sufficiently invested in their students’ formation as to want to support them in grappling with the world’s complex moral and social questions? How many of our great minds have attributed their success to the encouragement of detached, impersonal educators who went silent at the mere hint of content outside the lesson plan?

Certainly, information should always be presented in a way that is age-appropriate, and schools should not be places of ideological indoctrination. But these were not issues in Anita’s case. All she did was answer questions from students – in good faith, without seeking to impose her beliefs on anyone.

It does not take much reading between the lines to see that the issue was precisely the beliefs themselves. Such blatant censorship is particularly concerning in an educational environment, which is supposed to equip young people to think for themselves in a world that will constantly present them with diverse and contrasting perspectives.

Instead, students will learn that certain perfectly legitimate, widely-held perspectives are to be considered “wrong”, and that their mere expression warrants punishment. They will learn that authority includes the right to silence disfavoured views, and that this is acceptable in the workplace and the wider world.

We ought to shudder at what this says about our society. Anita’s case is not just about one teacher and one school: it’s the latest front in the battle for freedom of thought and expression in this country.

That’s why Alliance Defending Freedom is supporting Anita to seek justice at the employment tribunal – for herself, for educators, and for anyone who values their ability to speak freely. If our workplaces, schools and public discourse do not preserve the values of open debate and mutual respect, we will have failed both ourselves and the next generation.

Jeremiah Igunnubole (@JIgunnubole) is a barrister and former Senior Crown Prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service, who serves as Legal Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom in London.