A law firm in Des Moines, Iowa, is being accused of trying, on behalf of teacher Erin Slifer, to intimidate a student’s mother who objected to “controversial curricula and instructional materials” introduced by the teacher at Belmond-Klemme Community School
The legal team at BolesWitoskyStewart Law had written to parent Elayne Casalins threatening her for her comments to the school board about “a matter of public concern namely controversial curricula and instructional materials” at the school attended by her 12-year-old son.
The threats came in a “cease-and-desist” letter in which Slifer’s lawyers refused even it identify what they claimed was defamatory about their client.
“On behalf of Mrs. Casalins, we reject the legal arguments and demands in your letter, and we see it as little more than an attempt to intimidate Mrs. Casalins into giving up her First Amendment rights to speak and to petition her local school board regarding a matter of public concern,” explained a letter from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.
Further, “By choosing controversial curricula and instructional materials for public school students and not giving notice to parents so that they might opt their children out of the controversial curricula, Ms. Slifer injected herself into a public controversy. As pointed out above, both the Iowa Legislature and the Belmond-Klemme School Board have acknowledged that this is a controversial topic and the school board held a public meeting under a published school board policy to discuss it. By choosing controversial curricula and instructional materials in a system that makes such a decision a matter of public concern, Ms. Slifer became a limited purpose public figure. Thus, the doctrine of defamation per se does not apply as a matter of law.”
WILL explained Casalins first addressed her concerns about offending material with the teacher, then the school principal, then the superintendent.
“She went to the school board because no action was taken after she explained her concerns to the teacher, principal, and superintendent. She then spoke at a June 19, 2025, Belmond-Klemme Community School Board meeting to make objections to the instructional materials used in her son’s classroom and the lack of notice she was given as a parent,” WILL reported.
She documented a teacher made the students watch the PG-13 movie “Till” without any parental notice or consent — even though many students, including her son, were only 12 years old. She further reported that there was a discussion of Black Lives Matter, racism, and police brutality all without parental notification or consent, WILL reported.
Her concerns were the possible violations of state law in the use of the curricula, that she was denied her right, protected by state law, to object, and more.
The teacher then contacted the law firm and it sent the mom a letter with the threats, demanding she not participate in any “public discussion regarding this matter of public concern.”
“Mrs. Casalins had and continues to have a First Amendment right, and the right under Iowa law, to speak on this critical subject and to petition her government (the school board) for relief. We think it is crucial for parents to be free to direct their children’s upbringing and education and not be prevented from doing so by threats of a claim for defamation,” said Cory Brewer, WILL lawyer.
Casalins said, “As a new American citizen, I have constitutional rights that make this nation the envy of the world. There is no better place to live your life and raise a family, and we moved to Iowa to live in a state that upholds these fundamental American values. I was shocked to receive such a threatening letter from a law firm representing a public employee, my son’s teacher. But I will continue to tell my story and speak out for my son and the rights of parents across the country.”
WILL also pointed out that the teacher’s lawyers declined to “set forth the words spoken by Mrs. Casalins at that meeting that you allege were false and constituted defamation per se.”
“There was nothing in her presentation that was defamatory towards anyone, much less defamatory per se with respect to Ms. Slifer,” WILL informed the lawyers.
Further, WILL pointed out that in one of the cases cited by the teacher’s lawyers as precedent for their threats, the plaintiff who complained about someone else’s statements actually lost the case.
“Mrs. Casalins had and has a First Amendment right to speak on this subject and to petition her government (the school board) for relief. Ms. Slifer may not lawfully interfere with those rights through your letter,” WILL stated.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Bob Unruh
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.wnd.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
