The trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant school’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the plaintiff teacher’s defamation complaint insofar as it was based on the termination letter the school sent the teacher and on the termination decision itself. While the termination decision and letter related to an issue of public importance–protecting current and former students from teachers’ sexual advances–neither contributed to public debate on the issue. The termination letter was sent to plaintiff privately, and the termination decision itself did not add to public debate. By contrast, an administrator’s statement to a newspaper about the termination was protected speech, and the teacher failed to show any probability of success in proving the administrator’s statement was defamatory.