Free-Speech Lines Blur for Teachers in Wake of Charlie Kirk’s Killing

The shocking murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has ignited a fierce backlash, leading to increased scrutiny of teachers’ social media expressions across various states and school districts. This situation has sparked a renewed conversation about educators’ rights to free speech outside their professional roles.

According to an analysis by Education Week, at least 10 educators have been dismissed, resigned, or otherwise removed from their positions following comments made in the wake of Kirk’s death. This highlights a growing trend where teachers’ online activities are now under the microscope.

Kirk, who was the co-founder and executive director of the conservative organization Turning Point USA, was shot on September 10 while delivering a speech at Utah Valley University and succumbed to his injuries later that day.

As a prominent figure in conservative politics and a close ally of former President Donald Trump, Kirk had established a significant following through his nationwide campus tours, where he debated on contentious issues like immigration, gun control, and race, often sharing videos of these debates online.

Despite his popularity, Kirk was known for making derogatory remarks about minorities and other groups, which his critics have pointed out in discussions surrounding his death.

Education Week’s review revealed that over 50 additional teachers and school staff members are currently under investigation for comments considered inappropriate, either criticizing Kirk or appearing to condone his killing. This scrutiny arises from a pool of approximately 3.8 million public school teachers in the United States, as per federal data.

Most individuals facing investigations have been placed on leave while their cases are reviewed. The majority of those who have been terminated are educators. In an interesting turn of events, some of these dismissed teachers have initiated lawsuits for wrongful termination. For instance, Matthew Kogol, an art teacher from the Oskaloosa, Iowa, community school district, and Lauren Vaughn, a former teaching assistant from Spartanburg County, S.C., are each claiming in federal court that their terminations, which stemmed from private Facebook posts made shortly after Kirk’s killing, infringe upon their First Amendment rights.

While public school educators are afforded constitutional protections for private political speech, school districts maintain the authority to discipline them for comments that disrupt their educational environment.

As the influence of social media grows, it complicates the balance between free speech and professional conduct for educators. The National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification has updated its Model Code of Ethics for Educators, which urges teachers to be mindful of their online behavior, even if their posts aren’t directly related to their professional responsibilities.

The code emphasizes the need for educators to maintain a clear distinction between their personal and professional lives and to be cognizant of the potential impact of their social media interactions with students and the broader public.

Vaughn, for instance, shared a quote from Kirk regarding the Second Amendment on the day of his death, suggesting that all killings are tragedies, regardless of personal opinions. Her district terminated her employment based on social media guidelines that require staff to uphold respect and professionalism in their communications.

The courts have protected teachers’ First Amendment rights, with limits

Historically, K-12 public school teachers possess First Amendment protections for private speech concerning public issues, as long as it does not disrupt their work environment. Zach Greenberg, a legal defense attorney with FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), notes that social media platforms have become a primary public forum, making it essential for government employees, including teachers, to participate in these discussions.

However, the rapid spread of social media complicates these protections. Alex Morey, a First Amendment expert with the Freedom Forum, highlights that online commentary can cause immediate disruptions that were less likely in previous decades.

Among the educators who lost their jobs, only four reported offensive comments were made while they were in a classroom setting. The majority were related to posts made online, where engagement is often heightened and comments can quickly go viral.

In recent weeks, social media campaigns, particularly from far-right accounts like @LibsofTikTok and @ScottPresler, have encouraged users to identify and report teachers’ potentially offensive posts, leading to calls for their dismissal.

This environment has resulted in significant errors; for example, the Elkhorn, Wisconsin school district faced a barrage of threats and vulgar messages after an administrator was wrongly accused of celebrating Kirk’s death online.

Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, condemned the targeting of educators for their personal opinions. “No one should celebrate another person’s murder,” she stated, “but using this tragedy to encourage doxxing, censorship, and firing people for their opinions is unacceptable.”

In June, the Supreme Court opted not to hear MacRae v. Mattos, a case involving a Massachusetts teacher who was terminated for TikTok videos posted prior to her hiring. Morey remarked that courts tend to favor schools over teachers, raising critical questions about the extent of educators’ First Amendment rights and whether they are effectively compelled to self-censor outside work hours.

What makes speech protected?

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from enacting laws that restrict freedom of speech, protecting a broad range of political expressions, including those that may be deemed offensive. Exceptions exist primarily concerning conduct rather than content, with categories such as obscenity, true threats, and incitement of violence being unprotected. However, the legal definitions of these exceptions are often more specific than public perception might suggest.

For instance, Kogol’s comment, “1 Nazi down,” in response to Kirk’s death is characterized in his lawsuit as rhetorical exaggeration about a widely discussed event, devoid of any threat or incitement to violence.

Despite the public outcry over his post, Kogol argues that complaints from the community do not necessarily diminish his effectiveness as an educator. Morey expressed concern that many individuals, especially those in authority, are conflating offensive speech with unprotected forms of expression, suggesting that mere opinion or criticism qualifies as a true threat.

State officials vow to target teacher licenses

This public outrage has also led to proposed punishments that extend beyond mere workplace discipline. Education leaders and governors in states such as Florida, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Texas have indicated intentions to revoke teachers’ licenses in response to controversial social media posts. While the feasibility of these threats remains uncertain, there have been instances where teachers lost their licenses due to expressions made outside of classroom settings.

“Teachers play a critical role in shaping our youth. As a result, we hold them to a higher standard,” stated Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun in a tweet, suggesting that teachers’ licenses could be suspended for “terrible” online posts. “While we must protect the First Amendment, calls for political violence are not freedom of speech and should not be tolerated,” he added.

In Texas, Education Commissioner Mike Morath has urged superintendents to report teachers making inappropriate comments. The agency is currently investigating over 280 complaints, putting teachers at risk of license revocation.

The Texas American Federation of Teachers has labeled this initiative a “political witch hunt” against educators with differing views from Kirk’s political stance. Critics warn that such measures could discourage teachers from participating in public discourse and engaging in discussions of controversial topics within their classrooms.

“Schools reflect society, and as the largest college-educated civilian workforce, teachers often become focal points for societal change,” remarked Lora Bartlett, chair of the education department at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She concluded by stating, “The government’s effort to revoke teaching licenses based on personal opinions expressed online—especially when not made in educational settings—represents a troubling movement to suppress free speech in America.”