TEACHERS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO EMOTIONAL RESPONSES TO TRAGEDY

Robert E. Lee County Florida is currently ground zero in the reactionary backlash to the death, and subsequent criticism of right-wing hero Charlie Kirk. Three public school teachers had the audacity to remind their Facebook friends about the things Charlie Kirk actually said.¹ The argument against the teachers is that as public servants they do not have the same First Amendment protections as everyone else. The most common phrase I heard and saw written on this argument is, “teachers are held to a higher standard.”

If only Charlie Kirk were held to this higher standard how different the debate would be.

Arguments in support of the teachers is that they have first Amendment rights just like anybody else. The comments they made were posted on their own time, on their own social media. It is none of the school district’s business what a teacher says on their personal time in their personal space.

It turns out, there’s legal precedent on the matter. Free speech really is a bit more complicated for teachers. On the other hand, being fired for saying polarizing things about a polarizing figure is perhaps taking things too far.²

Of course, that’s a matter for Superintendent Dr. Collins and the Robert E. Lee School Board to figure out. After all, the district is currently involved in a no-holds-barred war on rainbows. No dissent can be brooked.³

It should come as no surprise that I had something to say on the matter. I wrote a quick essay for the Fort Myers News Press. You can find the published essay here. The full essay is below just in case the published piece is behind a paywall.⁴

A teacher’s rights, responsibilities regarding free speech | Opinion, 10/10/2025

---

A Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities Regarding Free Speech

Many Lee County citizens are under the impression that teaching is an ascetic calling rather than a profession. They confuse teachers for monks who, upon receipt of their certificates, take a vow of poverty and especially of silence. Teachers demonstrate their dedication by their willingness to accept low pay, inhuman workloads, and paralyzing public scrutiny.

Now, three teachers are facing the prospect of being fired for, on their own time and their own media, saying something critical about the tragic, violent death of a polarizing public figure. The most immediate response from many in the county is, “fire them.” Teachers do not have the same rights as everyone else. No breach of the Sacred Code of Conduct will be tolerated.  

In his majority opinion in the landmark Tinker case, Justice Abe Fortas declared, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This and other cases, including Pickering v. Board of Education, shed light on the tricky balance between a teacher’s Constitutional rights, and their responsibilities to their students.

No rights are absolute. One’s rights extend only so far as they pose an imposition on another’s rights. Critics are correct to point out that teachers, because of their professional responsibilities, are held to a higher standard. Conformity to majority opinion, however, is not the standard. Teachers are allowed to say things in their own lives that are not popular. Legal and ethical doctrine defines the parameters. Teachers’ speech on matters of public concern is protected so long it does not cause a material disruption to the educational function or environment of the school. This is a fair standard that protects the teacher’s rights and sets the parameters for professional responsibility.

If Dr. Carlin wants to stifle the free speech of these three teachers, it is not enough to claim that their words were despicable. There is no legal definition for “despicable” speech. She and the district carry the burden of proving that these teachers’ comments were disruptive to the extent that the interest in silencing them outweighs their Constitutional rights.

I would also add that the Superintendent, as a professional herself, must determine if termination is the appropriate response for this alleged infraction. In other words, is any disruption that these teachers may have caused mitigated or exacerbated by removing them permanently from the classroom? Qualified teachers are hard to come by nowadays, in no small part due to the level of public scrutiny and condemnation that they face every day. Does the interest of the district in firing these teachers outweigh the potential harm done to students in losing qualified teachers for a significant period of instructional time? Maybe it might be better to just give these teachers a stern talking to, or maybe even a letter of reprimand, and get on with our lives. It has been my experience that an able school administrator can make these decisions without interference from the district.

As an aside to the rights vs. responsibilities argument above, I would remind the public that teachers are human beings, subject to the same emotional responses as every other human being. Charlie Kirk, like all public personalities, made his living by prodding emotional responses from his supporters and detractors. Consequently, the tragic nature of his death churned a maelstrom of conflicting emotions from all ends of the very debate that he instigated. There is nothing wrong with this. Death and tragedy open the door to emotional release. Our increasingly online lives motivated by “likes” and “clicks” and “shares,” however, are not conducive to healthy emotional expression. The very human shortcomings that inspire us to say hurtful things during times of heightened emotional agitation are now amplified a thousand-fold. It is always good policy during times of tragedy that we as a community offer each other, including our teachers, more than a modicum of grace.

---

Notes:

1. That’s true of two out of the three teachers. I have not seen the posts from the third teacher, but I would wager it is in the same category. ↩︎
2. I do not adhere to the lionization of Charlie Kirk as a warrior and a martyr for free speech. Kirk was not the least interested in Free Speech unless it was the freedom to say offensive things about minority groups. I am in agreement with Ta’nehis Coates‘ and Edmund Davis‘ take on Charlie Kirk’s status as a free speech advocate. ↩︎
3. I often remind those I’m talking to on this subject that the first thing Superintendent Dr. Collins did upon election was to remove the word “progressive” from the district masthead. I wrote about it here. ↩︎
4. Please read the published essay on the News Press website. Nowadays, clicks matter. The more people clicking my essays, the greater likelihood of future essays being published. ↩︎