Free Speech or Professional Misconduct?
The assassination of Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, has sent shockwaves through political and cultural institutions alike. In Texas, however, the fallout has taken on a particularly sharp edge. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has announced that it is reviewing at least 180 complaints against public school teachers and staff accused of posting negative or celebratory comments about Kirk’s death.
For some, the TEA’s move represents a long-overdue step toward accountability for educators entrusted with shaping the next generation. For others, it is a dangerous government overreach—a “witch hunt,” as the Texas American Federation of Teachers (Texas AFT) put it.
The question looming over this controversy is one that cuts to the heart of both ethics and liberty: where does the professional responsibility of teachers end, and where does their personal right to free speech begin?
The Spark: Comments in the Wake of Assassination
Charlie Kirk, only 31 at the time of his death, was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, during a speaking event at Utah Valley University. Authorities identified 22-year-old Tyler Robinson as the alleged shooter. Kirk, a father of two, left behind a wife and two young children. His death not only stunned his supporters but also prompted an outpouring of vitriol online from detractors who despise him.
Among those who took to social media were Texas educators. Posts ranged from mocking Kirk’s death to characterizing him in deeply offensive terms. In one high-profile case, Klein ISD in the Houston area terminated a football coach after he called Kirk a “horrible f—–g human being” on Facebook. Other districts, including Jourdanton ISD and Wylie ISD, have also confirmed disciplinary actions against staff. Wylie ISD reported that two teachers resigned after facing scrutiny over their posts (Isaac Yu, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 15, 2025).
The backlash was swift. State Rep. Hillary Hickland, R-Belton, publicly called for the resignation of a Pflugerville ISD teacher who had labeled Kirk a “Nazi.” The district clarified the teacher had already retired in 2024, but the episode underscored how deeply the controversy has penetrated Texas politics.
Commissioner Morath Draws a Line
On September 12, TEA Commissioner Mike Morath issued a letter to Texas superintendents, warning that educators who engaged in “vile content” related to Kirk’s assassination could face investigation and discipline under the state’s Educators’ Code of Ethics.
“While the exercise of free speech is a fundamental right we are all blessed to share, it does not give carte blanche authority to celebrate or sow violence against those that share differing beliefs and perspectives,” Morath wrote. He emphasized the human cost of Kirk’s death: “Mr. Kirk was a father and a husband, and tragically, his children no longer have their father, and his wife no longer has her spouse” (Yu, Houston Chronicle).
Morath also signaled that consequences could be severe. He stated he would recommend not only termination for violators but also suspension of their teaching certifications, effectively barring them from future employment in Texas public schools.
Union Backlash: A “Witch Hunt”
Texas AFT quickly condemned Morath’s response, framing it as a politically motivated purge of dissenting voices. Zeph Capo, the union’s president, accused the state of weaponizing tragedy to silence educators.
“In short order, the LibsofTikTok agenda has become the policy of the State of Texas,” Capo said. “Here’s the thing about authoritarian regimes: They’ll take as much as the rest of us are willing to give them. It’s no surprise that, here in Texas, the purge of civil servants starts with teachers” (Aguirre, MySA).
Capo warned that the state’s posture could chill free expression among educators who already feel under siege in a political climate where schools are ground zero in culture wars. “If you value your freedom, now is the time to speak up and defend the rights of all Texans to exercise their constitutional right to have an opinion on matters of civil discourse,” he said.
The union represents 66,000 K-12 and community college educators, support staff, and retirees across Texas. Their denunciation of the TEA was as forceful as it was predictable, highlighting the growing divide between Texas conservatives and the state’s education establishment.
Political Fault Lines
Democrats quickly echoed the union’s criticisms. State Rep. Lauren Ashley Simmons, D-Houston, said she was “disgusted” by Morath’s directive. She accused him of selective outrage, claiming he did not react in a similar way to the recent assassination of Minnesota House Democratic Caucus Leader Melissa Hortman and her husband.
Republicans, meanwhile, largely defended Morath’s position. Conservative activists and organizations, including the 1776 Project, vowed to use the moment to shine a spotlight on what they see as pervasive bias within public schools. “We are committing $$$ to texting every parent exactly what their local teachers are saying about Charlie Kirk’s murder,” said Aiden Buzzetti, the group’s president. “It’s time for parents to know exactly who is teaching their children” (Yu, Houston Chronicle).
This duel of narratives—authoritarian censorship versus necessary accountability—will likely shape legislative debates in the next Texas legislative session.
The Code of Ethics Question
The central legal and ethical question is whether these social media posts constitute violations of the Texas Educators’ Code of Ethics. The code, while affirming free speech rights, also obliges teachers to maintain professional conduct, avoid harmful speech toward students and colleagues, and serve as positive role models in the community.
The TEA’s investigative division routinely handles cases ranging from inappropriate teacher-student relationships to criminal behavior. Under Morath’s guidance, posts that celebrate or mock political assassinations could fall into the same disciplinary pipeline. That process may result in dismissals, suspensions, or even placement on the state’s “do not hire” list.
For critics, that equation is excessive—conflating poor judgment on social media with crimes or abuses of authority. For supporters, however, the stakes are clear: if educators publicly display hatred or contempt for individuals based on ideology, parents have every reason to question whether their children are receiving impartial instruction.
Local Districts Act First
Though the TEA has not yet launched formal investigations, individual districts have acted swiftly. Klein ISD’s termination of its coach became a high-profile example, amplified by local media. Wylie ISD’s resignations showed that the controversy is not confined to large urban districts. Jourdanton ISD, a small district south of San Antonio, is also reportedly investigating one of its educators.
The decentralized nature of Texas education governance means that districts may choose to act independently even before TEA investigators weigh in. This patchwork of local responses further complicates the question of fairness and consistency.
What’s Really at Stake
The debate is not merely about Charlie Kirk, nor is it solely about teachers and their jobs. At its core, the controversy reveals how deeply fractured Texas has become over cultural and political identities.
For conservatives, the spectacle of taxpayer-funded educators mocking the assassination of a conservative leader represents an intolerable breach of public trust. It confirms suspicions that many public schools harbor ideological hostility toward traditional values and conservative families.
For progressives and unions, however, the investigation signals a creeping authoritarianism in Texas governance, where political loyalty tests are imposed on teachers in violation of their constitutional rights. To them, the TEA’s actions are not about professionalism—they are about silencing political opposition.
The Road Ahead
The TEA’s review process could stretch for months. If formal investigations proceed, cases will eventually be heard by the governor-appointed State Board of Educator Certification, where teachers may rely on union lawyers or private counsel. The outcomes of those hearings could establish precedents that shape the boundaries of teacher conduct—and free speech—for years to come.
Meanwhile, the controversy will continue to play out in school board meetings, union rallies, and legislative chambers. With school choice, parental rights, and curriculum fights already at the forefront in Texas politics, this battle over teacher speech will only add more fuel to the fire.
Conclusion
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has left more than just a grieving family and a mourning conservative movement. It has exposed fault lines in Texas education and politics that run deeper than many realized.
Whether the TEA’s response is viewed as an act of accountability or authoritarian overreach depends largely on one’s political vantage point. But one fact is undeniable: in a state already polarized over education policy, the line between professional ethics and personal liberty has never been more contested.
And as Texas weighs how to handle 180 complaints against its educators, the rest of the nation is watching closely. The outcome will not only determine the careers of dozens of teachers but may also set a precedent for how America reconciles free speech with professional responsibility in its classrooms.