Rokita advises it would be ‘wise’ to remove teachers who express support for political violence

IL file photo

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita sent a six-page memo to all Indiana school superintendents and university administrators Monday night saying that schools are “wrong” for not disciplining or firing teachers who make comments about Charlie Kirk’s death.

“Some schools have responded to those calls for action with excuses and equivocation, claiming that the First Amendment prevents them from terminating or disciplining educators for celebrating or expressing controversial views about the killing of Charlie Kirk,” Rokita wrote. “In many if not most cases, those schools are wrong.”

He said additionally that, as a legal matter, schools have substantial authority to punish educators for divisive or controversial speech. The memo quotes numerous cases that are standing legal precedent on the matter.

“As a matter of good government and sound public policy, schools would be wise to remove from the classroom teachers who express support for or attempt to excuse political violence. And as a matter of morality, this moment demands decisive action from public officials to address noxious speech from government employees that undermines public confidence in our schools and corrodes public discourse.”

Since Kirk’s Sept. 10 assassination, Republicans have sought to punish those who “celebrated” the assassination. In Indiana, Gov. Mike Braun has threatened teaching licenses, arguing that “calls for political violence are not freedom of speech and should not be tolerated.”

Pushback against a Ball State University employee led to her firing and she filed suit against the university Monday. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana is seeking an injunction on her behalf.

“Government employees don’t give up their First Amendment rights just to become employees of the government,” said Stevie Pactor, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU. “They, still, are entitled to their own personal opinions that they are free to express online or in other forums, so long as those are being made in their personal capacity.”

In Rokita’s document, his office provides a legal analysis about social media posts made by a U.S. history teacher at a high school in north central Indiana. He didn’t name Brett Maurer in the memo, but Rokita posted to social media about the teacher on Sept. 18 and urged Hoosiers to call or email the South Bend district to voice concerns.

In one post, the teacher wrote, “with all due disrespect Charlie Kirk can suck it. He became exactly what he said was ok and acceptable in order to have gun rights. I call that manifestation. I’m not saying it’s right, but I’m saying it’s only fitting.”

There were two other posts by the same teacher, as well, and Rokita said his office received 25 complaints.

The attorney general conceded that because the posts were made on the teacher’s personal social media page and concern a political figure and political topics, it is likely that a court would conclude that the teacher was “sp[eaking] as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Accordingly, whether the high school can discipline or terminate this teacher will depend on a balancing of the school’s interests as an employer and the teacher’s speech interest. An assessment of the posts and the context in which they were made shows clearly that this high school could legally terminate this teacher.”

Rokita alleges the posts were crass and vulgar, which weakens First Amendment protections.

“And there are very clear indications that the teacher’s posts and others like it have sparked severe backlash in Indiana communities that threaten to disrupt school operations …,” he wrote. “The backlash has evidently been so severe that the high school in this case felt impelled to release a public statement justifying its decision not to discipline the teacher, which it justified on the incorrect grounds that it could not terminate the teacher because of the First Amendment.”

Rokita further stated it’s reasonable that allowing divisive and cruel comments to stand creates concerns for parents about whether the teacher can be trusted.

“That loss of trust by the school, if left unaddressed, could have serious negative implications for the school for years to come and is reason enough to take action against the teacher,” he continued.

The memo concluded by saying the speech by Maurer “plainly caused disruption to school operations and is likely to cause further disruption in the days and weeks ahead. The school would thus be well within its authority to terminate the teacher, as would many schools if they chose to terminate teachers who have similarly contributed to the divisive and, for many, painful eruption of controversial discourse on social media and elsewhere concerning Charlie Kirk.”