Sign up for Chalkbeat Indiana’s free daily newsletter to keep up with Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County’s township districts, and statewide education news.
After conservative activist Charlie Kirk was killed, Indiana officials issued a clear warning: Any teacher making negative comments about his death could face serious consequences.
Two weeks later, the full impact of the calls by Gov. Mike Braun and Attorney General Todd Rokita to investigate and document teachers’ social media posts — and possibly result in their firing or licensure revocation — remains unclear. No cases to revoke a teacher’s license have been filed, and school board meetings where teachers’ statements were in the spotlight have remained mostly tame.
While at least three K-12 teachers have resigned from their positions, the Indiana Department of Education would not say whether it is investigating any teachers for their comments, and no cases have been filed with the state authority ultimately responsible for revoking their licenses.
The school districts where teachers have made controversial posts have been added to the Indiana attorney general’s Eyes on Education portal — which encourages members of the public to report partisan political content in schools — but the office has said it is not investigating the posts. The portal also includes posts from university faculty and staff — a Ball State professor who was fired for her post has filed a lawsuit through the ACLU.
The response at school board meetings since the submissions to the portal were posted has been mixed, with people speaking up both in support of the teachers and applauding the stance of state officials — but overall the atmosphere has been a far cry from meetings during the height of the pandemic that featured hours of public testimony, audience reaction, and occasionally, members of the public removed from the room.
No cases filed with teacher licensing authority
Braun said the state education department had the authority to suspend or revoke licenses for misconduct, and would review teachers’ posts for “political violence.” Misconduct in office is one of the charges that can lead to a teacher losing their license under state law, along with incompetency or “willful neglect of duty.”
IDOE would not say how many reports it has received about teachers’ posts or whether it is reviewing any for misconduct.
The state Office of Administrative Law Proceedings — which is charged with making a decision on teachers’ licenses after the department’s initial investigation — said no cases on teacher licenses have been filed with the office since Kirk’s death on Sept 10.
This formal licensure review process is separate from steps taken by Rokita’s office, which has said it has received hundreds of complaints about teachers’ social media posts.
In the last two weeks, it has added another 15 Indiana school districts and six universities to a portal tracking responses to Kirk’s death by schools, teachers, and university professors, for a total of 22 K-12 entities and eight universities. This includes social media posts, as well as instances where schools allegedly failed to lower their flags in honor of Kirk, and in one case, a letter from a superintendent warning staff of doxing cases.
But the portal is “not intended to provide a basis for legal action against schools or teachers from the Attorney General’s Office,” a spokesperson for Rokita’s office said in a statement, though it could provide a basis for legal action from others.
The office does not investigate the submissions beyond verifying their authenticity.
Instead, the AG has sent a letter to Indiana superintendents and public university administrators outlining how schools as government employers may discipline or terminate educators “making divisive statements that excuse or even celebrate Kirk’s death,” despite First Amendment protections.
“As a legal matter, schools have substantial authority consistent with the First Amendment to terminate or discipline teachers or other educators for divisive or controversial speech,” Rokita’s letter said.
Public employees like teachers have First Amendment rights to speech, including the right to speak on matters of public concern, according to a previous comment by the ACLU of Indiana, but courts will balance that right to speak against the employer’s interest in maintaining an efficient workplace.
School board testimony centers free speech
Chalkbeat reviewed the recordings of the six school boards that have met since the portal added complaints related to Kirk’s death: Elkhart, Lafayette, South Bend, South Gibson, South Newton, and Valparaiso.
In some cases, there was little to no comment from members of the public about the teachers’ posts in question, as the meetings focused on finalizing school district budgets — a typical board task during this time of year. School board members usually cannot respond to public comments or address personnel matters publicly.
In two others, a handful of public speakers who addressed the posts spoke unanimously or near-unanimously in support of teachers named in the portal to applause from others in the room.
The South Newton school board, which represents a district of around 850 students in northwestern Indiana, heard the most speakers at 11. It also heard the greatest variety of opinions, with some community members praising the effectiveness of the teacher named on the portal, and others expressing concern that students had seen her post. The audience in the boardroom remained quiet during each speaker’s testimony.
One overarching theme from speakers was support for teachers who made posts on their private social media accounts that were then screenshotted and shared to a wider audience — sometimes leading to safety concerns both for themselves and their schools.
“Her beliefs and self-expression off the clock to her peers regardless of what a mob of online zealots might suggest have harmed no one. Her departure from the school has done and will continue to do irreparable harm to her students,” said James Manago of a teacher who resigned to the Valparaiso school board.
Another common opinion was that teachers who work with children should be held to a higher standard for speech.
“Our educators should be individuals who are not only well-versed in the subject matter they are teaching but that should be people that our kids can trust and respect and feel safe with,” said Dana Lawrence to the South Newton school board. “An educator’s job comes with great responsibility and fair or not, they are held to higher standards than others.”
Speakers across school board meetings also emphasized the importance of First Amendment rights.
“The rights given to us under the First Amendment do not say ‘Free speech for everyone but teachers,’” said Rebecca Scott to the South Newton school board.
“I may not agree with her post, but at the end of the day, what makes the United States of America the United States of America is … your First Amendment rights,” said Brett Miller to the Valparaiso board. “It’s frustrating as a parent and a resident that we are potentially losing a good teacher because of … the fear of speaking up.”
Meanwhile, others said there were limits to free speech protections.
“Yes, you can have free speech, but that doesn’t mean you can say simply anything you want without consequences,” Andrew Karr told the Valparaiso school board to applause, giving the example of bomb and death threats. “The public approval and seemingly endorsement of killing of people you disagree with should also fall under this category of unacceptable discourse.”
A former teacher said it would be a “dreadful loss” for students for teachers to avoid controversial subjects in the classroom.
“When I was teaching, if some kind of traumatic event happened on the news, I would start every class with ‘well, what do you think?’ And the hands went up,” said Paul Schreiner to the Valparaiso school board. “That was the best experience I ever had when I was a high school teacher. I get the sense … that there is developing an atmosphere of fear to talk about things that are controversial.”
This story has been updated with additional comment from the Attorney General’s Office that specifies the Eyes on Education portal could be used as a basis for legal action by others, but not by the office.
Aleksandra Appleton covers Indiana education policy and writes about K-12 schools across the state. Contact her at aappleton@chalkbeat.org.
