Texas teachers union protecting teachers who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination

The day after Charlie Kirk was shot, a breakfast cafe down the street from me posted a graphic image of the moment he was shot on their official Instagram account, along with a snarky caption quoting one of his past statements about gun violence. I share this because it illustrates just how widespread the left’s celebration of this young father’s very public assassination became in the days following his death. These celebratory social media posts, essentially justifying his murder, were not just coming from left-leaning TikTok influencers and edgy business owners. No. In that mocking and sneering mob, there were school teachers who mold our nation’s children. That should make every parent pause.

This is not about whether you like Charlie Kirk or not. This is about whether public servants entrusted with children can publicly celebrate or justify political violence and then return to the classroom as if nothing happened. And it is about the unions now going to bat for them.

In Texas, the response was swift. According to the Texas Tribune, the Texas Education Agency received more than 350 complaints involving over 100 educators posting comments about Kirk’s shooting. Commissioner Mike Morath instructed superintendents to report “reprehensible and inappropriate” posts for investigation. Some districts placed teachers on leave. Others terminated employment. Lawsuits quickly followed.

The Texas American Federation of Teachers filed suit against the state, arguing that the directive violated educators First Amendment rights. The union claims teachers are being punished for protected speech made on personal accounts outside of school hours. In its February 20 statement titled “Who Decides What Texas Teachers Can Say — The Constitution or TEA?” Texas AFT framed the issue as a constitutional showdown, writing, “The Texas Education Agency does not get to decide what speech is protected under the First Amendment. The Constitution does.” The union went on to argue that the commissioner’s directive was an attempt to police lawful political expression and warned that allowing the agency to investigate educators for off-duty speech would create a chilling effect across the profession.

The problem with the argument that the teachers unions are trying to present is that no one was arrested. Neither Congress nor the TEA passed a new law outlawing certain speech. The Constitution guarantees free speech, but it does not guarantee you a job, especially when you choose to use that free speech in a way that brings scandal to your employer.

Teachers do not forfeit their constitutional rights by signing a contract with a public school district. But they also do not become anonymous private citizens. They are government employees responsible for shaping the intellectual and moral climate of a classroom. If a teacher publicly posts that America became “greater” after Kirk was shot, as one educator did, according to KKTV, what message does that send to students whose parents admire him? If a teacher mocks or justifies an assassination attempt against a political activist, how safe does a conservative student feel raising their hand in that class? Does that teacher have the professionalism to treat students of all backgrounds equally?

In Jourdanton, Texas, a high school teacher was fired after posting about Kirk’s assassination. Houston Public Media reported on additional Houston area educators facing backlash for similar comments, including one teacher who wrote that he hoped Kirk was “roasting,” a reference wishing him to be burning in hell. The Texas Tribune details how the TEA’s directive set off a wave of district-level investigations across the state. The unions are framing this as a sweeping assault on free speech. They are demanding reinstatement and arguing that speech made off campus should not trigger employment consequences, even when that speech includes statements celebrating or mocking a political killing.

But where were these same unions when teachers on the other side of the political aisle were disciplined?

Consider the case of Jessica Tapia in California. Tapia was fired after posting videos criticizing Target’s pride clothing line marketed to children. Angry students brought her posts to administrators which triggered her administrators district to probe deeper into her beliefs, including her views on pronoun policies. She was ultimately terminated. Tapia sued, alleging First Amendment and religious liberty violations. In an interview I conducted with Tapia, she told me that her union did not step in to defend her or fight on her behalf. In fact, they took the side of her accusers. A teacher expresses concern about pride-themed children’s clothing and is fired. Teachers celebrate or justify the gruesome shooting of a conservative activist, and unions rush to court to defend them. The hypocrisy is obvious.

If the principle is that teachers off-campus speech is protected, then that principle should apply across the board. If the principle is that public servants must maintain a standard of professionalism that extends beyond the school building, then that should apply across the board too. The problem is that consistency is nowhere to be found.

This is especially important in a climate where political tensions are already high. We have watched educators across the country fold activism into curriculum under the banner of social justice. We have seen teachers encourage walkouts and political demonstrations. Now we are being told that celebrating the shooting of a public figure is simply protected speech that should carry no professional consequence.

Public schools serve families of every political stripe. That includes families who support Charlie Kirk. It includes students who attend Turning Point USA events. It includes children whose parents vote Republican, Democrat, or independent. A classroom should not become a space where one political tribe feels morally superior and justified in celebrating harm against the other political tribe.

Finally, let’s not forget that the First Amendment is there to protect political speech, while celebrating political violence is inherently a celebration of using violence to suppress political speech. The Texas AFT isn’t protecting the First Amendment, but rather endorsing an attack against it.

The café down the street can post whatever it wants, even if it is pretty sick, because this is America. It is a private business. Parents can also choose whether to buy pancakes there. However, public schools are different; parents do not have the option to opt out so easily. Children are legally compelled to attend. That is why this debate matters.