Texas teachers are facing new scrutiny for what they post online after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

In a letter to superintendents, Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Morath said “reprehensible and inappropriate” social media posts could trigger investigations under the educator code of ethics.

The Texas Education Agency said Monday, Sept. 15 it was investigating roughly 180 complaints against teachers accused of making inappropriate remarks about Kirk, according to the Texas Tribune.

Districts have already removed some educators from their positions, sparking debate over whether a private Facebook post or off-duty comment should cost someone their career.

According to the Texas Tribune, the TEA provided a statement from Morath, who said he would recommend the State Board for Educator Certification suspend the licenses of teachers who are disciplined.

Teacher advocates call the move unprecedented and politically motivated, while state leaders insist it’s about protecting students and public trust.

The clash raises questions about free speech, professional conduct, and how far the law actually goes in policing educators’ online lives.

The Star-Telegram spoke to Zeph Capo, president of the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, and Dale Carpenter, a constitutional law professor at SMU, about what these investigations could mean for educators. The TEA did not respond to our request for comment before publication.

What does the Texas educators’ code of ethics say about social media?

The code lays out professional standards but doesn’t directly address online activity.

Instead, it includes broad rules such as Standard 1.7, which says educators must “comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws.”

Capo said that vagueness is exactly what makes the TEA’s warning so concerning.

“I think they’re probably confused about which points of the educator code of ethics they’re going to use for this, and are probably going to do their best to push a square peg through a round hole.”

That said, Capo admitted that districts often lean on those broad policies to justify discipline.

“More so than the threats from the state, the one that we see more people lose their jobs on is the requirement to follow district policy,” he said. “If they’re found in violation, they could be subject to disciplinary action. Then it becomes a question of how much you enforced this policy, how you trained employees on it, and whether the policy itself goes so far that it restricts people’s First Amendment rights.”

The broader question, though, is whether teachers’ free speech rights online are the same as everyone else’s.

Do teachers have the same free speech rights as everyone else?

Not exactly. Courts apply what’s known as the Pickering-Connick Test, which determines whether an employee’s speech is about a matter of public concern or if it disrupts the school environment.

Dale Carpenter, a constitutional law professor at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, said the government has broad authority to police the speech of public school teachers — but only in certain circumstances. If a teacher is speaking in their capacity as an educator, the state can discipline them for what they say. But if the teacher is speaking as a private citizen on a topic of public concern, the First Amendment’s free speech protections mean the state is limited in its ability to punish them for what they say. Even if what the teacher says is outrageous, immoral or unkind, the state wouldn’t be allowed to discipline the teacher on those grounds alone, Carpenter said.

A major exception exists in cases where the teacher’s speech disrupts the operations of the school itself, Carpenter said. Such was the case in a 2019 incident in which Georgia Clark, a teacher at Carter-Riverside High School in Fort Worth ISD, was fired after writing a social media post asking President Donald Trump to crack down on immigrant students at her school. Two years later, the 250th District Court of Travis County upheld the school board’s decision to fire Clark.

Courts weigh the facts of each case individually to determine whether a teacher’s off-campus speech creates serious enough disruption that the state can discipline the teacher, Carpenter said. If a teacher says something discriminatory about a particular religious or racial minority, for example, the state could argue that the teacher can’t effectively control a classroom, or that colleagues will refuse to work with them, he said.

In a social media post, Gov. Greg Abbott said some teachers’ posts “called for or incite violence.” Incitement isn’t protected speech under the First Amendment. But Carpenter said the state would have to prove that those teachers’ posts were likely to result in someone actually committing violence. That’s a difficult threshold for the state to meet, he said.

Capo, the AFT president, said that means context matters as much as content.

“In some ways, it is a free speech issue. But it’s going to be very dependent on the context, what was said and under what circumstances,” he said. “This really comes down to whether employees themselves can continue doing their job, because parents and community are so incensed or incited that they’ve lost confidence in them due to a rash or inappropriate comment.”

He noted that many educators have already been harassed, even when their pages were private.

“We’ve had teachers that didn’t list their employer and had their pages locked down to private for just friends and family, and still anonymous complaints were turned in to their districts,” he said. “Some of our higher ed members have gotten death threats, and far more vile comments than anything they originally posted.”

Morath emphasized the state’s view in his letter to school districts:

“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,” he wrote.

The next question is what those limits mean in practice — and how far districts or the state can go in enforcing them.

Can teachers really lose their jobs or licenses for a social media post?

The short answer is yes, but the process isn’t the same. Most job losses start at the district level, where teachers can face discipline that ranges from reprimands to outright termination.

Capo said losing a teaching license is more complicated. Those cases are referred to TEA’s Educator Investigations Division and then to the State Board for Educator Certification. But he added that the commissioner’s unusual letter raises the stakes.

“You’re definitely going to see a lot of these things challenged,” he said. “But you’re also going to see some people that just choose to quit altogether without challenging it, because they’re either sick of education or they’re getting the hell out of the state of Texas.”

He added that’s a dangerous outcome for an already short-staffed system.

“We’re already in a place where we’re having to staff classrooms with anybody who’s willing to go in, because we can’t keep and maintain certified teachers, regardless of political bent,” Capo said. “Instead of threatening people with their jobs, maybe the commissioner should have told districts to talk with their employees, explain the complaints, and tone this down. But none of that was done. Instead, he poured fuel on the fire.”

That uncertainty has left many teachers asking how to protect themselves.

How is Texas AFT advising teachers right now?

Capo said the union is telling educators to be cautious and intentional about what they post online.

“Think before you hit send,” he said. “Consider not having your employer information on there, and if your account is intended to be private, lock it down so outside entities don’t try to use it to either further their political career or further their cause.”

Texas AFT is also preparing to back members legally.

“We certainly will be defending our members and providing them legal counsel if they are terminated or receive disciplinary action related to their personal Facebook pages,” Capo said. “There are limits to free speech, but these cases are going to test what those limits are.”

He also urged teachers to consider timing and tone.

“It doesn’t mean you’re shying away from your rights if you wait until some of this national fervor is over before having that discussion,” he said. “Cooler heads often prevail in situations like this and grace, even if it hasn’t been shown to you, is sometimes the higher road.”

Is this situation unprecedented?

According to Capo, yes — this is the first time he’s seen a commissioner intervene so publicly.

“I’ve never seen it in 30 years of education. The normal process is for districts to receive complaints, investigate, and refer cases to TEA if needed. This is completely unprecedented,” he said.

The Texas AFT’s official statement warns that “these investigations into teachers exercising their First Amendment rights outside their official duties silence dissent and encourage the purging of civil servants.”

What should teachers do if worried?

Capo and other advocates suggest teachers take practical steps now:

—Save copies of any flagged posts instead of deleting them.

—Remove or hide employer information from social profiles.

—Use strict privacy settings and be mindful of followers.

—Avoid engaging with harassment or escalating online debates.

—Contact a union representative or attorney immediately if a complaint is filed.

Capo said the most important step is staying informed and prepared.

_____

©2025 Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Visit star-telegram.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.