Todd Rokita: Educators should be accountable for disruptive speech

Featured Issue:

“Should teachers and other public employees who express personal and political opinions outside of their professional duties be held in account for them at work?”

The tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk has sparked intense public reaction, with some Indiana educators posting shockingly callous comments on social media, celebrating or excusing this act of political violence. Parents and Hoosiers are rightfully outraged, demanding accountability for teachers and public employees who express such divisive views outside their professional roles.

Can schools discipline educators for personal speech? The law is clear: Schools can discipline teachers when their speech disrupts school operations. As Indiana’s attorney general, I believe they should, in order to protect the integrity of our public education system.

Educators hold positions of immense trust, serving as role models who shape students’ views and represent the most significant government presence in many families’ lives. When their speech—even on personal time—undermines public confidence or disrupts school functions, the government, as an employer, has the right and duty to act.

The First Amendment does not fully protect public employees’ speech. Supreme Court rulings like Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) and Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) affirm that the government can regulate employee speech when it impacts its operations more than it restricts private citizens’ speech.

For example, my office received a report via our Eyes on Education Portal about a U.S. history teacher in north-central Indiana who posted vulgar, inflammatory comments on a personal social media account, calling Kirk’s assassination “fitting” and mocking calls for sympathy. These posts triggered 25 complaints and forced the school to issue a public statement, clearly disrupting operations. This is not an isolated case: Hundreds of Hoosiers have raised similar concerns. Such speech erodes trust in educators, risks workplace discord, disrupts classroom harmony and undermines schools’ ability to provide a safe, supportive environment.

Courts consistently support the government’s authority to discipline employees when their speech impairs operations. The Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Hedgepeth v. Britton (2025) clarified that public employee speech loses First Amendment protection if the government’s interest in maintaining effective operations outweighs the employee’s interest in speaking. Factors like vulgarity, attacks on others and the public reach of social media increase disruption risks. When teachers post inflammatory comments to a wide audience, they invite backlash, as seen in the flood of complaints and public outcry.

Schools should not wait for chaos before they act. Unaddressed divisive speech risks long-term damage to community trust, which is essential to a school’s mission. Educators directly influence students, a captive audience. Their behavior—inside or outside the classroom—reflects on their fitness to teach. This is not about stifling free expression but about ensuring public institutions serve Hoosiers effectively.

Every public servant is accountable for what they say in ways that private citizens are not always. As your elected attorney general, I report to the people of Indiana, and I am held accountable for my words at the ballot box. Likewise, public school employees are accountable to their bosses for their public statements. It’s entirely appropriate—legally and morally—for schools to make sure educators’ speech does not disrupt school operations and thereby preserve the trust Hoosiers place in our education system.

__________

Rokita, a Repubican, is Indiana attorney generaland a former member of the U.S. House. Send comments to [email protected].

Click here for more Forefront columns.