Something unprecedented is happening in Texas: last Fall, state officials launched investigations into more than 350 educators based on their personal social media posts after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Teachers were fired, doxed, and threatened with placement on “Do Not Hire” lists — not for what they said in classrooms among students, but for personal posts shared with friends and family on their own time.
This is more than a political issue; it’s a constitutional one, raising questions about the protections afforded to the free speech of private citizens. What the state of Texas is attempting to do here affects every American and every Texan, regardless of political viewpoint.
That’s why Texas AFT filed a federal lawsuit in January against the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Commissioner Mike Morath, challenging this unconstitutional assault on educators’ First Amendment rights. Our suit argues that TEA’s directive to school districts “unleashed a wave of retaliation and disciplinary actions against teachers” for constitutionally protected speech.
A principle that crosses party lines
Even Sen. Ted Cruz, while expressing strong disagreement with many of the posts related to the incident, has emphasized the constitutional freedoms at stake. At an event in September, Cruz noted that the First Amendment protects a wide range of speech, including speech that many may find offensive or objectionable, and that government action should be carefully limited when it comes to lawful expression.
This is a foundational principle in a free society: the appropriate response to speech we disagree with is open dialogue and the exchange of ideas, not government sanctions. These protections are not limited to any one political party. They exist to safeguard the rights of everyone.
Rules for Thee, But Not for Me
If only more of our state legislators agreed on that foundational freedom. Among the loudest voices calling for educators to be “purged” from classrooms has been Texas State Rep. Briscoe Cain, who publicly shared teachers’ names, photos, and posts on social media; in one such post about a Goose Creek ISD educator the state lawmaker declared “FIRE HER NOW!!”
“Part of my mission is to expose these woke indoctrinators and purge them from our classrooms,” Cain told KXAN, making clear his campaign extended beyond any academic disagreements to targeting teachers’ personal belief systems.
That stated agenda from an elected official is disturbing on its own, but it becomes more galling when you look at Cain’s own social media accounts. Cain’s social media history doesn’t just cross the line of inflammatory speech; it features unambiguous threats. In 2019, after Beto O’Rourke proposed a mandatory buyback of assault weapons, Cain tweeted: “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis.”
Twitter (now X) removed the post for violating rules against threats of violence. O’Rourke’s campaign reported it to the FBI, as federal law prohibits threatening major presidential candidates. Cain’s public threat came just weeks after a gunman used an AK-47 to kill 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, O’Rourke’s hometown.
Cain, the author of a 2021 law barring social media censorship over political beliefs, is now running for U.S. Congress, while the educators he targeted are fighting for their livelihoods, their reputations, and their teaching certifications.
These educators made no threats like Cain’s, though they have since received plenty. But unlike with Cain, no one reported them to the FBI. No platform removed their posts for threatening anyone’s safety. These educators expressed opinions about a public figure on their personal pages, on their own time. Yet it is they, not Rep. Cain, who face “Do Not Hire” lists, stripped certifications, and bare-faced threats against their lives (one NSFW example is here).
A power no government should have
If our state government is allowed to get away with its persecution of educators in this case, it is a concern for anyone who values limited government and individual liberty. Nor is this fight contained to the courtroom.
Even as our lawsuit works its way through the court system, we remain vigilant to how the state is attempting to wield TEA as a weapon against educators with differing viewpoints. Two weeks ago, TEA announced a new position: Inspector General for Educator Misconduct. The role carries authority over the educator misconduct policies that have been misapplied to harass these several hundred educators.
In a statement, Texas AFT President Zeph Capo expressed plainly the concerns of our members that this new office “will be weaponized against educators over political differences or frivolous allegations of misconduct.”
Adding to this anxiety is the fluctuating nature of the standards this inspector general is assigned to enforce. As we mentioned in our coverage of the State Board for Educator Certification’s December meeting, TEA staff have suggested new standards of conduct with new language related to free speech.
While the agency was required by recent legislation to update the Code of Conduct for educators to address inappropriate student communications and appropriate boundaries, the proposed and highly subjective language on educators who “promote, celebrate, or encourage illegal conduct” was not required.
Since that meeting and the subsequent alarm from educators and our union, TEA staff have proposed a narrower change to the Code of Conduct:
Standard 1.18. The educator shall not promote, advocate, or encourage, in a manner that is reasonably accessible or visible to students, illegal conduct:
(i) described by TEC, §22A.201(a); or
(ii) directly related to student behavior or school property.
While this language reins in some of the potential for using politically motivated attacks to justify endangering an educator’s certification, questions remain about the definitions of “promote,” “advocate,” and “encourage.”
Does a personal Facebook post noting a political figure’s inflammatory rhetoric ’in the aftermath of his death rise to the definition of advocacy or encouragement? Are we comfortable with stating facts dispassionately being cause for lawmakers to expose a private citizen to death threats and job loss?
These are just some of the questions before us.
A question for the courts & for Texas
Texas AFT’s lawsuit seeks to establish clear, consistent standards. Educators, like all Americans, should be evaluated based on their work with students and their professional responsibilities, not on constitutionally protected personal comments made outside of school hours.
Texas AFT has requested a preliminary injunction to halt the investigations while the case proceeds. Attorney Chris Tritico, representing several affected educators, put it simply: “[These educators] spoke their minds on their private page about a public event that they have every legal right to do.”
The broader question remains: In a free, democratic society, who decides what speech is acceptable? Is it the marketplace of ideas enshrined in our Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, or is it government officials whose grudges have the power to destroy the livelihoods of those they disagree with?