Many across Western Virginia and our nation have had nerves raw and on edge, first since the chilling video of a man knifing to death Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska, 23, on a light rail train in Charlotte, NC, and then the outrageous news that the killer had been arrested and released 14 times previously. Then, on the eve of the 24th anniversary of 9/11, an assassin who turned out to be a 22-year-old student killed conservative icon and free-speech advocate Charlie Kirk.
Perhaps most gruesome of all has been a chorus of voices that have publicly seemed to justify, condone, or even celebrate Kirk’s murder, an act that left his wife a widow and two young children fatherless. As some have pointed out, a survey of those postings shows an inordinate number seem to come from people who work in education, medicine, or counseling, fields that should imply caring and nurture, and that have large access to impressionable children. Moreover, a disproportionate number of the posts are coming from women.
The reasons and implications of this are still unclear.
The Old Dominion has not been spared the vile, heinous posts celebrating or even glorifying violence.
Chesterfield County is a wealthy, suburban area on the south and west sides of Richmond, and School Board Chairperson Dot Heffron allegedly made comments on a personal Instagram account after Kirk’s assassination, “Call me old-fashioned, but I remember when we used to be okay with shooting Nazis.”
Heffron’s remarks drew the displeasure of the four other members of the Chesterfield County School Board, who on September 12 released this statement:
“The Chesterfield County School Board has been made aware of a social media post made by one of our colleagues. This post is deeply concerning and does not reflect the values, standards, or expectations of the Chesterfield County School Board.
“As elected officials, we are bound by our governance policies and a responsibility to model respect and professionalism for the students, staff, and families we serve. This post is in direct violation of those standards.
“In light of this violation of trust and governance, we are calling for Dorothy Heffron’s resignation from the Chesterfield County School Board, effective immediately.
“Our focus remains, as always, on ensuring the best possible educational environment for all Chesterfield County students.”
Gov. Glen Younkin (R) added his voice to calls for Heffron’s resignation or removal, expressing his ire on Twitter/X:
“Chesterfield County School Board Chair Dot Heffron must immediately resign after her comments promoting the murder of Charlie Kirk. Nobody who would cheer murder should be allowed within 100 yards of a student. I call on leaders from both parties to not only publicly condemn her despicable comment and rebuke any endorsement she has made, but also join me in demanding her resignation.”
Virginia’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Emily Anne Gullickson took the unusual step of posting a new release on a Saturday, this one at 8:21 a.m. on September 13, cited here in full:
“There are multiple reports of deeply troubling publicly posted comments on social media about the assassination of Charlie Kirk made by Virginia school personnel. Celebrating or condoning political violence is unacceptable and has absolutely no place in Virginia’s public schools.
“Parents entrust our educators with the care and development of their children, and they rightly expect teachers and school leaders to model the values of respect, civility, and responsibility. Anyone who would suggest the heinous murder of the father of two young children is acceptable should be disqualified from teaching or working with children again.
“Local school divisions should promptly investigate these reports in accordance with their policies and local Standards of Professional Conduct and Ethics and refer teachers and administrators who have violated these essential standards of decency to the Virginia Board of Education for licensure revocation. The Department stands ready to support superintendents and will be evaluating options with the Board of Education for state action for those local school divisions that do not hold their personnel responsible.
“Any suggestion that this assassination can be justified violates the most basic principles of human dignity. Together, we all must work to ensure that our schools remain places where every student is safe to learn and that families can trust the system.”
Many justify comments on social media about Kirk’s murder, however vile and offensive, as “free speech” and bristle at the idea of employees getting fired for expressing their views on their personal accounts.
However, Theresa T. Lamie of Powhatan, VA, posted to the Richmond CBS affiliate WTVR’s Facebook page her explanation of First Amendment boundaries, and how employers may be within their rights to terminate employees under certain circumstances:
1. First Amendment Protections and Limits
Cases like Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), Connick v. Myers (1983), and Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) establish that:
• Public employees (like teachers) retain free speech rights.
• But those rights are balanced against the school’s interest in maintaining order, efficiency, and public trust.
• Speech that causes disruption, undermines trust in the school, or signals bias/prejudice can outweigh the teacher’spersonal free speech rights.
⸻
2. “Matters of Public Concern” vs. Personal Conduct
• If a teacher comments on a broad political or social issue in a way that’s reasoned (e.g., criticizing government policy), they may be protected.
• But celebrating violence — especially an assassination — isn’t just commentary. Courts would see it as inflammatory, disruptive, and possibly inciting. That almost always tips the Pickering balance in favor of the school district.
⸻
3. Professional and Ethical Duties
• Teachers are role models, and school districts have wide latitude to ensure they uphold community standards of professionalism.
• Openly celebrating the killing of anyone (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, etc.) would almost certainly be deemed unprofessional conduct, showing poor judgment and creating an unsafe or hostile learning environment.
⸻
4. Likely Outcome
• The school district would argue that such statements severely damage the teacher’s ability to perform their role, erode public trust, and risk disruption in the school.
• Courts have generally upheld terminations in similar situations where educators or public employees celebrated violence or expressed hateful views.
⸻
Bottom line: While the First Amendment protects public employees speaking as private citizens, it does not shield teachers from consequences if their speech celebrates violence. A school could almost certainly justify firing a teacher in this situation.
Reports of employees celebrating violence and then getting fired from their jobs continue to make headlines across the nation.
The September 13 lead story on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reads “Delta suspends employees for social posts related to Charlie Kirk’s killing.” Atlanta is the hub for Delta Airlines. American Airlines, MSNBC, and Office Depot are among the high-profile employers that have terminated employees for their conduct after Kirk’s murder.
Scott Dreyer
