Last week, Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Morath issued a letter to all superintendents encouraging districts to report teachers to TEA who posted, “reprehensible and inappropriate content on social media related to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
In that letter the Commissioner states, “I am referring all documentation of educators that have proliferated such vile content to TEA’s Educator Investigations Division. Such posts could constitute a violation of the Educators’ Code of Ethics, and each instance will be thoroughly reviewed to determine whether sanctionable conduct has occurred and staff will investigate accordingly.”
While acknowledging teachers have the right of free speech, Morath asserted that, “[free speech] does not give carte blanche authority to celebrate or sow violence against those that share differing beliefs and perspectives.
This is not a completely accurate statement of First Amendment law. In fact school districts or local governments can be subjected to First Amendment retaliation lawsuits for taking action against teachers because of statements that are protected free speech.
Educator’s Code of Ethics
The Educator’s Code of Ethics is a set of regulations enacted in the Texas Administrative Code. They can be found here.
The Code of Ethics does not contain any specific rule or prohibition relevant to making “reprehensible” or “inappropriate” statements or statements “celebrating” or “sowing” violence.
The Code of Ethics do not specifically mention statements made by teachers in the classroom or comments or posts on social media. The only section of the Code of Ethics that deals with communications or speech is Standard 3.9. It addresses communication with a student. It provides:
“Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to:
(i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication;
(ii) the subject matter of the communication;
(iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication;
(iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship;
(v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and
(vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.”
Beyond that, violation of either state law or district policy could be grounds for disciplinary action under the Code of Ethics.
Commissioner Morath did not state exactly what violation of the Educators Code of Ethics has been committed by any of the teachers supposedly reported to it, or under what standard or law it would use to justify disciplinary action against those teachers.
Teachers are contractual employees and have specific statutory rights. There is a specific process administrators must go through before taking such action against a teacher. Teachers accused of inappropriate comments or posts should consult with a lawyer who specializes in school law, or who represents teachers in employment disputes on a regular basis.
The Concho Observer has requested information from the TEA and all public school districts in Tom Green County to determine if any such disciplinary actions have begun against any Tom Green County teachers. So far only Christoval ISD has responded stating that no such reports or complaints have been received against any of their teachers.
This is a developing story and we will publish additional reports as more information is received.
