Massachusetts Teachers’ Freedom of Speech in Question Following Charlie Kirk Social Media Comments

Boston Free Speech rally counterprotesters on August 19, 2017. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

On September 10, 2025, several Massachusetts teachers posted reactions to the assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk on social media. Following these posts, multiple Massachusetts public school districts placed teachers and staff members on leave or terminated their employment altogether, sparking debate amongst Massachusetts public school employees and parents about the parameters of teachers’ free speech and how school districts ought to balance constitutional rights with community values.

At least four Massachusetts districts—Framingham, Sharon, Wachusett, and Peabody—have opened investigations into public school teachers’ online remarks about the death of Charlie Kirk. School officials at Wachusett Regional High School described a teacher’s social post as “inappropriate” and have prohibited the teacher from accessing school property during the investigation. Peabody Superintendent Josh Vadala issued a statement to NBC Boston on the matter, claiming that the social media posts of two high school teachers violated district policies and procedures. He added, “This matter is currently under investigation. We take this very seriously and will respond appropriately." This case has since escalated into a resignation from one teacher, Vadala told WBZ-TV, while the investigation into the other teachers remains open.

Among the social media posts by one Wachusett teacher and a Framingham teacher, posts included: “Just a reminder, we’re NOT offering sympathy” and a teacher singing “God Bless America” while showing a television report on Kirk’s assassination. School districts have also cited school safety concerns as a reason and justification for placing teachers on leave. 

In addition to responses from Massachusetts school officials, there were those of parents and community members. The Boston Herald reported families expressing anger and calls for accountability, with one Framingham resident describing the social media posts as "clearly demonic.” This same community member at a school committee meeting stated, “I don’t understand how a person with young children can celebrate the death of a father and work with young children,” adding that “they shouldn’t be anywhere near children.” At a Sharon, Massachusetts school committee meeting, Chairman Avi Shemtov warned parents that he would be “muting anyone who veers into speaking about things that are outside of our purview [...] including personnel items, national politics.” When the committee shut down parents’ comments about social media posts relating to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, one responded by stating,  “Deciding not to listen to the public, and not to hear us, on literally the most hot-button issue, the concern that parents have is pretty cowardly.” While some members condemned the teachers’ social media posts, others—including Massachusetts Teachers Association President Max Page and Vice President Deb McCarthy—advocated for educators’ First Amendment rights, asking districts to “defend educators from bullying and harassment and to protect their rights.”

This discourse between educators and community members reflects the ongoing debate over free expression for public employees. Legally, the First Amendment seeks to restrict the ability of government employers to punish public employees for their speech. Working to stay in alignment with this amendment, courts apply the Pickering test—a legal test that balances “the interests of the government as an employer against the free speech interests of their employees,” Like community and school committee members, courts are often divided on public employees’ free speech cases, even with the Pickering test, highlighting the ambiguous boundaries of free expression for public employees. As found in Pickering v. Board of Education, speech complies with the Pickering test when it is made as a private citizen and does not significantly hinder workplace harmony, discipline, or efficiency.

Of course, it’s important to remember that these events in Massachusetts are only a part of a wider nationwide trend: the Florida Department of Education sent a memo on September 11th to school district superintendents, writing that they plan to investigate educators who have commented on Kirk’s death “in a manner it deems inappropriate.” Like the ambiguity of the Pickering test, there’s an inherent ambiguity in what the Florida Department of Education constitutes as inappropriate, the process of the potential investigations, and the validity of the following outcomes. Florida is not alone in this plan, however, with Oklahoma’s state superintendent Ryan Walters promising to “investigate teachers making incendiary comments on social media about Kirk’s death,” further putting into question the bounds of free speech for teachers and educators nationwide.

While in Peabody, Massachusetts, the district has concluded one teacher’s investigation; the reviews in Framingham, Sharon, and Wachusett remain open and ongoing. As of now, none of these cases have prompted legal action or challenges—though whether they will or not is unclear. Regardless, the investigations underway against Massachusetts public school employees reflect the consequences of living in an era of polarized politics and omnipresent social media. These cases only illustrate the tensions surrounding public employees’ free speech. They are part of a broader discussion surrounding how government officials and agencies should approach free speech issues pertaining to their communities and employees.