Fair?
Kristen Eve is a Pre-K teacher. Among her deficits is that she doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights. Or irony: I have no doubt that Kirk had sufficient integrity to understand that even an abuse of the right to bear arms resulting in his own death isn’t sufficient justification for removing that right from law-abiding citizens.
How many teachers like her do you think are out there indoctrinating kids? My guess: a lot.
Ethics Alarms 
Your previous post contained Charlie’s X post about knowing a lot about a person by how they react when someone dies. I think this says all we need to know about Kristen.
I don’t think her teaching career is going to be long for this world. Maybe she won’t be either.
One of the top five comments that makes me grimace is when a progressive says “I’m tired of taking the high road”
Please you miscreant… yall haven’t “taken the high road” since the 1990s.
Indeed. When Mrs. Obama said, “When they go low, we go high”, I don’t know who she meant by “we”.
Maybe the turd in her pocket…
Kristen Eve should be fired.
They celebrated people’s livelihoods being ruined for questioning a rushed vaccine.
I won’t be made to feel bad when theirs are ruined for celebrating the assassination of a dude who had conversations.
A teacher employed by the DODEA, teaching on Fort Bragg. I bet some parents are going to express displeasure over this.
There’s an impressive number of educators and professionals getting doxed on X today, because they possessed the bad judgment of celebrating Kirk’s death on their social feeds.
I wonder why so many educators and professionals are more radicalized than the Westboro Baptist Church.
“I wonder why so many educators and professionals are more radicalized than the Westboro Baptist Church.”
Fun Fact: Late WBC Pastor Fred Phelps was a PROUD dEMOCRAT
Lefty -n- Hate go together like Hope -n- Crosby!
PWS
She’s just a standard issue young lefty woman. They are innumerlmable.
We have lost the art of debate in this country. Charlie Kirk was trying to reignite that necessary academic tool. By inviting those who vehemently disagreed with him to step forward, take the mike, and publicly state their opinions, he was trying to encourage them to dig deeper, to find and express the logic within, rather than just blindly parroting something they had heard or read.
His goal was not to have them come to his side though. By asking pointed questions in the Socratic style, he was hoping they would dig deeper, basing their views on a foundation of reason. He was clear about his path to his own conclusions – how he got there and why he thought they were sound. And, he encouraged disagreement.
Today’s educators are often failing the students before them, not having a clue how to build independent thinkers. Society is desperate for people of all ages and backgrounds who are proficient in making their cases built on logic and who don’t shy away from having their ideas challenged. In other words, people engaging in serious debate, while allowing that their assumptions might be wrong..
My 15-year-old son came home angry today saying that his history teacher told the class, “I won’t miss Kirk. He was racist and sexist and anti-trans. I feel sorry for his wife and kids but I don’t feel sorry for him.” Not bad enough to merit firing, I think, but bad. Turns out that my son, unbeknownst to me, had been watching Charlie’s videos on the internet, liked him and mostly agreed with him. Odd, because I didn’t know he had any political opinions at all, or I assumed that if he did, he agreed with his mother, who’s in the “Trump-is-Satan” school of thought.
But maybe not so surprising — Kirk’s success at persuading teenage boys and young men is probably what got him killed.
ACS’s cogent response just above yours in the thread would lead me to believe that your son’s teacher should be fired, because while he’s succeeding as pushing a (completely false) narrative, he’s failing at his fundamental job.
Teachers like this carry a great responsibility in the radicalization of their students, that led to the political assassination of Charlie Kirk and others.
A couple of comments, which I am going to split do to the number of links.
The number of teachers that celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death on the social media are too numerous to count. Apparently they spent more time brainwashing the children than actually teaching them, given a recent report of a 35% reading proficiency and 22% math proficiency of grade 12 students at K-12 schools.
https://twitchy.com/brettt/2025/09/11/whats-going-on-with-teachers-celebrating-charlie-kirks-death-n2418835
Conservative influencers are reporting these teachers to their school boards, and they are getting fired. Same happens to people who gleefully commented on the assassination who work in various other government agencies and the Armed Forces.
This is cancel culture of the Right, and I wonder what the verdict is of Ethics Alarms on this practice. This is an example of forcing the left to live by the rules they have created. An example is shown below.
CVB
I am uneasy about seeking to get teachers fired for their opinions. I do believe that such teachers should be required to debate their points of view in a public setting. I would have no issue with parents groups demanding that their children be removed from his of her classes in a very public way.
The problem with firing teachers is that they are likely to be public sector employees who will challenge the firing in court and if they win on free speech grounds then the kids they teach will see they are right and the evil government was wrong.
I believe that we should call out these teachers and ask them if if you vehemently disagree with someone it is ok to kill them. Ask them if they teach that idea to the children in their classes directly or indirectly. If they say it is ok when someone is a racist or spreads hate speech or is a threat to democracy make them give evidence to support their position that a simple accusation is sufficient to do away with due process for capital crimes.
If someone says so and so is a racist or any of the other ists or phobes demand that they support such a position with evidence about that person. We must point out to them that disagreement does not mean one hates the other side. Ask them if it is acceptable to commit murder against people they revere for the words they say. Ask them point blank, given the pervasive ideals and culture of America was it acceptable to assassinate Martin Luther King because he espoused ideas that were antithetical a large swath of American society. Don’t let them say that was different because there is no difference both had ideas and were killed because they were effectively communicating those ideas and changing minds.
Employers can fire employees for how they express themselves publicly, if this expression reflects poorly on the organization, creating a PR problem. I doubt that First Amendment protections apply here; as 1A does not apply that you may never incur adverse consequences for bad speech.
E.g. pornography is protected by the First Amendment. However when nude pictures of a teacher become public, any school (private and public) may and probably will fire the teacher, as this raises concerns from the parents and the pictures affect the learning environment negatively. This is the celebrated “Naked Teacher Principle”, explained extensively at Ethics Alarms.
If a teacher glorifies violence and publicly gloats over the assassination of a US citizen it creates similar issues. Parents do not want teachers to brainwash their children in radical ideologies that glorify political violence, and having these radicals in front of the classroom creates a negative learning environment for those students that disagree.
I fully understand your perspective but I don’t agree that speech isn’t protected and if it is would a firing backfire. My proposal was that they should be put on the spot in front of parents to justify their speech. The problem that presents itself about opinions that reflect poorly on the school is a two edge sword . Do we want conservative voices silenced in liberal enclaves because they espouse prayer in schools or argue that males should not be in the female locker rooms because they think they are girls.? How many teachers in Northern Virginia were silenced for agreeing with parents when the government labeled the parents domestic terrorists and the Board of Ed is intransigent on the issue going so far as suspending boys for complaining about a girl claiming to be a boy recording them in the boys locker room. No charges for the trans kid for recording.
Private sector employers can do as they please but I if that is the strategically wise thing to do. Ensuring that they get the crap jobs and no promotions or raises will force them out. Economic shunning should be sufficient.
Anyway, thanks for your insight
I do not think you are correct.
This is what Google AI has to say:
“Speech violating school policy includes expression that causes a substantial disruption, promotes illegal activities, creates a hostile environment, or is lewd/offensive. Students have First Amendment rights, but these are limited when their speech disrupts the educational environment or violates school rules. Similarly, teachers’ speech rights are restricted by professional conduct standards and school policies, particularly if their expression is disruptive or violates professional standards. “
A similar thing applies to students. Recently in May the Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear a Massachusetts student’s challenge to his middle school’s prohibition on his wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan “There are only two genders.”
So the conclusion is that there are limits to speech for students and teachers that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment.