Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita ignited a heated debate this week after issuing a sweeping six-page memo to school superintendents and university leaders across the state, urging them to discipline or even fire educators who posted controversial remarks about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The memo, dated September 22, 2025, comes in the wake of Kirk’s shooting on September 10—a tragedy that has reverberated through political circles and classrooms alike, with repercussions now reaching deep into the heart of Indiana’s education system.
Rokita’s memo, which was sent Monday night, pulls no punches. In his view, schools have been too lenient—or, as he put it, have responded with “excuses and equivocation”—when faced with teachers who celebrated or made divisive comments about Kirk’s death. “Some schools have responded to those calls for action with excuses and equivocation, claiming that the First Amendment prevents them from terminating or disciplining educators for celebrating or expressing controversial views about the killing of Charlie Kirk,” Rokita wrote. “In many if not most cases, those schools are wrong.”
The attorney general’s guidance is rooted in legal precedent, and he makes it clear that he believes schools have broad authority to act against teachers whose speech is seen as divisive or as supportive of political violence. “As a matter of good government and sound public policy, schools would be wise to remove from the classroom teachers who express support for or attempt to excuse political violence,” Rokita argued. He went further, warning that “this moment demands decisive action from public officials to address noxious speech from government employees that undermines public confidence in our schools and corrodes public discourse.”
Rokita’s memo zeroed in on a specific case in South Bend, where U.S. history teacher Brett Maurer became the focus of community outrage after posting several comments on his personal social media account. Among the posts that drew the most ire was one that read, “with all due disrespect Charlie Kirk can suck it. He became exactly what he said was ok and acceptable in order to have gun rights. I call that manifestation. I’m not saying it’s right, but I’m saying it’s only fitting.” According to Rokita, these posts generated 25 complaints and sparked significant disruption in the community.
While the attorney general conceded that Maurer was speaking as a private citizen on matters of public concern—a distinction that often brings First Amendment protections into play—he nonetheless concluded that the school could legally terminate the teacher. Rokita’s rationale? The posts were “crass and vulgar,” which, he argued, weakens the shield of free speech. “There are very clear indications that the teacher’s posts and others like it have sparked severe backlash in Indiana communities that threaten to disrupt school operations …,” Rokita wrote in his analysis. “The backlash has evidently been so severe that the high school in this case felt impelled to release a public statement justifying its decision not to discipline the teacher, which it justified on the incorrect grounds that it could not terminate the teacher because of the First Amendment.”
Rokita’s memo didn’t mention Maurer by name, but he later posted about the teacher on social media on September 18, urging Hoosiers to contact the South Bend school district with their concerns. He also argued that divisive and cruel comments from educators can erode trust between parents and schools, with long-term negative implications. “That loss of trust by the school, if left unaddressed, could have serious negative implications for the school for years to come and is reason enough to take action against the teacher,” Rokita stated.
The South Bend Community Schools administration responded to Rokita’s memo with a measured tone. Superintendent Mansour Eid said that while the district appreciated the attorney general’s legal analysis—which, he noted, was generally consistent with the opinion provided by the district’s own attorney—local boards must carefully weigh actual disruption before taking disciplinary action. “Our locally elected school board and its appointed superintendent are in the best position to assess the disruption factor consistent with the law. They live in the community, they know the people in the community, they observe action in the community, and they have to respond to their constituents in the community,” Eid told the Indiana Capital Chronicle.
At the heart of this controversy lies the perennial tension between free speech protections for public employees and the imperative for schools to maintain order and public trust. Since Kirk’s assassination, Republican leaders in Indiana and across the country have called for swift punishment of educators who, in their view, “celebrated” the killing. Indiana Governor Mike Braun has gone so far as to threaten the teaching licenses of those who make statements that could be construed as supporting political violence. “Calls for political violence are not freedom of speech and should not be tolerated,” Braun said, echoing a sentiment that has gained traction among conservative lawmakers.
But the push for punitive action has met with fierce resistance from civil liberties advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana has stepped in to defend a fired Ball State University employee who faced backlash for her own social media commentary about Kirk’s death. The ACLU has filed for an injunction on her behalf, arguing that government employees retain their First Amendment rights—even when their opinions are unpopular or controversial. “Government employees don’t give up their First Amendment rights just to become employees of the government,” said Stevie Pactor, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU. “They, still, are entitled to their own personal opinions that they are free to express online or in other forums, so long as those are being made in their personal capacity.”
The legal landscape on this issue is anything but settled. Supreme Court precedent generally protects public employees when they speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, but those protections are not absolute. If a teacher’s speech is deemed to disrupt school operations or erode public trust, courts may allow disciplinary action. Rokita’s memo leans heavily on this balancing act, arguing that the disruption caused by Maurer’s posts—and others like them—tips the scales in favor of termination. “The speech by Maurer plainly caused disruption to school operations and is likely to cause further disruption in the days and weeks ahead. The school would thus be well within its authority to terminate the teacher, as would many schools if they chose to terminate teachers who have similarly contributed to the divisive and, for many, painful eruption of controversial discourse on social media and elsewhere concerning Charlie Kirk,” the memo concluded.
As the debate rages, Indiana’s educators, administrators, and policymakers are left to navigate a treacherous path between safeguarding free expression and upholding the integrity of their schools. The coming weeks will likely bring further legal challenges—and perhaps, more memos from the attorney general’s office—as the state grapples with where to draw the line between personal speech and professional responsibility. For now, the controversy surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination and its aftermath continues to test the boundaries of the First Amendment in America’s classrooms.
One thing is certain: the conversation about free speech, political violence, and the role of educators in public discourse is far from over in Indiana.
