 Charlie Kirk. PHOTO CREDIT: Greg Skidmore Netta Perkins, assistant basketball coach at the Paso Robles Unified School District in California, allegedly posted the following reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk: “God does not like ugly! Charlie Kirk reap wat u sow!” and “White on white crime let them sit in it!” This post was, to put it mildly, a digital advertisement for ignorance and lack of empathy, not to mention poor grammar. The author might want to meditate on the phrase, “God does not like ugly.” Some 145 Americans – including many teachers in high schools and universities – have been fired for posting statements similar to this one. But Perkins was not, and will not be, one of them. The Paso Robles Unified School District announced: “In some cases, you may see employees of private companies face immediate consequences for things they post online. Public schools, however, are public institutions and must follow constitutional protections such as the First Amendment. “In practice, this means that even if a staff member or coach shares something online that many find upsetting, the District cannot legally take disciplinary action based on personal speech alone, unless it affects their ability to do their job or harms students.” Some argue that a teacher should model character for students, especially in public fora. But once we start to evaluate every teacher’s public posts, millions of posts will suddenly become subject to angry, internal debates within school boards over one subjective judgment after another. In a thoughtful piece, the editorial board of The San Luis Obispo Tribune explored the reasons why Perkins should not be fired for her post: “Would we want it any other way? Would we really want to live in a nation where someone can be fired, or worse, for saying something critical of the party in power?” The Tribune recounted the many examples of people on the right, as well as the left, who want to justify censorship because someone’s over-the-top rhetoric is likely to incite violence – while reserving the right to call their opponents “vermin” and “scum,” and, we would add, “fascists.” The Tribune asked all sides to consider the “irony of silencing critics.” “Charlie Kirk – the man whose legacy is being championed by all comers on the right – would have stood against such encroachment on this fundamental American right, because he was a fierce defender of free speech. "You should be allowed to say outrageous things," he said shortly before his death … “Those agitating for the firing – or just the muzzling – of political opponents like Coach Perkins or any of the 145 or so employees who were actually terminated may want to slow down and ask themselves this simple question. “What would Charlie have done?” Many on both sides should consider that the irony of silencing critics is really just another way of acknowledging that karma boomerangs. It is only a matter of time before the silencers become the silenced. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
January 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed