Not cancel culture: firing teachers who cheer Charlie Kirk’s murder is a workplace consequence, columnist argues

A New York Post op-ed argues that firing teachers who cheer Charlie Kirk’s murder is not cancel culture, but a legitimate consequence tied to an educator’s ability to perform duties.

Daniel Buck, a former public-school teacher and administrator and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, writes that the current debate over censorship often obscures a basic question: when speech disrupts a school’s mission, should employers be allowed to act? He notes that conservatives have criticized “cancel culture,” but he sees classroom posts that celebrate violence or demean others as a disruptor that can undermine learning. He cites examples of school personnel posting celebratory or violent remarks online and asks whether such attitudes compromise a school’s ability to teach topics such as mental health, social-emotional learning, or fair grading.

Buck points to the Pickering test, drawn from Pickering v. Board of Education, which requires balancing a teacher’s rights as a citizen to comment on public concerns with the school’s interest in efficient operation. If speech interferes with a district’s ability to educate, he argues, dismissal can be justified. He emphasizes that while educators have free-speech rights, they do not have an inherent right to the classroom lectern or to uncritically advance their views in front of students.

He acknowledges that there is no universal standard for these cases and that decisions will vary by district, school type, and policy. He notes that private religious schools, large urban districts, and small rural schools may handle similar posts very differently, reflecting local norms and practical concerns.

The author shares his own experience as a former teacher and administrator: he has seen colleagues openly criticize conservatism, and while that is not an offense, he would not welcome a teacher who wrote hateful language toward a substantial portion of the population or who celebrated the death of a public figure. He asserts that educators’ right to speak publicly does not grant them a right to the school’s platform.

The piece concludes that the question is prudential, not legal, and that social consequences—such as stigma and job loss—often accompany objectionable posts. Buck argues for carefully calibrated policies that reflect community standards while preserving the core mission of schools to educate.