Free speech and consequences: CU Boulder lecturer and Vail teacher face scrutiny over Kirk assassination remarks

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Editor’s note: This story was updated on Sept. 23 to include a statement from CU Boulder spokesperson Nicole Mueksch.

Freedom of speech is one of America’s most cherished rights. But too often it is misunderstood as a free pass to say anything without consequence. The killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier this month has made that painfully clear. Across the country, people who publicly cheered Kirk’s death — whether at work, online, or in classrooms — soon found out that words can carry real consequences. Some were fired. Others were suspended. Many faced a wave of anger from the public.

In Colorado, questions about free speech and accountability are now playing out in two very different settings. One involves a lecturer at CU Boulder. The other centers on a teacher at Vail Ski and Snowboard Academy.

What the First Amendment Really Does

The First Amendment leads numerous people to believe they have complete freedom to express themselves without facing any repercussions. The reality is more limited. The amendment protects most forms of speech including political speech from government punishment but it does not shield people from the actionable reaction of the workplace, educational institutions or the community.

The protection extends its maximum power to political speech even when the language becomes harsh and disapproved of by many people. 

There are also clear boundaries the courts have drawn. In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio established that speech inciting immediate violence is not protected. In 2003, Virginia v. Black made clear that true threats can be restricted. And in 1964, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan set the standard that false and damaging statements made with reckless disregard for the truth can be treated as defamation.

And just as important, the First Amendment only applies to government action. Private employers together with universities and professional organizations operate under their own distinct regulations. 

People who make offensive statements are protected from imprisonment by law yet they remain vulnerable to job termination, workplace penalties and social condemnation for violating professional conduct standards. Free speech protects people from state censorship, but it does not protect them from actual life consequences.

National Fallout After Charlie Kirk’s Death

The days following Kirk’s killing offered a stark reminder. In Arkansas, Reuters reported that the University of Arkansas at Little Rock placed law professor Felicia Branch on paid leave after she posted on social media mocking those who mourned Kirk.

In New York, Reuters reported that Nasdaq fired a junior sustainability strategist after the employee posted that Kirk’s death was “nothing to cry about.”

In Texas, MySanAntonio reported that Canyon Lake Fire/EMS employee Danielle Marie Meyers lost her job after writing on Facebook, “Good riddance… Thoughts and prayers to the other guy,” referring to Kirk and the man wounded in the attack.

Even television figures were not immune. AP News reported that MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd was dropped after live commentary in which he said Kirk’s rhetoric had long been harmful and suggested his death was a moment to reflect on “what happens when hate is normalized.”

Each of these incidents drew immediate claims that free speech was under attack. But in reality, none of the individuals faced government punishment. They faced consequences imposed by employers and institutions exercising their own standards of professionalism and public trust.

Colorado’s Own Examples

Colorado is now wrestling with its own versions of the debate. At the University of Colorado Boulder, lecturer Scott Ritner, who teaches in political science and the Program for Writing and Rhetoric, is under review for a message he posted on his class’s Canvas page.

According to a screenshot shared outside the class by a student, Ritner described Kirk as “a provocateur who promoted violence for a living” and tied the assassination to readings on fascism and antifascism, calling it an example of “what happens when a political movement normalizes hate.” The phrasing, which was intended as a classroom tie-in, quickly spread beyond the course and drew sharp criticism.

Regent Ken Montera confirmed to Rocky Mountain Voice that the matter has been reported to CU Boulder’s Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance, where it is currently under review. In a statement to Rocky Mountain Voice, university spokesperson Nicole Mueksch said, “The University of Colorado Boulder is aware of an online post by a faculty member referencing the recent death of Charlie Kirk. CU Boulder regularly reminds faculty of their responsibility to conduct their teaching in an inclusive manner, as outlined on the university’s academic freedom website. The incident is being addressed through the appropriate channels.

“The university is committed to fostering an environment where competing ideas and perspectives can co-exist without fear of threat or reprisal. It is the expectation of our campus that all faculty, students and staff are able to engage in meaningful conversations in a safe and respectful manner both in and outside of the classroom.”

The spotlight is also on Eagle County, where the controversy reached directly into the classroom. According to an email circulated by the Eagle County Republicans and accounts from multiple parents, a Vail Ski and Snowboard Academy teacher, allegedly an art teacher, told students that Kirk’s assassination was positive, adding that “the only thing that would have made it better was if it had been President Trump.” 

One parent, who asked to remain anonymous to protect his children from retaliation, said, “The teacher commented to a high school class that she was glad Charlie Kirk was killed, but it would have been better if it had been President Trump.” 

After the district announced the teacher would remain employed, the parent said, “As parents, we don’t feel particularly satisfied. We feel like this whole issue is being covered up. The school should be teaching our kids how to think, not what to think.”

Eagle County School District communications to parents emphasized that the incident was handled under district policy and that the teacher would remain employed, despite community concern.

The parent said the remark itself was disturbing regardless of the setting. “It’s very frightening as a parent to think that this is the kind of stuff they’re being exposed to in the classroom. Teachers are supposed to help students navigate the world, not inject their own political agenda.” He also dismissed the district’s plan to require further training, adding, “You can’t train poor judgment out of somebody. The consequence for that kind of remark should be termination.”

The district’s own collective bargaining agreement spells out how teachers are supposed to handle controversial topics. They are expected to keep discussions balanced, draw from recognized scholarship, and create space where students feel free to exchange ideas. Parents who have spoken out say the teacher’s remark failed that test and crossed the line from education into bias.

The fallout has spilled beyond the classroom. The Eagle County Republicans are now urging parents to show up at the Sept. 24 school board meeting and demand stronger accountability.

The Larger Picture

The First Amendment functions as the core principle against government censorship. It does not extend to standards set by workplaces or communities. Words spoken in classrooms, on social media, or in public broadcasts can create significant effects—and carry consequences. And institutions often respond through their own policies and codes of conduct. 

Whether communities, employers, and institutions have not just the authority but also the duty to act when speech crosses a line is now part of a larger national debate.

How CU Boulder and Eagle County Schools respond in the coming weeks will add to the larger debate already playing out across the country—the boundary between free expression and professional responsibility.