A bill that proposes revoking or denying educator licenses and certificates for people found “publicly celebrating” politically motivated violence — including the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk — moved forward Wednesday despite education advocates saying the measure runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
The bill, House Study Bill 682, directs the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners to disqualify an applicant for a license or certificate, or revoke these credentials if already granted, for people “publicly celebrating any act of politically motivated violence, including the unlawful killing of Charles J. Kirk.”
To “celebrate” was defined as any public expression of approval or joy regarding these acts, including any social media posts, public statements or other messages accessible to students or the public. The bill specifically highlights the phrases “good riddance,” “one less fascist,” and “he deserved it,” but says any “substantially similar” statements would also be grounds to revoke or deny a license.
The board would be required to begin the proceedings for revoking or disqualifying a person’s licensing “upon receipt of credible evidence,” which includes screenshots, videos and sworn complaint. The measure would be effective retroactively, beginning Sept. 10, 2025 — the day Kirk was fatally shot during an event at Utah Valley University.
After Kirk’s death, several Iowa educators — as well as a public defender and a paramedic — were fired or sanctioned allegedly because of online posts they made related to Kirk shortly after his death. Two teachers, Katherine Mejia of Manchester and Jennifer Smith of Johnston, have sued the Iowa BOEE and its executive director, Michael Cavin, over a written solicitation of professional licensing complaints related to Kirk’s death. The lawsuit argues by soliciting these complaints, Cavin and the board violated teachers’ First Amendment right to make comments about matters of public concern.
This argument was echoed by education advocates at the Wednesday subcommittee meeting. Melissa Peterson with the Iowa State Education Association called the bill “a blatant constitutional violation.”
Peterson pointed to the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rankin v. McPherson, which found public employees cannot be fired on the basis of private, political comments. She also said there are several other issues with the bill, saying it proposes a “really, really extreme penalty” for infractions without laying out standards for what speech could lead to a person making a complaint about an educator or applicant under the bill. Additionally, she warned against implementing measures disqualifying people from educator licenses over issues that are not “blatantly illegal.”
“We already have requirements — for example, background checks with the Board of Educational Examiners,” Peterson said. “If you have certain legal infractions in your history, you’re not eligible to be an education professional. But to disqualify (someone) based off of a social media post or something that they have been overheard, we think just as a step too far.”
Margaret Buckton with the Urban Education Network and Rural School Advocates of Iowa, also spoke against the bill, though she said she understands the issue lawmakers are trying to tackle.
“The hardest policies are when you have to balance safety of individuals with other rights like free speech,” Buckton said.
She said she believed the current standard for evaluating speech in these cases — when the act causes “violation or disruption of the educational environment standard” — was the correct approach to the issue of educators’ speech. In these cases, she said, a school principal, superintendent and other administrators speak with a teacher and terminate employment.
Buckton also said she does not believe the retroactive enforcement of violations was the best approach, as “people can learn from their mistakes,” and would likely change their behavior if they are fired from a position for inappropriate speech.
Iowa Reps. Chad Behn and Henry Stone, both Republicans, approved moving the bill forward but did not make comments on the measure at the subcommittee meeting. The legislation was on the agenda to be discussed at the House Education Committee meeting later Wednesday.
Rep. Elinor Levin, D-Iowa City, said she believes most people agree “violent rhetoric is a serious consideration right now” that needs to be taken seriously — but said free speech rights must also be protected.
“I think part of taking it seriously is being cautious and being consistent in how we address violent rhetoric,” Levin said. “… I think that calling out a specific individual in the bill suggests that we do not have that consistent or cautious approach within this piece of legislation.”