From an opinion last week by Florida Administrative Law Judge Garnett W. Chisenhall in Mack v. McMath:
After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a well-known political activist, on September 10, 2025, Ms. McMath wrote the following message on her Facebook account, "Karma's a bitch—and she heard all your speeches when you proudly proclaimed that you didn't give a shit about other people's lives." She also shared an image of the author, E. Jean Carroll, holding the severed head of Donald Trump, the President of the United States.
With regard to her posting about karma, Ms. McMath asserts she was not celebrating Mr. Kirk's assassination: "There was nothing to celebrate that day. I felt, and the language in my post reflects that it was a dark moment. It was a hard moment. And it was a moment also filled with a lot of complexity. And so I was not celebrating, and the language in that post and the intention behind that post was not celebratory."
As for the image of Ms. Carroll holding President Trump's severed head. Ms. McMath asserts the image has symbolic significance:
So it's an image by a political cartoonist that I follow and appreciate. It's an image of Jean Carroll holding the severed head of Donald Trump. He put it out—he made that drawing, the artist, on the day that Jean Carroll received justice within the judicial system for her lawsuit against the President on allegations of rape and sexual assault.
It also was an image that I found compelling because it's a symbolic image. It's not an image where the artist or me are saying that somebody needs to go out and cut somebody's head off. It's an image that actually falls in a long history of images of survivorship that go back to the Middle Ages from Judith and Holofernes. I mean, I could list off all kinds of examples, but we're not here for an art history lesson. And so it's a symbolic image that is about women who have been abused overcoming their abuser.
There is no evidence that Ms. McMath's posts were made during any school-related function or through the use of school-owned property. There is no indication within the posts that Ms. McMath was speaking on behalf of Douglas Anderson or the School District. There is no evidence that the posts were associated with her duties as an educator employed by the School District….
Mr. Kosac [Chief of the Florida Department of Education's Office of Professional Practices] spoke to about ten of Ms. McMath's students, and none of them stated that they had seen any of her social media posts. Mr. Kosac found: (a) no evidence that the social media postings at issue disrupted operations at Douglas Anderson or anywhere else within the School District; (b) no students claiming that their education had been disrupted by Ms. McMath's postings; (c) no evidence of any protests against Ms. McMath; and (d) no evidence that the social media postings at issue were made via school property or during school hours….
The administrative law judge recommended that the charges against McMath be dismissed; an excerpt of the analysis:
The analysis of Count I turns on whether Ms. McMath's social media postings rise to the level of "gross immorality" within the meaning of Rule 6A-10.083(1), and any reasonable analysis shows a lack of clear and convincing evidence to support Count I. For instance, with regard to subsection (1) of the Rule, there is no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding Ms. McMath's conduct brought her or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect. As noted above, Mr. Bennett [a School District Office of Professional Standards investigator] and Mr. Kosac fielded no complaints from School District students or employees. There is also no competent, substantial evidence that the social media postings at issue impaired Ms. McMath's service in the community….
As for subsection (4), the Commission argues that the factors of violence, deliberation, and the vulnerability of the affected audience, i.e., students, are present…. [But] Subsection (4) identifies an "educator's use, attempted use or threatened use of violence" as being indicative of gross immorality. The social media postings did not reflect any use, attempted use, or threatened use of violence by Ms. McMath. Also, the Commissioner has not argued that Ms. McMath's post was a legitimate threat to sever President Trump's head. Subsection (4) identifies "[t]he educator's deliberation, premeditation, or contemplation of an act" as being indicative of gross immorality. The social media postings did not reflect any deliberation, premeditation, or contemplation of any act by Ms. McMath. Finally, Ms. McMath persuasively testified that students were not her intended audience….
In Count II, the Commissioner alleges that Ms. McMath violated section 1012.795(1)(g) which provides that the Commission may revoke a person's educator certificate if that person "has been found guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the district school board." … [But t]here is no evidence that the social media postings at issue seriously reduced Ms. McMath's effectiveness as a School District employee. While the School District reassigned her to a position that included no teaching duties, the Record lacks any persuasive explanation for why the School District took that action. In fact, Principal Feagins would like to have Ms. McMath "back."
There is also no persuasive evidence to support the Commission's assertion that Ms. McMath cannot teach students. On the contrary, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that she is still capable of being an effective classroom teacher. As noted above, Mr. Bennett's investigation found no teacher, administrator, or student within the School District who complained about Ms. McMath. Also, Mr. Kosac found no students claiming that Ms. McMath's social media postings disrupted their education….
In Count IV, the Commissioner alleges that Ms. McMath violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1, which requires Florida-licensed educators to "make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety." In support of this allegation, the Commission argued the following:
… The rule measures the educator's effort. It does not require proof of injury or proof that a particular student was in fact harmed; it requires proof that the educator failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from such conditions.
[Ms. McMath] taught eleventh-and twelfth-grade students. On an account that identified her as a Duval County teacher and that was open to the entire world, she published, on the day of a public assassination, a statement invoking "karma" against the victim and reciting that "she heard all your speeches." On the same account she circulated an image depicting the screaming severed head of the sitting President of the United States. Content that trivializes a homicide and that generally depicts the decapitation of a national figure is a condition harmful to learning and to the mental health of the adolescent students who encounter it.
[Ms. McMath] made no effort to protect her students from exposure to that content. She did not restrict the accounts, she did not remove the posts, she did not disclaim them, and she did not remove the identification of her employer from her profile. Her accounts remain public, and the " "Karma's a bitch" post remains published and accessible by students.
No individual student was identified as having viewed the posts. That does not defeat the charge. The obligation the rule imposes is one of reasonable effort in the fact of a harmful condition, and an educator who broadcasts such content to a world-wide audience and who takes no protective measure whatsoever, before or after, fails to make that effort….
The Commission failed to carry its burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence in support of Count IV. The record evidence establishes that Ms. McMath did not attempt to impose her political views on her students…. [S]he does not allow students to follow her on social media, and she does not have private conversations with students outside the classroom. While the Commissioner asserts that Ms. McMath's social media postings were "harmful to learning and to the mental health of the adolescent students who encounter[ed them]," the Commissioner offered no persuasive evidence, such as expert testimony from a child psychologist, to support that assertion.
In addition, the Commissioner did not offer testimony from any students claiming their learning and/or mental health were negatively impacted by the social media postings at issue. Therefore, even if students had seen Ms. McMath's social media postings, the Commission has failed to demonstrate that those students' learning and/or mental health would have been negatively impacted.
In Count V, the Commissioner alleges that Ms. McMath violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(b)1, which requires Florida-licensed educators to "take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of any educational institution or organization with which the individual is affiliated." … Even though Ms. McMath's social media accounts identify her as a Duval County school teacher, the Commission did not present any evidence indicating that a reasonable person might conclude that Douglas Anderson and/or the School District shared the sentiments expressed in Ms. McMath's social media postings. Also, the social media postings at issue appeared on Ms. McMath's personal social media accounts rather than any social media accounts maintained by Douglas Anderson or the School District….
John M. Phillips (Phillips, Hunt, & Walker) represents McMath.
The post ALJ Recommends Dismissing Administrative Charges Against Florida Teacher for Kirk-Related and Trump-Related Posts appeared first on Reason Magazine.
