This op-ed was written by Linn-Benton Community College’s Civil Discourse Program. To learn more about the program, you can visit its website here and its guidebook here.
After influential conservative activist and Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk was murdered on Sept. 10, a wave of reactions followed – many of which sparked controversy online.
One of those instances was in Philomath.
On Sept. 11, then-Philomath School Board Chair Erin Gudge posted on her personal Facebook account that she “will not mourn” Kirk following his death.
Gudge has since deleted the post, but as reported by outlets such as The Philomath News and The Albany Democrat-Herald, its full text read as follows:
“I will not mourn someone who spewed hatred in the face of grieving mothers the day their children were murdered. I will not mourn someone who would have preferred my own child not exist. I will not mourn someone who was teaching young people that empathy is weak and that civil rights should not be afforded to all. I feel deeply sad for his children. I do not mourn him.”
Gudge’s post was reportedly in response to a post from another account which included an image that quoted, “Some men improve the world only by leaving it,” and a caption that read, “I can choose to not celebrate but also not be sad.”
Following news coverage and community complaints, Gudge stepped down as board chair in an Oct. 8 school board hearing. The board then voted to censure – essentially, publicly disapprove – her comments.
Although no longer chair, Gudge remains on the board, continuing the four-year term she began in July.
Was it correct for Gudge to step down and be censured following her post?
YES
By April Jang and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program
While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, elected officials carry a duty to uphold public trust, political neutrality, and the policies of the school district. For these reasons, Philomath’s school board chair, Erin Gudge, needed to be removed from her position in response to her recent statements regarding the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Elected officials, particularly those involved in education, are held to a high standard of professionalism. Publicly expressing a lack of empathy about an individual’s death – regardless of their political stance – is inappropriate.
This is especially concerning as a leader responsible for shaping the youth. Such behavior causes distrust among the students and their families, and they become wary of the board’s ability to lead with compassion and fairness.
Additionally, it leads the public to believe that their policy decisions are ideologically motivated. Despite the board’s censure of Gudge’s Facebook post, this still negatively impacts the image of the school board as a whole and undermines their legitimacy in subsequent actions even when their decisions may be fair and evidence-based.
While board members are entitled to personal opinions, they must always put their responsibility to serve the entire community first. Making polarizing statements publicly – even on a personal Facebook page – raises doubts about one’s ability to represent diverse viewpoints in their official role.
People may struggle to distinguish between an official’s personal opinion and their public stance. This ambiguity confuses the stance of the school board, and creates unnecessary controversy. Even though the post was made on a personal account, the simple fact that Gudge was the board chair made it so that her words hold extra weight in any context.
Statements are easily misunderstood. Thus, it is in the interest of officials to remain entirely neutral on matters as tragic and polarizing as the Kirk assassination. This goes with the common saying “if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say it at all.”
As much as I understand the need for free speech and political freedom, Gudge’s statement was negative and hurtful to those who were mourning Charlie Kirk’s death.
Regardless of how her Facebook post was perceived by the public and the community, the bottom line is that there was a clear violation of the school district policy.
The Philomath board ruled that the post violated the district’s standards of conduct. This decision was based on the two policies of using social media and other electronic communication judiciously and respectfully, and respecting the public when using these platforms. Institutions adopt such structural rules and policies for the benefit of the community, and for the purpose of maintaining a healthy, welcoming learning environment for students.
When these rules are not enforced, it sets a precedent for political activism over public service.
Gudge’s resignation isn’t about suppressing free speech – it’s about the concerns of professionalism, inclusivity of the entire community, and setting the right precedent in order to uphold the credibility of public institutions such as a school district. When personal expressions undermine the public role, stepping down is the most responsible course.
NO
By Norah Steed and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program
When Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September, I was personally shocked and appalled, both by the initial act of violence and the flood of discourse that would quickly follow.
Charlie Kirk was a complicated figure. He was not received simply in life. There is no simple way to feel about his death. Any attempt to present a simple interpretation ignores what he represented to a large group of people, either those who agreed or disagreed with him and his messaging.
In all honesty, I’m still figuring out how to feel about Kirk and his murder.
Although I’ve gone back and forth on a lot of other things, I’m sure that Kirk’s death was a loss for freedom of speech. The thought that people should fear losing their lives or livelihoods to voice their opinions is awful.
That is why I must defend Philomath School Board Chair Erin Gudge, who posted on Facebook that she would “not mourn” Kirk. Since making that post (which has since been deleted), Gudge has faced calls for her resignation, a hearing, and, ultimately, censure by the school board.
On Oct. 7, Gudge elected to leave her position, saying, “Because there isn’t a policy in place that allows my fellow board members to remove me as chair of the board, in a good faith effort to restore public trust, I will be voluntarily stepping down as chair of this board effective immediately.”
I respect Gudge for making this decision, but I believe she should not have been pushed to it the way she was.
Just as Charlie Kirk had the right to use his platform to spread his beliefs, Erin Gudge (and everyone else sharing similar thoughts at this time) has the right to share her honest reactions to current events.
When Erin Gudge became a Philomath school board member, she agreed to maintain the Board Member Standard of Conduct. She and her fellow board members agreed to “(u)se social media, websites, or other electronic communication judiciously, respectfully, and in a manner that does not violate Oregon’s Public Meetings Laws” and to “treat and refer to other Board members, staff, students and the public with respect.”
As I see it, Gudge’s Facebook post was not in violation of those clauses. It was not a public statement. She was not speaking on behalf of the school district or in her capacity as school board chair. She didn’t disclose anything sensitive or restricted. It didn’t harm or disparage any Philomath students or staff. Her post was fully a personal matter, having nothing to do with her position or her ability to fulfill it.
If anything, I believe the other members of the school board are in violation of a third clause, to “(r)espect the right of other Board members to have opinions and ideas which differ.”
Whether or not Gudge’s fellow board members personally agree with Gudge’s post should be irrelevant. Gudge, an elected public official, was exercising her right as an off-hours private citizen to share her honest perspective on Kirk’s death. Her fellow board members have the right to disagree with her, but they shouldn’t be threatening her position over a difference of opinion.
Charlie Kirk had the protections to say things many people found distasteful (and many others found true and important). We must afford the same protections to Gudge and those who agree with her. Erin Gudge should not be losing her position over a Facebook post.
