According to the Rutland Herald, Rutland High School attendance officer Howard Wasserman wrote an apparent inflammatory post on Facebook about the assassination of conservative speaker Charlie Kirk. Superintendent Pam Reed told the paper she had received multiple complaints about the post but could not comment further on personnel matters. His post read:

“Violence of any kind is not okay. But if you feel bad because a racist piece of shit was gunned down, there’s something seriously wrong with you. Meanwhile, there was another school shooting today and nothing will be done because the racist Pedophile Party is running the show.”

That last line raises a blunt question for Rutland residents: by saying the “racist Pedophile Party” is “running the show,” did a district employee effectively label roughly half of Rutland City’s voters and taxpayers—Republicans—as “racist pedophiles”?

A Captive Clientele

Unlike private businesses, public schools don’t operate on a “take your money elsewhere” model. Rutland families are a captive clientele: they fund salaries and pensions through taxes whether they agree with staff views or not. Parents and taxpayers who feel maligned by a public employee’s rhetoric cannot withhold their contributions or choose another district.

So another question arises: Should taxpayers be expected to keep funding an employee who openly disparages a large portion of the very community he serves?

District Policy on Safe Schools

Rutland City’s Policy 7400 on Harassment, Hazing, and Bullying requires the district to maintain a “safe and supportive school environment” and empowers it to impose “serious discipline” up to termination when conduct—on or off campus—substantially interferes with a student’s ability to access education.

Which raises yet another question: If conservative students now feel chilled from speaking up, or fear being mocked if they form a Turning Point USA chapter, does that meet the district’s own threshold of “substantial interference”?

Students vs. Staff: A Mixed Message

Rutland students have a history of pushing back on bullying—whether rallying against cyberbullying apps or running school-wide positivity campaigns. The district itself has partnered with outside groups on anti-bullying programs.

Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA in 2012, the same year he graduated high school at 18. Over the next 13 years, until his assassination, he built it into a movement with chapters on more than 3,500 high school and college campuses. TPUSA says its media team and ambassadors now reach over 65 million followers across platforms, while Kirk himself had 3.8 million YouTube subscribers.

Given that reach, isn’t it fair to assume that some Rutland High students—and even younger teens—were familiar with, or fans of, his work? If so, what message do they take when an adult in their own school publicly dismissed Kirk’s life and labeled his supporters’ families “racist pedophiles”?

Doesn’t it undercut the very anti-bullying lessons schools are trying to instill?

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

First Amendment vs. School Function

As a public employee, Wasserman has First Amendment rights. But those rights aren’t unlimited: courts allow districts to weigh an employee’s speech against the need to maintain an effective, trusted school environment. If community trust and parent cooperation are undermined, or if students’ willingness to participate is chilled, the district has leeway to act—even for off-duty speech.

So the question becomes: Has this speech crossed that line from private opinion into public disruption?

Online Reactions Include a City Official

The controversy hasn’t been limited to school employees. One Facebook comment—celebrating that Kirk would “never spew his garbage views ever again”—was “liked” by Rutland City Board of Aldermen member Kiana McClure. For taxpayers funding both schools and municipal government, that raises yet another question: How are conservative residents perceived by those elected to represent them?

The Larger Implications

Whether RCPS disciplines Wasserman or not, the fallout is already broader. In the span of one week, both a school employee and a city alderman signaled contempt for conservative residents—roughly half the city’s population and half its voters. Taxpayers have no choice but to keep funding the salaries of public officials who speak this way, and parents have no choice but to send their children into classrooms run by the same system.

For conservative students, the impact is sharper still. Some admired Kirk, some follow Turning Point USA online, and some may even have considered starting a chapter at Rutland High. After this, would they feel safe doing so? Or would they assume the adults in authority will view them as “racist pedophiles” before they’ve said a word?

Schools teach anti-bullying every year. Students themselves have led campaigns against cyberbullying in Rutland. What lesson do they take when the adults—who are supposed to model that standard—seem to excuse or even celebrate contempt aimed at their peers’ families?

The unresolved question isn’t whether Howard Wasserman or Kiana McClure are entitled to private political opinions. It’s whether public officials in a city divided nearly down the middle can afford to write off half the people they serve—and half the students they are supposed to support.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram

#fyivt #RutlandVT #VermontPolitics #SchoolControversy

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER SUPPORTER!!