Mukilteo school board policy restricts employees’ speech
Published 1:30 am Sunday, January 4, 2026
School boards are not private employers. They are public bodies elected to represent taxpayers and oversee institutions that exist for the public good. That responsibility makes the Mukilteo School District Board’s adoption of Policy 5254, governing “staff expression,” deeply troubling.
Policy 5254 authorizes discipline of district employees for off-duty or online speech that administrators may subjectively deem to have an “adverse impact on district operations,” even when employees speak as private citizens. The policy is vague, expansive and explicitly tied to the district’s disciplinary system.
How can a board entrusted with transparency, accountability and stewardship of public funds adopt a policy that discourages lawful speech by the employees who operate public institutions? Public employees are not a threat to public institutions. They are often the first to identify misuse of authority, safety concerns or policy failures. A policy that chills speech outside the workplace does not protect taxpayers. It protects the institution from scrutiny.
These concerns are not speculative. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nationally recognized, nonpartisan civil-liberties organization, has formally warned the Mukilteo School District that its policy contains constitutional defects and urged the board to revise it. To date, the board has offered no public response.
District administrators argue that the policy poses no problem unless discipline is imposed. But constitutional harm does not begin at punishment; it begins when speech is deterred. Chilling effects arise when employees must weigh whether lawful speech might later be labeled “adverse.”
If the board’s duty is to represent taxpayers, it should resist policies that suppress information rather than illuminate it. Revisiting the policy would not weaken the district. It would strengthen public trust.
Aleksandr Marin
Marysville
