Personal Speech and Professional Consequences
My thoughts on social media and the limits of private speech for those who work with kids
Last week, I read Logan Levkoff’s piece in The Free Press. Before I say anything else, let me be transparent about where I’m coming from: I am Jewish. I am a Zionist. I am genuinely concerned about the rise of antisemitism in and beyond New York City. I do not know Logan Levkoff, but I do know several people who attend and work at the Stephen Gaynor School, and we have not discussed the specifics of this case.
That said, given what I know about Gaynor, I am fairly confident that what I read in The Free Press does not accurately represent why Dr. Levkoff lost her job there.
In the piece, Dr. Levkoff frames her departure as ideological persecution, arguing that she lost her job because she gave voice to perspectives outside progressive orthodoxy. Though it’s a compelling narrative, I don’t think it’s completely accurate; instead, I imagine Dr. Levkoff was let go after she reposted content on social media that denied the identity of nonbinary people, and families of nonbinary students at the school reasonably found it offensive.
Now, I think the more interesting question is whether what someone posts on their personal social media should factor into their professional employment at all. A reasonable person might argue that it shouldn’t, and employment shouldn’t limit free speech. I understand that argument, but I think it fails to consider the specific nature of Dr. Levkoff’s work.
Dr. Levkoff is a sex educator, not an accountant or a software developer. She claims to have built her career on the premise that young people deserve honest, affirming, expert guidance about sex and identity. Therefore, she should be aware of her position, her platform, and the effect of that platform on her students.
At Gaynor, she was working with children and adolescents who are, by definition, in the middle of one of the most vulnerable periods of identity development. That vulnerability is especially acute for young people who belong to sexual and gender minority groups. So, as a sex educator, she, of all people, should understand that a teenager who identifies as nonbinary might suffer real harm if they are forced to attend a class on gender and sexuality that is facilitated by someone who has publicly broadcast skepticism about whether their specific identity is real. When Dr. Levkoff’s personal speech started to materially undermine her ability to serve the families at Gaynor, it became a legitimate professional problem.
Truthfully, the main point I want to make here extends way beyond Logan Levkoff. I think anyone who works with kids takes on a responsibility that doesn’t simply end at close of business. We all have a duty to be thoughtful about how our public and private communications might affect the kids in our care.
Of course I need to acknowledge that there are real conversations to be had about the limits of employer reach into private life and about ideological conformity in schools. But this story is about a sex educator who denigrated students she was charged with supporting. The school made a call, and based on what I know about Gaynor—and what I know about the obligations that come with this kind of work—I think it was the right one.