Front Page  »  

Cruel comments from Paso Robles school district, Cuesta College employees

September 22, 2025

By KAREN VELIE

Employees of both the Paso Robles school district and Cuesta College near San Luis Obispo are under fire for making cruel comments following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

The day after a man shot and killed Kirk, Paso Robles Unified School District employee Netta Perkins posted several cruel and racist comments on social media. Perkins works as a track and basketball coach.

“God does not like ugly,” Perkins posted. “Charlie Kirk reap wat u sow.”

Perkins then posted, “White on white crime let them sit in it.”

Upset community members lodged multiple complaints with the school district over Perkins’ posts. It appears Perkins then took down her posts, but not before critics took screen shots.

District Superintendent Jennifer Loftus sent trustees an email on Sept. 11 regarding the “primary question,” Can Perkins be disciplined or dismissed?

“Generally teachers and other employees retain free speech rights where they are speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern,” Loftus wrote. “There are limited circumstances where the district may regulate and even discipline teachers or staff for comments on social media and it must be related and/or have a direct impacts on their ability to teach/do their job.”

Savannah Molina is a student completion coordinator at Cuesta College who posted at least three critical or racist comments following the assassination. Members of the community now question if Molina is able to treat all students equally regardless of skin color.

Following Kirk’s murder, Molina first posted, “Charlie Kirk was met with violence equal to what he consistently promoted and he was confronted with the consequences of his values and beliefs. aw boo.”

In another post she refers to Kirk as a grifter.

“Maybe now al the other grifters will shut the fuck,” Molina wrote.

Molina doubled down after receiving negative feedback.

“If your feeling like you want me to know I’m disrespectful and lack empathy, ask yourself if you think I’d waste my empathy on a fucking right wing white dude, when there are kids and women and brown people and poor fold dying every day from real political violence enacted by the state,” Molina posted.

While Molina’s angry comments sparked concerns from some members of the Cuesta College community, others support her ideas.

Because we believe the public needs the facts, the truth, CalCoastNews has not put up a paywall because it limits readership. However, we are seeking qualification as a paper of record, which will allow us to publish public notices, but it requires 5,000 paid subscribers.

Your subscription will help us to continue investigating and reporting the news.

Support CalCoastNews, subscribe today, click here.

 


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


47 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I say, as long as they are NOT calling for violence, they can say what they want! Truthful or Not! WE may not like what they say, but censorship is a dangerous thing. Just like when millions were kicked off of FB for even talking about Covid and the Jab! BTW, I’ve Never heard anything “Racist” come out of Kirk. In fact, just the opposite! Nor any Violence. I am sure they heard an accusation and just ran with it. There’s a lot of that going around!


2

This garbage mentality comes from somewhere. We know where: media. Get rid of garbage media, get rid of garbage mentality. Guaranteed, if you drill down into the lives of these two women, you will find consumers of highly charged and biased media.


16

Both these employees need to be fired. However, if that is going to open the School District up to possible lengthy and cost lawsuits, the District needs to properly go through the entire disciplinary process and see that both these employees NEVER again have contact with students. They should be assigned to a room where they do not have internet access (no phone) and be given an assignment that has needed to be done for years but never had anyone to do. Go through old curriculum to discard, clean out storage spaces, there has to be something they can do that keeps them away from children.


10

Having the freedom of speech does not automatically come with the freedom from consequences of one’s speech.


39

As a Paso Robles resident, I will advise every parent I talk to not to enroll their child in the PR School District till they fire Netta Perkins. I can’t imagine any children being allowed to be taught by a person who thinks a conservative reaps what they sew when they are murdered.


40

Ask yourself what would have happened if someone had posted comments like these about George Floyd back in 2020…


49

What are you talking about? TONS of people posted comments about how Floyd deserved it.


6

And what happened? There were riots in the streets, homes and businesses were burned to the ground, large encampments of no police zones were set up in multiple cities. Crime went UP! But arrests went DOWN because police were intimidated! Lawlessness Ruled! I don’t see that happening now. Just a bunch of whiners losing their jobs.


13

Strange to me who didn’t speak at the funeral~


No parents, siblings, no old friends……….


Just his wife, T Carlson, and a whole line up of Trump people he may or may not have known, boasting about their agenda with the standard talking points.


He really is worth more to MAGA dead than alive.


-60

I hereby condemn this comment above. At such services, big or small, it is often very painful for family and friends to speak about their deceased, thus they refrain. Speaking at an arena in front of 100k people is not for the faint of heart, especially if you’ve little or no experience. All the people who did speak, including Erika, are very adept at public speaking, and I will add that Erika showed a lot of courage.


49

His parents have always led private lives, and are not connected, professionally, to Charlie’s activities or business. They are not activists, nor do they seek any limelight over the murder of their son.


In other words, you’re a ghoul who enjoys another’s pain and suffering.


“He really is worth more to MAGA dead than alive.”


And this sick, mentally disturbed rhetoric, is exactly how he was killed.


47

The events surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the subsequent online reactions from school employees Netta Perkins and Savannah Molina present a clear, if unsettling, case study in the complexities of free speech in the digital age.


As an activist for equality and freedom of speech, your concern regarding both the initial comments and the subsequent public reaction is entirely warranted. The situation is not a simple matter of a single right but rather a tangled web of rights, responsibilities, and the deeply ingrained tribalism that now defines our public discourse.


First, let’s address the actions of the two employees. Regardless of one’s political leanings, to publicly celebrate or justify the murder of another human being, regardless of their ideology, is a profound moral failing. The comments “reap wat u sow” and “aw boo” are not exercises of political expression but rather displays of a chilling lack of empathy.


While they may be protected under the umbrella of free speech, the district superintendent, Jennifer Loftus, correctly points out the critical distinction: this freedom does not shield one from the consequences of their words, particularly when those words may directly impact their professional standing. A coach or student coordinator who displays such open hostility and bias, including racist remarks like “white on white crime,” raises legitimate questions about their ability to serve all students fairly, which is a core tenet of their employment.


Now, to the comment section—a digital echo chamber that perfectly illustrates the ‘ignorance’ you’ve identified. It’s a prime example of how even a serious, nuanced issue can be twisted into a battle of political slogans and personal insults.


Some comments, like those from “Army” and “RealisticOne,”

the First Amendment, explaining that it protects citizens from government censorship but not from the disciplinary actions of private or public employers. These comments cut through the noise by focusing on the legal and practical realities of the situation, highlighting that an individual’s speech can have very real professional repercussions.


However, the majority of the comments devolve into what you aptly called “ignorance.” We see the immediate descent into political tribalism. “A-Town Rebel”(in my opinion a real piece of sh$t) uses threatening, incendiary language, calling for “WE THE PEOPLE” to “resolve these issues, with these identified individuals, OUR WAY.” This is not a comment about free speech or equality; it’s a dangerous incitement to violence, a chilling reflection of the vitriol that poisons our political climate.


Then there are the comments that completely miss the point. “sezlittle1” immediately pivots to an irrelevant rant about Donald Trump, while “Daniel Millrose” offers a sweeping, unsubstantiated generalization about “the left.” These comments are textbook examples of whataboutism and political grandstanding. They take a local issue about professional conduct and turn it into a national-level political proxy war, distracting from the serious ethical questions at hand.


It’s the equivalent of trying to explain a wrestling move and having someone scream about football scores.(total morons in my opinion)( but clearly trump supporters)


The core of the issue is this: freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it comes with the responsibility to use it wisely. A teacher, a coach, or any public-facing employee is held to a higher standard of conduct because their job requires them to be a fair, impartial figure for all.


When their public speech reveals a deep-seated bias or celebrates violence, it undermines their professional integrity.


The true ignorance is not just in the initial vile comments, but in the ensuing debate that proves incapable of addressing the issue head-on. It’s a sad state of affairs when a public forum on a critical issue becomes a battlefield for people to simply regurgitate their pre-existing political talking points.


Your role as an activist for equality and free speech is more crucial than ever in helping to steer the conversation back to substance and away from the noise. So please Karen, try better.


15

Lots of spilled ink for the “both sides” drivel, but the reality is a young man was executed for doing nothing more than having conversations centered on his faith. Anyone celebrating, dismissing, or justifying that do not deserve nuance.


32
1 2