This paper argues that recent Charter decisions concerning the off duty expressive conduct of teachers have involved a narrow or "orthodox" interpretation of the reasonable limits on such expression. The author illustrates what he describes as a "messy area" by taking us through the controversial and well-known examples of Shewan and Shewan; the Malcolm Ross case; and the primary focus of the case comment, a recent British Columbia decision involving Chris Kempling. The author wonders whether judicial orthodoxy regarding teacher conduct, expression and opinion helps or hinders the fundamental objectives of public education and censors their autonomy for open discussion of important social, ethical and political issues.