Key Takeaways:
- Following the death of conservative icon Charlie Kirk, several public universities fired or censured employees who posted critical comments about him.
- However, with legal pressure, some universities have reversed course, reinstating professors and lifting suspensions.
- At least three fired professors have reclaimed their jobs, and three more have had suspensions lifted or investigations concluded in their favor.
- Free speech experts argue that government employees have the right to speak as private citizens about public events, and that universities should not punish professors for expressing their opinions.
- The incident highlights the tension between free speech and the ability of government agencies to operate, and the need for universities to balance these competing interests.
Introduction to the Incident
The death of Charlie Kirk, a conservative icon with millions of followers on social media, sparked a wave of reactions from the public, including some employees of public universities. While some people mourned his passing, others expressed indifference or even celebration. However, when some university employees posted critical comments about Kirk on social media, they faced backlash from their employers, with some being fired or censured. This incident raises important questions about the balance between free speech and the ability of government agencies to operate, and the role of universities in protecting the rights of their employees.
The Response of Universities
In the aftermath of Kirk’s death, several public universities took swift action against employees who had posted critical comments about him. For example, Austin Peay State University in Tennessee fired professor Darren Michael after he shared a post referencing a 2023 comment from Kirk in which he said that some gun deaths were "unfortunately" justified to keep the Second Amendment. Similarly, the University of South Dakota told tenured art professor Phillip Michael Hook that it planned to fire him after he posted that he didn’t give a "flying f—" about Kirk and called him a "hate spreading Nazi." However, with the help of legal counsel, some of these professors have been able to reclaim their jobs or have their suspensions lifted.
The Role of Free Speech Experts
Free speech experts argue that government employees have the right to speak as private citizens about public events, and that universities should not punish professors for expressing their opinions. Zach Greenberg, faculty legal defense counsel at the free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that he was encouraged to see universities reinstating professors, but that they never should have been punished in the first place. He added that sanctioning the professors would likely cause others to guard what they say. "It’s disappointing to see universities fold under pressure to terminate faculty for expressing themselves online," Greenberg wrote, "as if the First Amendment is an expediency to be discarded at a whim."
The Impact on Professors
The incident has had a significant impact on the professors involved, with some facing harassment and intimidation. For example, Karen Leader, a professor at Florida Atlantic University, was placed on administrative leave after she shared critical comments about Kirk. She received a wave of harassing messages, including death threats, and was forced to notify the local and campus police. "I am literally not leaving my house," she said of the time after posts went viral. "I am terrified. I am getting death threats. I’m getting people calling me, saying, ‘We know where you live.’" Despite the challenges, some professors have been able to return to the classroom, but they worry about the potential repercussions of speaking out in the future.
The Reversal of Course
In recent months, at least three fired professors have reclaimed their jobs, and three more have had suspensions lifted or investigations concluded in their favor. For example, Darren Michael, the fired Austin Peay State University professor, secured a $500,000 settlement from his public university and was reinstated to his tenured position. Similarly, Phillip Michael Hook, the tenured art professor at the University of South Dakota, was able to return to teaching after the university relented in the face of a lawsuit. These reversals of course suggest that universities are beginning to recognize the importance of protecting the free speech rights of their employees, even in the face of public pressure.
Conclusion
The incident highlights the tension between free speech and the ability of government agencies to operate, and the need for universities to balance these competing interests. While universities have a responsibility to maintain a safe and respectful learning environment, they also have a duty to protect the free speech rights of their employees. As the cases of the professors involved in this incident demonstrate, the consequences of failing to balance these interests can be severe, with professors facing harassment, intimidation, and even loss of their jobs. Ultimately, the reversal of course by some universities suggests that they are beginning to recognize the importance of protecting the free speech rights of their employees, and that this is essential for maintaining the integrity of academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge.
