Faculty Are Scholars and Citizens Too: The Concerning Trend of Faculty Punished for Free Speech… Off Campus

Tags: Faculty, Administrators

In a recent post, we discussed how tenure and academic freedom should not serve as shields for faculty espousing political opinions outside their academic expertise while on campus or in their professional capacity. The principle of tenure was never meant to justify partisan activism under the guise of scholarship. But the same conviction that guides this view, the belief that academic freedom must be grounded in fairness, also demands that we defend the right of faculty to express personal opinions in non-professional contexts.

When faculty members are disciplined, suspended, or terminated for statements made in private, off-campus settings or on personal social media accounts, the violation of free expression is equally serious. Academic freedom and institutional responsibility are not meant to extend into a faculty member’s living room, personal Facebook page, or attendance at a rally in their capacity as a private citizen. Yet, an alarming trend across the country shows that universities have begun doing exactly that.

Over just the past several months, multiple professors have faced disciplinary action or termination for off-campus remarks following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. These incidents, scattered across different universities, reveal how a single, emotionally charged event can generate a chain reaction of free speech violations within higher education.

1. At the USD, a tenured art professor was suspended after posting on his personal social media account a remark critical of Kirk. The post, made outside working hours and in no way connected to his teaching, led to administrative action citing “unprofessional conduct.” A court later intervened, ruling that his speech was constitutionally protected and ordering his reinstatement pending review.

2. At Clemson, an assistant professor faced termination for posting a critical comment about Kirk on a private account. The university cited reputational harm and “conduct unbecoming,” though the post was neither threatening nor connected to the classroom. The professor has since filed suit, claiming the dismissal violated his First Amendment rights.

3. At the U of A at Little Rock, a faculty member was placed on administrative leave after sharing personal commentary on the Kirk incident on social media. The speech occurred entirely off campus and outside professional duties, yet the university initiated an investigation citing possible policy violations.

4. At Texas State, a tenured history professor was fired following remarks made at a political conference, which administrators claimed “advocated violence.” The event was unrelated to his teaching or research. While the interpretation of his words remains contested, the speech occurred off campus, highlighting how universities now treat political expression in any setting as a potential professional liability.

5. Several other educators across public and private institutions have reported similar suspensions or firings for posts or reposts concerning the same issue—many made from personal devices, off campus, and outside their institutional affiliation. Collectively, these cases represent one of the largest recent clusters of faculty discipline for private political expression.

In nearly all these instances, legal recourse followed swiftly. Faculty either obtained court injunctions, filed wrongful termination suits, or engaged organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Courts in several cases—most notably South Dakota—have sided with the faculty, emphasizing that speech in a personal capacity, even if politically charged, remains protected under the First Amendment.

That so many parallel incidents emerged from one political event underscores a deeper problem: universities are responding to online controversies with a reflexive instinct to manage optics, not uphold principles. The institutional compulsion seems to stem from a mix of reputational anxiety, donor pressure, and the fear of being accused of tolerating offensive views. Yet this overreaction undermines the very educational mission these institutions claim to protect.

Faculty do not forfeit their citizenship when they accept academic employment. Their personal opinions—spoken in private spaces, expressed off campus, or shared online without invoking their university roles—are not subject to institutional approval. The freedom to think, speak, and dissent as private citizens is foundational to the democratic purpose of education itself.

If universities continue to equate personal political expression with professional misconduct, they will erode not just trust in tenure but also the civic space that sustains academic inquiry. The principle that tenure protects scholarship must be matched by an equal truth: academic freedom does not end at the campus gate.