After punishing people for Charlie Kirk comments, colleges are paying steep settlements

Violating the First Amendment will cost you. Universities and other public institutions are learning this lesson the hard way as the dust settles on a series of lawsuits brought by university faculty and staff who were punished for their comments about Charlie Kirk’s murder last September. 

Kirk’s shooting shocked the nation and sparked debates about the future of free speech and political violence. It marked a horrifying development in campus free speech, and FIRE has expressed concerns about rising tolerance for campus violence.

Furthering our concerns, in the aftermath of the assassination, the country saw a wave of retaliatory censorship. Hundreds of employees at both private and public institutions were disciplined or fired for comments that ranged from benign reposts of Kirk’s own comments to celebratory claims that he deserved to be killed. But in almost every instance, their speech was protected — and lawsuits ensued.

FIRE brought two such lawsuits in Tennessee. One was on behalf of retired Tennessee law enforcement officer Larry Bushart. Bushart was arrested and spent 37 days in jail for posting a meme on Facebook that quoted President Trump saying, “We have to get over it.” Bushart was arrested at the direction of a local sheriff, who absurdly claimed that the meme — quoting Trump talking about a past shooting at Perry High School in Iowa — represented a threat against Tennessee’s Perry County High School. Bushart won an $835,000 settlement. The second lawsuit, on behalf of an Iraq War veteran fired by a Tennessee state agency for criticizing Kirk in a Facebook comment to a friend, is pending.

Other professors and teachers are starting to receive similarly high settlements. Earlier this month, the University of Tennessee system settled a lawsuit by paying $1.9 million to an assistant anthropology professor who was fired months after posting that the world was better off without Kirk in it and calling Kirk’s wife a “sick fuck” for marrying him. 

Or consider the case of Austin Peay State University professor Darren Michael, who posted a screenshot of an article about Kirk’s support for the Second Amendment despite gun deaths. A Republican senator tagged the university on Facebook and asked if they would take action. The university almost immediately fired him. In January, Michael won a $500,000 settlement and got his job back.

In May, Ball State University paid a $225,000 settlement after firing its director of student wellness over a private Facebook post in which she said Kirk’s murder was a “tragedy,” but that he was reaping the “hatred he sowed.” A North Carolina school district paid $95,000 after it censored a student tribute to Kirk painted on a “spirit rock.” Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission paid a biologist nearly half a million dollars for firing her for posting a meme about Kirk’s death. A teacher at a public school district won a $145,000 settlement after she was placed on administrative leave for calling Kirk a “terrible person.” 

Kirk’s assassination was a monumental moment for many Americans who considered Kirk to be an embodiment of the value of exchanging ideas with the other side. But the First Amendment does not allow public institutions to punish their employees simply because employees speak out in ways that offend others. Rather, it provides robust protections for public employees to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, including Kirk’s death. 

Just as the First Amendment protects those who praise Kirk’s work and legacy, it also protects those who criticize the man. A cancel-culture cycle in the wake of a tragedy is nothing new. But censoring speech only scares people from voicing their opinions. This censorship is especially egregious when colleges and universities signal that they are prepared to use tax dollars to pay large settlements, rather than standing by their First Amendment obligations. That forces too many Americans to turn to the legal system to vindicate their basic rights to express themselves.