Sometimes, government employees can’t be disciplined for what they said, especially when they are discussing a political issue or controversial event. As law professor Eugene Volokh notes, “There is no categorical exception even as to government employment for speech that praises violence; indeed, Rankin v. McPherson (1987) held that the First Amendment was violated by the firing of a law enforcement clerical employee for saying, after President Reagan was wounded, ‘if they go for him again, I hope they get him.'”
But some government employees are being suspended or fired for approving of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. That can violate the First Amendment, if the reaction to their speech was not hostile enough to disrupt. the operations of their employer. If such speech doesn’t cause a disruption, then it can’t be punished, even under the theory that it incites violence. The First Amendment protects non-disruptive speech by public employees on matters of public concern, from discipline — especially at state universities.
Private colleges, on the other hand, can fire staff for applauding Kirk’s assassination, unless the college has broad contractual free-speech or academic-freedom guarantees that give their staff the right to engage in such incendiary speech.
The College Fix reports on a controversy at Southern University, a public, historically-black university.
Southern University has suspended and is investigating law Professor Kelly Carmena over her celebration of political activist Charlie Kirk’s murder.
Shortly after Kirk’s death, Carmena made a Facebook post stating: “I will 1000% wish death on people like him. He is the epitome of evil, and I have no compassion, not even a minute ounce of it for people like him who go around spewing hate the way he does.”
Her Facebook profile says “protect trans kids” and “show love.”
Carmena did not respond to requests for comment from The Fix.
University Board Chairman Tony Clayton told news outlets that Carmena spread speech that “is tantamount to participating and inciting violence.”
“Distasteful statements should not be tolerated particularly as it relates to death,” Clayton said. “That is tantamount to participating and inciting violence and spewing hate.”
Southern University’s director of communications said, “We are reviewing this matter in accordance with the institution’s personnel policies and procedures. The Law Center is committed to fostering an environment of respect, inclusivity, and professionalism both online and offline.”
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said the “comments posted by this individual were abhorrent….This individual has a constitutional right to have opinions and social media amplifies them. But she does not have a right to teach at a public law school.”
But under court decisions like Rankin v. McPherson (1998) and Jorjani v. New Jersey Institute of Technology (2025), she might indeed have a right to keep teaching despite her abhorrent remarks. Nothing in the news coverage about Carmena indicates that her speech created a dsisruption.
