A former lecturer at the University of Alabama and Auburn University has filed lawsuits against both schools, saying she was fired for remarks she made on the internet after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Campus Reform reports:
Candice Hale, who taught English at Auburn and previously worked at Alabama, argues that her termination violated her First Amendment rights. According to court filings, she was dismissed after writing a Facebook post critical of Kirk and other right-wing figures.
The controversy began on Sept. 11, one day after Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University. In a Facebook post, Hale wrote that she “will not mourn the wicked” or show empathy for “racist, fascist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic” white men, concluding with the line: “We are getting closer and closer to the real assignment.”
Six days later, Auburn University President Christopher Roberts announced on X that the school had fired several employees for making social media posts that were “hurtful, insensitive and completely at odds with Auburn’s values.”… she was summoned to a virtual meeting with two campus safety officials who questioned her about her social media post and whether she was a threat to members of the school’s Turning Point USA chapter. Hale alleges that she denied having weapons or violent intent and that the officials concluded she posed no safety risk.
Days later, she was placed on paid administrative leave and prohibited from contacting her students. The university subsequently moved to terminate her employment, offering a severance agreement in lieu of reinstatement. Hale says she was later banned from campus entirely….Hale is also suing the University of Alabama, where she claims she was dismissed for the same social media post. She alleges the university terminated her “without any formal investigation, hearing, or opportunity to respond,” citing “loss of confidence” in her teaching ability.
This lecturer has a plausible First Amendment claim. A University of South Dakota art professor was reinstated after criticizing Charlie Kirk, and the university was forced to drop its plan to terminate him, after he brought a First Amendment lawsuit. (That professor said of Kirk, “I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate-spreading Nazi, a shrug maybe. I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate-spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better. Maybe good people can now enter their lives.”)
Government employees often can’t be disciplined for what they said, when they are discussing a political figure or political issue. 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.’”
