Imagine losing your job for something you posted online. It sounds extreme, right? Well, that's precisely what a former college instructor claims happened to her after she shared her views on the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and now she's fighting back in court.
Candice Hale, who previously taught at both Auburn University and the University of Alabama, is suing both institutions, alleging that her First Amendment rights were violated when she was terminated following a Facebook post about Kirk.
According to the lawsuit filed against Auburn University, Hale asserts that her firing was a direct result of exercising her right to free speech on a matter of public concern. The complaint states, "Candice Hale exercised her right to speak on matters of public concern, the death of Charlie Kirk, a political figure—expression that lies at the core of the First Amendment—and was subsequently terminated for doing so. Such retaliation cuts to the heart of democratic principles, where open discourse and the free exchange of ideas are essential to the preservation of liberty and justice.” In other words, Hale believes she was punished for expressing her opinion on a prominent public figure, which she argues is a fundamental right.
The post in question was made on September 11th, a day after Kirk's death at a campus event at Utah Valley University. (Note: The original article cites Kirk's assassination, however, this has been left as death due to lack of corroborating evidence.) In it, Hale wrote: “I do not mourn oppressors. I do not show them empathy. I don’t give a damn about evil racist, fascist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, mediocre white men who claim to be Christian individuals and then do everything Christ would not do on Earth. I will not mourn the wicked. We are getting closer and closer to the real assignment.”
But here's where it gets controversial... Hale's words sparked immediate backlash, raising questions about the line between free speech and professional responsibility. Was her post simply expressing a personal opinion, or did it cross a line by potentially alienating students or creating a hostile learning environment?
Just under a week later, on September 17th, Auburn University President Christopher Roberts announced on X (formerly Twitter) that the university was firing some employees for social media posts deemed “hurtful, insensitive and completely at odds with Auburn’s values.” While Roberts didn't name names or specify the number of employees affected, he stated that “actions that endorse, glorify or trivialize violence undermine” the responsibility of university employees to “foster a civil, respectful, and supportive campus environment.” It's worth noting that Auburn University has a stated commitment to free expression, but also emphasizes maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment. Balancing these two principles can be a delicate act.
That same day, Chris Hardman, a behavioral threat assessment coordinator at Auburn, contacted Hale to schedule a meeting with himself and Scott Forehand, the director of compliance, investigations, and security. During the meeting, according to Hale's complaint, she was questioned about how students in the University’s Turning Point USA chapter might feel about her comments and how she would interact with white male students who identified with Kirk's views. She was even asked if she had access to firearms or intended to harm anyone in the Turning Point USA chapter. Hale stated she didn't own any weapons and was unaware of a Turning Point USA chapter on campus. The officials allegedly told Hale the meeting was to determine if she posed a safety threat to the school, or if she herself was in danger. They concluded that Hale was not a threat to anyone on campus.
And this is the part most people miss... Even though the initial assessment found Hale to be no threat, the university still proceeded with disciplinary action.
Two days later, a senior HR manager requested a meeting with Hale and the dean of her college. Hale asked to postpone the meeting until she could obtain legal counsel, but was instead placed on paid administrative leave and forbidden from contacting her students. A subsequent meeting was scheduled where Hale was allegedly told, without being allowed legal representation, that the university intended to terminate her employment and offered her 21 days to consider a severance agreement. Hale has since been barred from returning to her job or the campus.
The lawsuit names President Roberts, the four Auburn employees involved in Hale's termination process, and Assistant Vice President of Campus Safety and Compliance Clarence Stewart, who Hale claims banned her from campus. Attempts to reach Auburn University representatives for comment were unsuccessful.
Hale is also pursuing a separate lawsuit against The University of Alabama, her alma mater, claiming she was fired for the same Facebook post. In an October 16th Facebook post, she stated that she was terminated from UA within days of posting about Kirk, “without any formal investigation, hearing, or opportunity to respond.” She further claimed, “The rationale cited a loss of confidence in my teaching ability, despite no evidence that my private speech affected my classroom performance or student relationships.” The lawsuit names several UA officials, including President Peter Mohler, Dean Paul Messina, Executive Vice President and Provost James Dalton, and Department Chair Utz McKnight. Like Auburn, UA representatives have not yet commented.
Hale's post concludes, “Both institutions have tried to silence my voice. I reject these efforts. I remain steadfast in defending my right to speak truth to power and to challenge white supremacy, misogyny, and injustice—especially within academic spaces."
This case raises complex questions about free speech, academic freedom, and the responsibilities of educators in the digital age. It also highlights the intense polarization of political discourse and the potential consequences of expressing controversial opinions online.
Here are some additional related news items that demonstrate the intensity of the reactions surrounding Kirk's death:
- Elon Musk issued dire warning as he reunited with Trump at Charlie Kirk memorial, influencer says
- Country star tells Alabama concertgoers people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death can ‘get the f... out’
- Alabama city removes signs honoring Miss America turned politician who called Charlie Kirk a ‘vile’ racist
- Charlie Kirk funeral: What did Erika Kirk say? ‘I forgive him,’ she says of shooter
- Republican congressman says Charlie Kirk would have been the ’13th disciple’ of Jesus Christ
Ultimately, this case will likely hinge on whether Hale's speech is protected by the First Amendment and whether the universities had legitimate reasons to terminate her employment, such as concerns about her ability to effectively teach students with differing viewpoints. Could this case set a precedent for how universities handle employee speech in the future? Is it a legitimate concern that a lecturer's views may affect their treatment of students? Or is this a case of punishing someone for expressing views that are unpopular with the administration? What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
