Charlie Kirk was murdered on Sept. 10. Later that day, Jeffrey Harrison, a retired UF law professor with emeritus status and a former colleague of mine, posted this comment on his private social media account:
“There is a lot of commentary about Charlie Kirk. It’s not that complicated. He was a evil person spounting all kinds of hateful messages. I did not want him to die. I reserve that wish for Trump. But let’s face it, even members of the Gestapo and guards at the concentration camps had children. That does not make them heros, nor does it make Charlie Kirk someone to be admired.”
Eight days later, on Sept. 18, Scott Presler, a conservative activist with approximately 2.4 million X followers, reposted Harrison’s statement and picture and wrote, “[Harrison] should lose any affiliation w/ UF & any current duties.”
The next day, Sept. 19, UF announced on its X account that Harrison’s emeritus status had been terminated: “The University of Florida has been made aware of a retired faculty member who issued a post on social media that is raising concerns. In accordance with the university's policies and regulations, UF has rescinded this individual’s emeritus status.”
At first, this may not seem important. Functionally speaking, emeritus status doesn’t amount to much: library privileges, an email account and access to campus events. But for those concerned with free speech, it raises very significant questions. One question, which I will not discuss here, is: To what extent employers can terminate or otherwise punish employees for their non-work conduct and speech, including social media posts?
Another question relates more directly to speech on a university campus: What, if any, UF policy or regulation did Harrison actually violate?
Before analyzing that question, let me make two things clear.
First, I deplore Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Every murder is horrific.
Second, I found Harrison’s post deeply offensive. Among other things, calling a 31-year-old man who has just been murdered an “evil person” and comparing him to the Nazis is tasteless. And expressing the wish that another person, namely President Donald Trump, would die is extremely harsh. But did those statements justify removing Harrison as a member of our university community? What if Harrison had been a current faculty or staff member? What if Harrison had been a current student? Would they, too, have been removed?
The university’s regulation on non-discrimination states, “The university is committed to non-discrimination with respect to ... political opinions or affiliations”. Further, the university’s “Freedom of Expression Statement” indicates “UF will not stifle the dissemination of any idea, even if some members of our community find it wrong-headed, offensive or hateful.” That statement does provide, “UF will restrict any speech that violates the law including, but not limited to, genuine threats of violence or harm and statements designed to incite others to engage in imminent unlawful conduct.”
However, Harrison’s social media post, distasteful though it was, did not break the law. If it did, Harrison would now be under arrest. Nor in my view can it be fairly read — including even its wish that President Trump would die — as constituting a genuine threat of violence or harm, or as being a statement designed to incite others to engage in imminent unlawful conduct. Nor do I see it as a form of harassment of a member or members of our community, a different situation for which an employee may rightly be disciplined.
If I am correct in that assessment, what if any UF regulation or policy did Harrison actually violate? The university administration should provide an answer to that question. The free speech rights of the entire UF community depend on it.
Jonathan Cohen is a professor at the UF Levin College of Law.
