Clemson fired employees over Charlie Kirk posts. Did it violate the Constitution?
Clemson University has fired three employees after South Carolina politicians repeatedly called for the firing of several Clemson University professors following posts on social media regarding the killing of activist Charlie Kirk.
Could it face legal action?
Clemson College Republicans, a student group at the upstate school, began a campaign late last week calling on the university to terminate at least three professors that shared social media posts appearing to mock Kirk.
Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and outspoken conservative, was shot to death at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. in an act of political violence.
South Carolina lawmakers, congressmen and governor candidates quickly chimed in, threatening to pull state and federal funding and encouraging students to demand refunds if Clemson did not comply.
“Clemson University unequivocally condemns any and all expressions that endorse, glorify or celebrate political violence. The deeply inappropriate remarks made on social media in response to the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk are reprehensible and do not reflect the University values and principles that define our University community,” the school said in statement last week. “We stand firmly on the principles of the U.S. Constitution, including the protection of free speech. However, that right does not extend to speech that incites harm or undermines the dignity of others. We will take appropriate action for speech that constitutes a genuine threat which is not protected by the Constitution.”
Legality in question
Jay Bender, a longtime South Carolina attorney, said that to fire or suspend professors over such comments could open the university up to legal trouble.
The First Amendment protects the free speech, including that which is offensive or hateful. It guarantees the government cannot take away that right.
“Many members of the General Assembly have never read the Constitution, have no idea what it means and are entirely wrong when they suggest someone should be fired for speech on a political or public issue,” Bender said. “Clemson cannot fire somebody who posts a comment that might be critical of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi or anybody else. The First Amendment, and with respect to state power, the Fourteenth Amendment, are to protect speech and speakers that are not popular.”
It hinges on the fact that Clemson is a public college. If it were a private company, Bender said, it would be within their rights to fire an employee for such posts.
“If Clemson were to fire someone for speech relating to a matter of public interest, it would be unconstitutional,” Bender said.
And if they are punished over speech that only Republicans disliked, Bender said, it is viewpoint discrimination.
“They’re posturing,” Bender said of Clemson’s critics. “If these Republican legislators want to throw their weight around ... and threaten to cancel the funding for Clemson, they have that within their power. But they do not have within their power the punishment of an individual whose speech they don’t happen to like.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina also condemned the “targeted harassment of teachers, professors, and other public servants for political statements that they publish in their personal capacity.”
“It is in the hard times, not the easy ones, when our commitment to American values is tested,” Allen Chaney, legal director of the ACLU said in a news release. “In the face of politicized and sometimes manufactured outrage, we call on school districts and university presidents to model the tolerance for upsetting speech that is demanded by the First Amendment so that they might instill that firmly-rooted American value in the next generation.”
AG says it’s legal
Attorney General Alan Wilson, who is also running as gubernatorial candidate in the 2026 election, said the university has the “full legal authority to take corrective action against faculty members who posted vile and incendiary comments on social media following the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
“The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not shield threats, glorification of violence, or behavior that undermines the mission of our state institutions,” Wilson said in a news release. “Clemson, and any state university in South Carolina, should not be paralyzed by fear of prosecution when dealing with employees who publicly endorse political violence.”
Disputes over employee speech rights, Wilson said, belong in civil court.
The First Amendment may protect free speech, but “fighting words,” a term that applies to speech that could invoke an immediate violent action, are not protected.
That is why context is important, said Derek Black, a professor of law at the University of South Carolina and director of the USC Constitutional Law Center.
“What amounts to an incitement of harm or undermines the dignity of others, or a threat to the academic environment, those things are very contextual,” Black said. “Emotions are running high and those emotions are important factors in what could incite problems and disruptions right now, as opposed to under some other circumstances.”
There are certain lines that faculty members could cross that would allow a faculty member to be disciplined, Black said, but when those lines aren’t crossed, universities open themselves up to litigation.
“That line tends in favor of the faculty member,” Black said. “Little of what a faculty member says outside of their official role at a school that would subject them to or justify their termination because their words do not actually impact the learning environment.”
Not much, but not nothing. Educators are not to use their speech in a way that creates a hostile environment for students, Black said, whether that be racial harassment, religious harassment or political harassment.
“The devil is in the details,” Black said. “But courts are also especially concerned to the chilling effects of censorship because a truly free society requires space where people can openly debate and disagree without fear of punishment.”
This story was originally published September 16, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
