A tenured college professor at the University of South Dakota was handed a temporary legal win on Wednesday after a judge halted his impending firing for remarks made immediately after the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Newsweek reached out to the school via email for comment.
Why It Matters
The case involving the professor who called Kirk a “hate spreading Nazi” online, according to a court document, is at the center of a larger national debate over the limits of free speech for educators, public employment and political discourse.
The recent federal court ruling that the university cannot terminate the professor for his social media post exemplifies the ongoing tension between academic freedom and public accountability, with broad implications for First Amendment rights in educational settings.
Kirk, 31, was a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump and a face of the MAGA movement for younger generations. He utilized social media platforms to engage with younger people about culture war topics, foreign policy, religion and other notable conservative values.
What To Know
Professor Phillip Michael Hook’s win follows his lawsuit against the university for “unconstitutional retaliation in violation of the First Amendment,” the court document says.
U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier, nominee of former President Bill Clinton, noted in her ruling in part: “The public has a compelling interest in protecting its First Amendment rights.”
Hook, in the late afternoon of September 10—the day Kirk was fatally shot during a question and answer session at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah—posted remarks about the Turning Point USA CEO on his private Facebook account, the court document shows.
“Okay. I don’t give a flying f*** about this Kirk person. Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was,” Hook’s post said, per the document. “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 could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi. A shrug, maybe.”
In a follow-up post hours later, Hook said, according to the court document: “Apparently my frustration with the sudden onslaught of coverage concerning a guy shot today led to a post I mow [sic] regret posting. I’m sure many folks fully understood my premise but the simple fact that some were offended, led me to remove the post. I extend this public apology to those who were offended. Om Shanti.” (“Om Shanti” is a call for peace, often found in Buddhist and Hindu writings and prayers.)
Hook was then made aware of the university’s intent to fire him, days after the post, the ruling outlines. The letter, sent to Hook by the university’s dean of the College of Fine Arts, Bruce Kelley, said Hook violated policy.
Schreier ultimately sided with the professor, ordering: “Hook’s motion for temporary restraining order (Docket 3) is granted. Defendants are required to temporarily set aside their determination to place Hook on administrative leave. Defendants shall reinstate Hook’s position as a Professor of Art at the University of South Dakota, retroactive to September 12, 2025, to remain effective until the preliminary injunction hearing on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Sioux Falls Courtroom 2.”
What People Are Saying
Republican South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden, on X earlier this month: “When I read this post, I was shaking mad. The Board of Regents intends to FIRE this University of South Dakota professor, and I’m glad. This individual stands in front of South Dakota students to educate them. We must not send the message to our kids that this is acceptable public discourse. We need more Charlie Kirks on campus and less hatred like this.”
What Happens Next
Petitions to reinstate Hook and other educators continue to gain support online, reflecting the national reach of these disputes.
The temporary restraining order remains in place until October 8, when a preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled.
Read the full article here
