On September 13, 2025, the University of South Dakota issued an intent to terminate notice to Michael Hook, a tenured professor of art history, in response to social media posts that he made about the murdered political activist Charlie Kirk.

Kirk was killed on September 10, 2025. That afternoon, Hook posted to his private Facebook account criticizing Kirk’s past public statements and questioning the outpouring of support for Kirk versus other victims of gun violence. Hook later removed the post and apologized. Nevertheless, following public pressure from state elected officials, the university sought to terminate his position.

Hook’s initial post said “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. 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.” Hook later removed the post and wrote, “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.”

Hook’s original post triggered public pressure on the university and South Dakota’s Board of Regents, which stated that they received hundreds of calls and messages calling for Hook’s removal. South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden and South Dakota Speaker of the House Jon Hansen both commented publicly on social media in support of Hook’s removal. On September 13, the dean of USD’s College of Fine Arts Bruce Kelley wrote to Hook to inform him that the university had issued an intent to terminate him. Kelley stated that Hook had violated two university policies: one dealing with “neglect of duty, misconduct, incompetence and abuse of power,” and the second noting that University of South Dakota employees must, when speaking publicly, “be accurate, show respect for the opinions of others and make every effort to indicate when they are not speaking for the institution.” In compliance with university policy, Hook was given 14 days to respond to his firing before it was finalized.

Hook filed a lawsuit against the university for engaging in unconstitutional retaliation against political speech and violating the First Amendment. On September 23, the US District Court for South Dakota concluded that Hook spoke on a matter of public concern as a citizen and issued a temporary restraining order directing the university to pause its actions to terminate Hook. On October 3, the university dropped the intent to terminate Hook, stating to Hook that it had “taken into consideration your remorse for the post, your past record of service, and the university’s interest in efficient operations.” On October 8, Hook asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit against the university.

Scholars at Risk is concerned about a university’s attempt to fire a faculty member over private commentary on a matter of public concern, in violation of principles of academic freedom and free expression. Academics enjoy the same rights as all other persons, including the full scope of freedom of expression in their personal communications. In the United States specifically, under the First Amendment, public universities as government entities may not restrict the freedom of expression (free speech) of their employees when they speak as private citizens, and must refrain from retaliatory actions that punish, restrict, or chill such private expression.

SAR is further concerned that the attempt to fire Hook was made in apparent acquiescence to pressure from outside the university, specifically from elected officials. While elected officials have the right to express their opinions, they also have a responsibility to refrain from using their positions to threaten or otherwise intrude on the autonomy of higher education institutions to manage their operations. Meanwhile, university leaders have a responsibility to resist outside interference into the content of teaching and research. When university leaders fail to meet these responsibilities, they not only harm the immediate victims, they undermine academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and democratic society generally.

Sources:
https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2025/09/13/university-south-dakota-professor-set-be-fired-over-post-calling-charlie-kirk-hate-spreading-nazi/
https://www.newsweek.com/college-professor-who-called-charlie-kirk-a-nazi-handed-legal-win-10494271
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/09/26/court-order-reinstates-sd-prof-fired-kirk-comments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/09/25/charlie-kirk-shooting-professor-south-dakota/
https://www.newsweek.com/university-drops-bid-fire-professor-over-charlie-kirk-post-10828667
https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/education/2025/10/06/usd-sdbor-university-of-south-dakota-board-of-regents-professor-dismiss-lawsuit/86550989007/