Free Speech Lawsuit By Law Prof Fired For Using “n” and “b” on Exam Question Revived by Appeals Court
Prof. Jason Kilborn’s offense was using the “n” and “b” words on an exam. Not the words themselves, but literally the letters “n” and “b” in a question about employment discrimination.
We have been following the case of Professor Jason Kilborn of the University of Illinois-Chicago John Marshall Law School, who was forced into a demeaning racial re-education program for trivial “offenses” designed to prepare his students for the real world:
Professor Jacobson told the evil tale:
Not all of academia is mean-spirited, vindictive, and vicious. But enough of it is that the term “cancel culture” — a concept most associated with campuses — has penetrated the broader culture. The University of Illinois-Chicago John Marshall School of Law is a prime example of all of the above pathologies, an institution that is psychologically torturing a professor just because it thinks it can.
We have covered so many of these attacks on professors, and there is a pattern – much like in the Maoist Cultural Revolution, students frequently are the aggressors who consider it their right to end a career as “accountability” for perceived offense. The difference in campus culture is not so much student activists, that’s a given almost everywhere, it’s whether the administration becomes a party to the cancel culture.
Which brings me to the case of Prof. Jason Kilborn of the third-tier U. Illinois-Chicago Marshall Law School (not to be confused with the University of Chicago Law School, a top 10 school). At UIC, the administration seems to be enjoying being tormentor-in-chief.
Prof. Kilborn’s offense was using the “n” and “b” words on an exam. Not the words themselves, but literally the letters “n” and “b” in a question about employment discrimination.
After Black Law School Association students complained, Kilborn apologized and settled the case with the administration.
Well, not really, as Professor Jacobson explained:
Case close, right? No, it’s never case closed.
Despite the apparent agreement, UIC is now demanding that Prof. Kilborn go through re-education on “inclusion” including by taking a course taught at [Cornell University]…
This is nothing short of an attempt to humiliate Prof. Kilborn through a reeducation and supervisory program that would make Maoist Red Guards blush.
This is repressive and abusive. UIC John Marshall Law School is a disgrace.
So Professor Kilborn sued: UIC Law Prof. Jason Kilborn Sues After University Tried To Force Him Into Humiliating Racial Reeducation Program:
Now Prof. Kilborn has sued, as announced by…FIRE. And there’s a twist I was not previously award of, the reducation program UIC demanded Prof. Kilborn attend used the terms, wait for it, “N” and “B” to signify pejoratives — the very terms for which Prof. Kilborn was being disciplined…
Prof. Kilborn asserts violation of his First Amendment rights[. From the Complaint]:
49. Defendants have purported to punish Plaintiff for speech that expresses “anger, dissatisfaction, and disappointment related to issues of race” or that “demonstrate[s] racial insensitivity and even hostility to those voicing concerns about a racially-charged topic.” This is a plainly unlawful, content based restriction on speech.
Remarkably, the federal district court where Kilborn sued threw out his Complaint, saying that he had no First Amendment right to free speech in the classroom.
Fortunately, Kilborn appealed the case to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, and they have now reinstated Kilborn’s free speech claim.
From the Courthouse News Service: Seventh Circuit revives Chicago law professor’s free speech retaliation claim against university officials:
A three-judge Seventh Circuit appellate panel partially sided with a University of Illinois Chicago law professor on Wednesday, reversing a lower court’s dismissal of his First Amendment retaliation claim against several current and former university administrators.
The appellate panel found UIC law professor Jason Kilborn had plausibly shown he suffered adverse employment actions over protected speech.
“The district court found that Kilborn’s speech was not constitutionally protected and dismissed his claim. We conclude that Kilborn has plausibly alleged that his speech is constitutionally protected and reverse the dismissal of his claim,” U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Kirsch, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in the panel’s 25-page opinion.
The appellate panel on Wednesday…disagreed with [district judge Sara Ellis’] conclusions regarding the professor’s First Amendment retaliation claim.
“Kilborn’s exam question, out-of-class statements, and in-class remarks are all academic speech that address matters of public concern, notwithstanding the limited size of Kilborn’s audience,” Kirsch wrote. “The exam question was designed to give students experience confronting a highly charged situation that they may encounter in real-life practice and to be a continuation of the learning that occurred in the classroom.”
Besides reversing Ellis’ ruling on Kilborn’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the appellate panel also vacated the district judge’s dismissal of Kilborn’s state law claims “for further consideration.”
Kirsch was joined on the appellate panel by U.S. Circuit Judges Ilana Rovner and David Hamilton, George H. W. Bush and Barack Obama appointees respectively.
This is great news for university professors in general, but especially those for whom the slightest perceived misstep means persecution by the powers that be.
Delighted that the 7th Circuit just ruled Professor Jason Kilborn's 1st A rights were violated in this insane DEI-related case.
(I also quote @sometherapist about the kinds of ppl who support such trumped-up DEI grievances).
Link in replies. pic.twitter.com/xqMOEfc5G4
— Anita Bartholomew (@AnitaBart) March 12, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Nearsighted and bi-sexual. Right?
naggers and boo-boos.
So schools can no longer teach Huckleberry Finn?
Haven’t even been able to have that in their libraries for years.
How do you reach that conclusion???
First of all, this institution has made a policy decision that it doesn’t want to use those words, or even hint at them, and so it disciplined this professor for doing so. Presumably this institution will also not allow its employees to use Huckleberry Finn in classroom instruction. That doesn’t prevent other institutions from making a different choice.
Second, we are talking about a university, not a high school. That’s why the appeals court’s decision came out as it did. The district court was treating it as if it were a high school, and at a high school the school would have been right and the teacher wrong. A high school teacher, whenever speaking in an official capacity, is speaking for the school and not for himself. Therefore the school gets to dictate what he says, and he has no freedom of speech. Therefore also, he may not do things that the school itself may not do, such as endorsing religion. But at the university level teachers speak for themselves, not the institution. That’s why they’re allowed to endorse religion, lead prayer, etc. And it’s why the institution can’t dictate their speech.
As for actual high schools, it depends on the local school board’s policy. Some allow Huck and some don’t.
Then why are the actual words in the reeducation course that he was required to attend?
HOWEVER.. if I understand the situation correctly this prof posed the question in an exam. and was pilloried after the fact. Had the school formed a poicy agaiunst such terminology PRIOR to the writing ifthis exam questionyou would have a point. Had he been invormed after the fact of his “oopsie” then put the same question later on to a different class, they’d have some grounds. But he did what he did, and they came unglued and sarted their “treatment”.
How’s he spozed ta know “the line which cannot be crossed” with no specific instruction until after the fact? .
I will wager a truckload of gold against your empty peanut shells that these law students will, very soon after going to work in their intended trade, come across far more insulting and offensive material as they spend time in courtrooms. If they are all coddled and sheltered as thus university seems to demand HOW will they be able to function in the real world once out in it?
Ask any boxer how well he thinks he’d do in a real match if, during all his training, he had never taken a punch to the face? Such a boxer would not last fifteen seconds after the bell first sounds. He’d fold like a sweaty pair of gymn shorts dropped on the floor. No chance such soft and coddled “lawyers” would have of surving their first year at the bar. .
Freedom of expression. They’re expressing that they’re more virtuous that he is.
That district court judge should be impeached as stupid and disbarred as an embarrassment to the profession. How much crap have left wing nuts thrown around in the classroom and then protected from consequences by muh free speech bleatings.
Sara Ellis – Obama
November 21, 2018
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts clashed Wednesday in an extraordinary public dispute over the independence of America’s judiciary, with Roberts bluntly rebuking the president for denouncing a judge who rejected his migrant asylum policy as an “Obama judge.”
There’s no such thing, Roberts declared in a strongly worded statement contradicting Trump and defending judicial independence.
Considering the deluge of lawsuits by “O” and “B” judges, maybe that will finally (gasp) awaken Roberts. Frankly, is Roberts an “E” judge from the “Island”?
Since it would be practically impossible to impeach all the radical leftists Federal District judges there appears to be a better and more feasible alternative.
If by 2028 the GOP controls the house and expands its Senate majority north of 60 they can and should restructure the Federal courts.
Since Congress established the District courts they can abolish and replace them. Perhaps the answer is separate courts for criminal and civil actions and just a few central courts to address challenges to the executive branch. All existing Federal judges would still be paid and could be considered for the new courts but would need new Senate confirmation.
One last touch would be to locate the few courts for challenges to the executive branch in red areas where at least the appearance of Justice is possible.
I don’t think this is as much a free speech issue as the ability for a professor to teach relevant subject matter in the classroom. If the class had been art for example and the teacher started ranting about Mexicans or Trump or Trudeau that would be entirely inappropriate. For a law professor teaching a course in law about a case that might actually come up and what should be done about it is appropriate. For the too sensitive black kids that complained about the letters, life is hard wear a helmet.
I was walking by a music theory class that had its door propped open, the professor was complaining about Latinos who supported Trump.
I am in shock that the remedial course demanded by this law school uses the same initials to represent the banned words that this prof used on the exam!!! How bizarre! This must be why Chicago-Illinois Law School is considered a third tier school!
I am a graduate of John Marshall Law School.
I am ashamed of the school’s leadership.
Law school should prepare its students to face factual issues and expect that the students will effectively analyze the situation.
The test’s question was drafted in an overly sensitive manner by not spelling out the offensive words.
I cannot comprehend how anyone could object to the question that was written with the clear intent of not offending anyone with an actual factual question the students could face in the real world.
In the real world, lawyers are expected to represent truly evil persons. e.g. John Wayne Gacy,
The only thing wrong with this professor is that he did not spell out the full words. This is a law school and warriors are expected to hear things that make them uncomfortable.
^ voice to text, Google heard “Lawyers” as ‘warriors ‘
Leave a Comment