Clemson Fires Employee, Removes 2 Faculty Members for Charlie Kirk Posts
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson confirmed that the school’s firing of the employees does not violate the state’s “political firing” statute.
Clemson University in South Carolina fired an employee and removed two faculty members from their teaching positions over posts celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson confirmed that the school’s firing of the employees does not violate the state’s “political firing” statute.
From the university:
Following an immediate and deliberate investigation into inappropriate social media content, Clemson today terminated an employee due to their social media posts.
After being notified on Friday to stay out of the classroom, two faculty members now have been removed from their teaching duties pending investigation for termination. The University will continue to follow required processes with urgency.
As these are personnel matters, no further details are available at this time. Clemson University’s commitment to the safety and well-being of our campus community remains our top priority.
A statement from Clemson University: pic.twitter.com/qtkjuuVVw2
— Clemson University (@ClemsonUniv) September 15, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So are we to conclude that the different treatment was a function of written vs. oral?
My guess is that the difference was whether or not they were in a teaching position vs an administrative or maintenance position.
Alan Wilson:
It certainly does shield glorification of violence. If he thinks it doesn’t then he needs to turn in his law license. And there were no threats posted anywhere, so bringing that up is a deliberate red herring and points to his dishonesty.
Clemson:
Again, incitement is irrelevant here; if they think it is then they need to learn the definition of incitement. And the right certainly does extend to speech that “undermines the dignity of others”.
It may be that there really are grounds for these terminations, but based on these ignorant pronouncements I would not be sure. I’d challenge both speakers to say whether they thought it would be legal to fire an employee for expressing a wish to see President Trump assassinated. Because it is black-letter law that firing such a person is not legal. So if they think it is there’s a real problem.
Probably need to see Clemson’s code. You get to make rules (no ex post facto, though) and require people to abide by them if they want to be employed. You aren’t required to seek employment where there are rules, but if you do, you can’t claim 1A violation.
Think of it like an NDA. Nobody tells you that you have to hear information that would be covered by the NDA, but if you sign it, you explicitly waive your First Amendment right to discuss it outside the bounds of the agreement.
Nope. Clemson is not allowed to make rules that contradict the constitution. Look up the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine.
If they want to fire people they have to show how the opinion expressed interferes with their ability to do the job. I think in the case of teachers they may be able to make that showing, because if students know that the teacher thinks they should be killed they will be unable to learn from that teacher.
But these statements show that both the college and the state attorney general think such statements are not protected speech, and that is just wrong.
They would have to show how celebrating Kirk’s death is different from wishing for the president’s assassination, which we know is protected speech, for which government employees can not be fired.
If an employee brings disrepute, embarrassment, disruption to the operation of the organization, damages the reputation of the employer, etc that employee should be subject to termination of employment. Not a 1A protected activity.
But these employees have not done that. Everyone knows that a university professor always speaks for himself, not for the university. That’s why they’re allowed to express religious opinions in the classroom, and lead prayer, which high school teachers are not.
The only out I see is that they can no longer effectively teach, since half the students will be frightened of them.
when the names of the guilty are not revealed it shows that there is a willingness to cover up for them; allow them back in: allow them to teach their sh somewheres else; avoid any questions etc
why are we allowing leftys to control america when they have proven to be the enemies of freedom?!?