Using LSU's Policies and Procedures as a Guide for Navigating Faculty Free Speech Rights

Given all the recent firings, and introspection by some on the right around whether this is any different from the left's "cancel culture," I thought it would be interesting to look at LSU's policies and procedures as a discussion framework.

LSU Policy Statement 15 – Academic Freedom, Free Speech, and Tenure – and Permanent Memorandum 79 – Freedom of Speech and Expression – govern the university’s stance towards free speech and its limits (whether said limits are legally defined or institutionally-imposed). Both documents start where they should, with the fullest degree of protection for free speech and expression. Permanent Memorandum 79 says it is not the proper role of the university to shield individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, “including, without limitation, ideas and opinions [the university] finds unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”

However, they go on to express how freedom of speech and academic freedom are related, while articulating certain limits on speech that is allowed. Policy Statement 15 says that "free speech is related to academic freedom in the sense academic freedom allows for debate and discussion of competing or unpopular ideas within a discipline. However, individuals should be aware that they may be accountable for the context and words that are used."

Policy Statement 15 also clarifies that speech that is allowable by LSU’s faculty may be more narrowly tailored than the broad free speech rights granted by the First Amendment: “As members of the LSU community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens, but as scholars and educational officers, faculty members should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances and their actions, including those on social media.”

As such, it’s worth digging into certain actions that may justify termination or suspension. Within Policy Statement 15, it mentions that “LSU community members are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner appropriate to their position, with respect for the rights, views, and opinions of others.”

Permanent Memorandum 79 says that “the freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish.” It also delineates certain prohibited activities, including “provocations with fighting words or incitements to engage in immediate violence” and “threats which demonstrate a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Celebrating Charlie Kirk’s killing could easily be defined as falling beyond the “civil manner” with which faculty are expected to conduct themselves. It certainly doesn’t involve “respect for the rights, views, and opinions of others.” Further, given the attack occurred on a college campus by someone of typical college age (22), it arguably wouldn’t be “appropriate to their position” as professors to glorify or dismiss the actions which led to Kirk’s death.

There may be some exception that is applicable if the professor were to clearly indicate he or she is speaking in his or her capacity as an individual. Policy Statement 15 says, “In all instances of broadcasting a personal opinion, it is incumbent on the faculty member to clearly indicate that the opinion is personal and that they are not speaking as an institutional spokesperson. However, this does not decrease the responsibility and accountability that the faculty member bears to the governing board, the system, the state, and the nation. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have an obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom and free speech. Views expressed by individuals in their university position should be defensible by discipline, scientific, and ethical standards.”

Thus, making incendiary comments over a beer at a bar is likely distinguishable from making them on a social media platform which includes association with their employer.

Discuss.