Many college presidents began to refrain from statements on current events in the aftermath of the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks by Hamas and Israel’s response, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and widespread campus protests.

Such statements were often sharply criticized by university communities for failing to adequately condemn Hamas as terrorists, or to recognize the suffering of the Palestinian people—or both—prompting multiple presidents to apologize for their remarks and/or refrain from future comments.

Multiple universities adopted institutional neutrality policies amid the fallout, essentially agreeing to refrain from making statements on political matters and to show more restraint, generally, on issuing statements on current events.

But following the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at an event at Utah Valley University last week, statements are flowing as institutions and presidents denounce political violence, with some leaders arguing this moment requires an exception to institutional neutrality.

An Institutional Neutrality Exception?

The University of Wyoming adopted institutional neutrality in late 2023.

But last week, President Ed Seidel released a statement “expressing disgust, outrage and sadness at this apparent politically motivated attack” and noted his sympathy for Kirk’s family.

“In the midst of this tragedy, it is important that we reaffirm the right of all to express their views freely, especially on college campuses, as Mr. Kirk did recently at UW. Political violence is never warranted, and we reaffirm our commitment to freedom of expression and respectful discourse on our campus—and the institutional neutrality that is needed to support it,” he wrote.

Wyoming also held a moment of silence for Kirk before its football game on Saturday.

Seidel has not issued remarks on other incidents of political violence, such as the June murder of Melissa Hortman, the former Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, along with her husband. Minnesota governor Tim Walz and others condemned the act as a political assassination.

University of Wyoming spokesperson Chad Baldwin told Inside Higher Ed by email that the killing of Kirk, who spoke at UW in April, prompted a statement due to several factors, including that Turning Point USA—the student organization Kirk founded—has an active chapter at UW.

“A statement was made for this case and not others for reasons that include: proximity to us; the fact that Mr. Kirk had been here recently; the impact on members of a recognized student organization on our campus; and the fact that the killing took place on a college campus,” Baldwin wrote.

Middlebury College president Ian Baucom also issued a statement following Kirk’s death in which he condemned his killing as “an evil act” and pledged to defend academic freedom.

“Most simply put: Middlebury is—and always will be—for academic freedom,” Baucom wrote last week. “We are for the academic freedom of everyone. We cannot thrive without that commitment, nor can our democracy. Those are simple truths to state. They take all our conviction and hard work to live. In these difficult days, let’s commit to living them together.”

Although Middlebury does not have an institutional neutrality policy and Baucom emphasized he was speaking in his personal capacity, he said that he takes “broad guidance from the University of Chicago’s Kalven principles,” which essentially serve as the bedrock for such policies. But he also noted that the Kalven Report concluded that universities will need to defend their interests and values when “instances will arise” that threaten institutional missions and free inquiry.

“Yesterday, tragically, was such a day and such a time, and I feel my obligation to speak,” Baucom wrote.

Middlebury College did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

Condemning Incivility

Multiple institutions have issued statements about Kirk’s killing while also announcing disciplinary actions taken against faculty, staff and students for appearing to either celebrate or downplay his death online. Some were fired for quoting Kirk’s own incendiary remarks as Republican politicians, including some top officials, pressured university leaders to dole out consequences to students and employees, raising concerns about a conservative crackdown on free speech on campuses and broadly.

Austin Peay State University, for example, fired Professor Darren Michael after he reportedly shared a screenshot of a news article in which Kirk argued gun deaths were “worth it” to preserve Second Amendment rights. Multiple GOP lawmakers called for APSU to fire Michael over the post.

“A faculty member of Austin Peay State University reshared a post on social media that was insensitive, disrespectful and interpreted by many as propagating justification for unlawful death. Such actions do not align with Austin Peay’s commitment to mutual respect and human dignity. The university deems these actions unacceptable and has terminated the faculty member,” APSU president Mike Licari wrote in a statement.

Clemson University has issued several statements about Kirk’s death in relation to “deeply inappropriate remarks made on social media” by employees, two of whom have now been fired. In the first of several statements, made Friday before the two employees were fired, Clemson officials seemed to argue that employees do not have the full protection of the First Amendment.

(Clemson did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.)

“We stand firmly on the principles of the U.S. Constitution, including the protection of free speech,” university officials wrote in a statement posted to social media last week. “However, that right does not extend to speech that incites harm or undermines the dignity of others.”

Legal experts, however, have noted that claim is counterfactual.

“It’s completely wrong,” Zach Greenberg, a First Amendment attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Inside Higher Ed. “The First Amendment absolutely protects your right to undermine the dignity of others. We have free speech so we can talk about things that many people believe are offensive, controversial and even hateful.”

He added that while there is a “narrow category of unprotected speech,” it “has to cause imminent lawless action.” For example, if a speaker called to burn down a building during a riot and the structure was actually lit on fire, that would be actionable. But only true threats are punishable.

“Discussing political ideas and viewpoints doesn’t quite cut it. We need breathing room for political hyperbole and puffery and these bombastic statements about political figures,” Greenberg said.

While Greenberg said Clemson’s statement was rare, colleges punishing employees for their speech is not. He noted that FIRE is currently receiving tips on “dozens of cases” every day.

“We’re in the cancel culture part of the tragedy cycle,” Greenberg said.