VANESSA MILLER The Gazette
CEDAR FALLS — Shy of firing university employees who made inflammatory comments following the fatal shooting of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk last week, Iowa’s Board of Regents on Wednesday directed its three public campuses to launch immediate investigations into any employee accused of violating their social media policy.
The directive — which received unanimous support from the nine regents — set a two-week deadline for the campus investigations, also mandating the universities place on administrative leave or remove from the classroom any employees under investigation.
The universities did not immediately provide a number of employees under investigation on each of the campuses.
But the regent directive authorized the institutions to “take immediate action up to and including termination” against any employee found to have committed a violation. The board also authorized the universities to “initiate and investigate” any future alleged violations, including placing employees on leave.
Among the comments discussed in the board’s closed session Wednesday was one social media post from an Iowa State University financial aid adviser.
“Given Charlie’s previous comments about their ‘necessity’ to protect 2nd amendment rights though, this (expletive) got what was coming and I’m happy he’s rotting in hell now,” ISU adviser Caitlyn Spencer wrote after the Sept. 10 killing — sparking widespread outrage across multiple platforms, attracting millions of views and retweets from former New York mayor and Donald Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who demanded she be fired.
Another ISU employee — assistant professor of religious studies George Archer — also is accused of posting on social media, “Yeah sorry pretty sure we’re all OK with political violence. Every. One. Of. Us.”
Links to both employees’ bio pages on the ISU website, as of Wednesday, were inactive.
In a letter to the board over the weekend, Rep. Taylor Collins, R-Mediapolis — who chairs the committee on higher education — and Republican Sen. Lynn Evans, who chairs the committee on education, said “multiple university employees publicly celebrated (Kirk’s) killing online” and should be fired for it.
“Boilerplate press releases will not solve the culture problem on our college campuses — only decisive action with a clear red line,” according to the letter. “Today, we are calling for any university employees who celebrated the death of their fellow American to be terminated immediately. The trust of Iowa’s institutions of higher education is at stake, and it is upon you specifically to ensure this trust is not further deteriorated.”
Social media policy
The regent policy central to the investigations is its “freedom of expression” section — which includes a portion on social media. That section clarifies a university’s “proper role is in supporting and encouraging freedom of inquiry by fostering opportunities for the expression of differing views regarding many issues in multiple areas of study, research, and debate, including current political, social, and public policy issues.”
The universities, per the policy, shouldn’t do anything to require or “unduly pressure members of the campus community, in their personal capacities, to express or adopt a particular viewpoint on a political, social or public policy matter.”
Although the universities can take institutional positions or make statements on political, social, or public policy matters when they’re central to the mission, those statements must align with the board’s official position.
And while official university social media accounts and posts can’t be used for personal political commentary or advocacy, the policy states that, “Employees are free to express personal opinions on their personal social media accounts, consistent with the First Amendment.”
“When doing so,” according to the policy, “it is the employee’s responsibility to make clear that they are speaking in their private capacity and not on behalf of the university or the Board of Regents.”
And, under some circumstances, the universities can act to “prevent harm to the university, our campus community, and its mission” — like if an employee’s personal expression involves threatening or intimidating speech toward a co-worker.
‘Action will be much faster’
Before voting on the motion directing the campus investigations on Wednesday, regent Christine Hensley expressed concern with how little investigation has occurred — preventing the board from taking more decisive action.
“So I just want to be on record that the lack of investigation really has, I would say, slowed the process,” she said.
Regent David Barker countered that he nearly voted no on the motion because he believes — in at least one case — there is “very little investigation to do.”
“But I wouldn’t want that vote to be interpreted as opposing taking action,” he said. “So it’s my expectation that, in at least some cases, action will be much faster than in two weeks.”
Regent Robert Cramer said that while he read “some appalling things on social media in the last week,” the board also understands “that some appalling things are protected by the First Amendment.”
“So the purpose of this is to delve in and to see if any of these cross the threshold to where they’re so disruptive to the university that they still need discipline in an employment sense,” Cramer said. “We’re not talking about punishing anyone for what they said or posted, but we’re also saying there’s not an absolute right to employment if that employee is disrupting the university.”
Read more on Muscatine Journal
