What Happened to the University’s Commitment to Free Expression? Charlie Kirk, uAlberta, and Me
I was shocked when the University of Alberta administration informed me, one of its law professors, that I was being placed on non-disciplinary leave for my social media comments in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—comments that unquestionably fall within the scope of academic freedom and freedom of expression. I know that many others have been placed on leave, disciplined, or fired for their comments, and feel compelled to speak up in light of my firm belief that the health of a democratic society depends upon its protection of academic freedom and freedom of expression.
The University of Alberta has one of the strongest policies on freedom of expression of any university in Canada and its academic staff collective agreement protects academic staff rights to speak frankly on matters of public importance, as part of their academic freedom. Why would it bow to antidemocratic pressures by placing a professor on leave without their request, consent, or involvement? That any university would do this is beyond comprehension and is cause for alarm about the future of academic freedom in Canada.
The University of Alberta has equivocated on the reason for placing me on leave, emphasizing safety concerns while also alluding to “concerns” about social media posts I have made. See appendix below for a full chronology of events.
Let me be clear. None of my social media comments fall under the categories of expression that may be restricted according to the Statement on Freedom of Expression at the University of Alberta, namely “expression that violates law, causes the university to violate law, violates applicable university policies, procedures or collective agreements, falsely defames, constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, or unjustifiably violates privacy or confidentiality interests.” The social media post in question boils down to an affirmation that the terrible assassination of Charlie Kirk does not require us to sanitize his hateful legacy. People may certainly agree or disagree with it, but it was not violent, hateful, harassing, discriminatory, illegal, or otherwise beyond the scope of academic freedom.
Now back on campus, I cannot help but feel that the imposition of leave was a means of punishing me, as well as warning me that I may face repercussions for my exercise of academic freedom and freedom of expression. By placing me on leave, the University implicitly condoned and supported the targeted harassment of progressive academics across the United States and Canada for expressing a wide range of views critical of Charlie Kirk as part of a large-scale effort to have them terminated. In heeding this harassment campaign, the University echoes the United States government’s foray into McCarthyism and Nazi-like behaviour. The fact that the harassment campaign seemingly resulted from outraged posts by a National Post columnist should not be forgotten, either. In addition to the unnecessary stress and injury to my professional reputation caused by the decision to place me on leave, the events send a chilling message to members of the University community, including fellow faculty, staff and students who may now feel pressured to censor their protected speech. As a law professor actively involved in advancing human rights, I am deeply troubled.
The facts are incompatible with the claim that the non-disciplinary leave was solely motivated by safety concerns. Non-disciplinary leave was imposed without my knowledge or consultation. I was not asked about the nature and quantity of threats I received before it was imposed. I was not offered to teach virtually while security concerns are ongoing until a few days later when I suggested so myself. Had the University been genuinely concerned with safety concerns and nothing else, it should have consulted me, made abundantly clear in communications with myself and others that my comments fell squarely within my academic freedom and freedom of expression, decried attacks against my protected speech, and worked to mitigate negative reputational impacts on myself. Instead, onlookers were left with the impression that I had done something wrong and was being punished for it, an impression that was quite reasonable given the University’s actions. Moreover, I feel that the University administration’s actions have placed my long-term safety at risk by sending the message that harassment and bullying are effective means of having a professor put on leave.
Such outrageous behaviour cannot be tolerated if we are to preserve Canadian universities’ commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression. I hope that members of government and civil society will publicly express their opposition to the University of Alberta’s censorious actions and that the University will apologize, reaffirm its commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression, and undertake a review of its policies and the conduct of upper administration to ensure full protection of academic freedom in the future.
Lastly, I wish to express gratitude for the support of friends, acquaintances, peers, faculty members, and faculty leadership during this stressful process.
APPENDIX
Chronology of Events
The assassination of Charlie Kirk sparked many media stories and social media discussions regarding appropriate responses to his death. In this context, I made a post on Bluesky that criticized a New York Times headline that read “Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way,” commenting that: “You do not, in fact, ever have to hand it to the Nazis. I utterly do not care for any ‘virtues’ that someone may perceive in them.” The comment alluded to a well-known meme, drawing an analogy between the eulogization of Charlie Kirk and people who insist on highlighting that Nazis did something right, despite their evils. The post reflects my belief that while it was wrong to assassinate Charlie Kirk—which I stated explicitly in a contemporaneous post—attempts to sanitize his legacy are inappropriate. I also wrote a post noting the unsettling fact that both Charlie Kirk and Yitzhak Rabin were assassinated shortly after being publicly cursed.
On Thursday afternoon, Jamie Sarkonak of the National Post uploaded screenshots of these Bluesky post to Twitter and stated:
This person, who teaches a mandatory criminal law class at the University of Alberta, is implying that Kirk was a Nazi. This is the “be gay, do crime” trans prof who writes about “epistemic violence” and hopes for revolution.
Young lawyers-to-be are being required [sic] by @UAlbertaLaw to sit in a class with this person multiple times a week to get their degree. Required. Yes, they can switch out, but because the school runs on a cohort system for first-year crim, it's a whole process.
Her comments were shared and commented on by numerous conservative social media users, including journalist Jonathan Kay, and I soon began receiving hateful and threatening emails.
On Sunday evening, September 14, I received a letter from university administration placing me on non-disciplinary leave. The letter began as follows:
The university has received communications from various individuals expressing significant concerns about recent posts made by you on social media with respect to the death of Charlie Kirk. The university also understands that you have been subject to threats and heightened attention from media as a result of those posts.
According to the letter, leave was required “while [the university] undertakes a review of the matter and in order to prevent the possibility of violence in the working and learning environment and to ensure your safety and the safety of the university community.”
On Monday morning, September 15, students and faculty members in the Faculty of Law were informed by email that the university had been “made aware of several concerning online comments. There have also been threats targeting various faculty, staff and student groups. The university administration has placed a law professor on non-disciplinary leave while the university is conducting a review.”
At no point was I contacted by the central administration of the university as part of the review process. I was left in the dark as to the nature of the review being conducted, about whether I was being investigated for potential discipline, and about when I might expect the review to be completed and be allowed to return to campus. No steps were taken, to the best of my knowledge, to mitigate potential negative impacts on my reputation. Contacts between my union representative and university human resources yielded little new information.
On Tuesday early afternoon, September 16, pursuant to my suggestion, I was informed that I could return to online teaching for my class on the following day.
On Friday morning, September 19, I was informed that I could return to in-person teaching on Monday, safety concerns having been addressed. On September 24, I received an official letter confirming that my non-disciplinary leave was lifted as of September 22, the day I returned to in-person teaching. However, no mention was made of any review conducted by the University. The nature and conclusions of the review mentioned in the September 14 letter remain unclear.
