USD Abandons Push to Fire Professor Hook for Free Speech, with No Apology for Violating First Amendment

On Friday, University of South Dakota professor of fine arts Dr. Michael Hook received notice from USD President Sheila K. Gestring that the university will no longer press its losing case to fire him for calling dead Charlie Kirk a “hate-spreading Nazi”.

Dr. Hook is pleased that he can keep teaching and hopes the state has learned a valuable lesson:

This afternoon the State ended its attempt to punish me for my speech. I am thrilled that I can continue teaching my students at the University of South Dakota. I love this work and this university as much now as when I came here nineteen years ago.

I hope the State now understands that the First Amendment prohibits it from punishing anyone for speech about public issues—no matter how much State or national leaders or others disagree with it [Professor Michael Hook, public statement issued via counsel, 2025.10.03].

Alas, President Gestring’s letter of de-termination to Dr. Hook doesn’t read like the essay of a chastened student with a newfound appreciation for the First Amendment. In her letter, USD’s boss ignores the federal court’s finding that our First Freedom protects Dr. Hook’s public commentary, makes only glancing and subordinating mention of the First Amendment, says he is keeping his job only because he expressed remorse for speaking up, and warns Dr. Hook and other Regental employees that they’d better watch their mouths if they want to keep their jobs. [I quote the letter in full, with come commentary inserted in brackets.]

Dear Professor Hook,

[Use a colon after the greeting of a formal business letter, especially one of this gravity; commas are for personal communication.]

On September 12, 2025, you were notified of the University’s intent to terminate your contract as Professor with the University of South Dakota. The reasons given for the intended discipline were violation of SDBOR Policy 4.4.8 and SDBOR Policy 1.6.1, stemming from a post you made on your Facebook account on September 10, 2025. Your Facebook account identified you as a faculty member at the University of South Dakota. In the post, you used expletives and referred to a public figure as a “hate spreading Nazi” while acknowledging that you didn’t “even know who he was.”

[“Expletives”: Dr. Gestring stretches for the plural. Dr. Hook used one clearly obscene exclamatory phrase: “I don’t give a flying fuck about this Kirk person.” The only other arguable expletive in Dr. Hook’s initial Facebook post lies in, “But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot?”]

[Dr. Gestring misrepresents Dr. Hook’s statement to make it sound like he knew nothing about Charlie Kirk. But read the context: after the shooting, Dr. Hook wrote, “Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was.” Dr. Hook’s statement of ignorance of Charlie Kirk is in the past tense: “wasn’t paying close enough attention.” The shooting and press coverage captured Hook’s attention, and Hook learned quickly that Kirk was part of the “idiotic right fringe“.]

Pursuant to BOR Policy 4.4.8, Section C.4.2.1, you were invited to a personal conference in which you could present reasons why the intended discipline should not occur. Upon receipt of the notice of intended discipline, you immediately verbally expressed remorse in your actions.

On September 26, you waived your right to the personal conference. In lieu of the personal conference, you submitted a written response through counsel requesting that the intended discipline of termination not be imposed. The written response reiterated that on September 10, you voluntarily removed the post and publicly apologized. It appears that this public apology and removal of the first post occurred within a few hours of the original post. Your statement in lieu of personal conference indicated that the second post, apologizing for the first, was a better reflection of who you are.

We have taken into consideration your remorse for the post, your past record of service, and the University’s interest in efficient operations. Based upon these factors, the University, in consultation with the Board of Regents, hereby withdraws its intent to terminate your contract.

[Glaringly absent from President Gestring’s list of reasons not to fire Dr. Hook: the First Amendment.]

As we move forward, we are also mindful of our faculty’s interest in speaking on matters of public concern and the importance of the First Amendment.

[Ah, there it is, the bedrock of American liberty and intellectual inquiry, freedom of expression. But we—Dr. Gestring, the university, the state—are not bound by the First Amendment, not unwaveringly committed to it. No, we are merely mindful of it. We’ll think about it, but don’t think we’ll let such a trifle get in the way of our far greater concerns, to which we will dedicate far more text, because we aren’t the ones who screwed up; you and your big fat mouth are:]

However, our faculty must also balance the right to free speech with the responsibility vested in educators to their students and the university community. You are reminded that BOR Policy 1.6.1 calls on faculty members to “at all times, be accurate, show respect for the opinions of others and make every effort to indicate when they are not speaking for the institution.” Being accurate and informed, and demonstrating respect for others are important virtues of faculty. “As learned people and as educators, [faculty] should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances.” (BOR Policy 1.6.1). Public utterances that reflect an uninformed, disrespectful approach to discourse call into question the fitness of a faculty member to discharge their important duties and can undermine the public trust in our institution.

The University expects that you will continue to recognize your special obligation as a member of the faculty to model informed and civil discourse. You must show through example “that members of stable, effective and prosperous social organizations observe norms of conduct under which all participants treat one another civilly and carry out their respective tasks in a constructive and informed manner.” (SDBOR Statement Concerning Faculty Expectations). You should at all times be cognizant of these duties and conduct yourself in a manner that strengthens the public trust in our institution.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Sheila K. Gestring
President, University of South Dakota

Translation: The university did nothing wrong. You, Professor Hook, did wrong, speaking uninformedly and disrepectfully, and we’d have canned your ass and been right to do so if you hadn’t acknowledged your wrongness and apologized. So watch your step.

Judge Karen Schreier didn’t determine whether Dr. Hook spoke with sufficient information or respect or remorse after the fact. She didn’t need to. Informed or not, respectful or not, regretted and apologized away or not, Dr. Hook’s statement that he cared naught for a hate-spreading Nazi is protected free speech:

The court concludes that Hook spoke as a citizen and his speech was on a matter of public concern. While at home and off work, Hook made the first post on his private Facebook page. Docket 4 ¶ 2; see Docket 4-2. Defendants note that Hook’s Facebook page identified himself as a professor at the University of South Dakota, Docket 9 at 2-3, but this alone does not show that a post made on his personal Facebook account is speech that arises from Hook’s duties as a professor. See McGee, 471 F.3d at 921. Hook’s first post also constitutes speech on a matter of public concern. Hook’s first post discussed the murder of a public figure—Charlie Kirk—and went on to question the difference in reactions between the murder of Kirk and other recent public murders and shootings. See Docket 4-2 (comparing the public reaction to Kirk’s murder to the public reactions to the murders of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, the attempted murders of Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman, and the shootings at Evergreen High School in Colorado). This is speech that can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Lane, 573 U.S. at 241. At the TRO hearing, defendants did not dispute Hook’s assertion that his Facebook post constituted speech on a matter of public concern. Based on the above, the court concludes that Hook’s speech is entitled to First Amendment protection [Judge Karen Schreier, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Hook v Rave et al., 2025.09.24, p. 7].

President Gestring is fig-leafing the state’s failure to respect the First Amendment. The truly uninformed and disrespectful speakers here are Governor Larry Rhoden and Speaker of the House Jon Hansen. They said publicly that Dr. Hook’s speech was unacceptable and intolerable. They publicly called for Dr. Hook’s firing. Governor Rhoden and Speaker Hansen spoke uninformedly about and disrespectfully of the First Amendment, which is part of the Constitution that they have both taken oaths to uphold. Even after being reinformed of their obligation to respect the First Amendment, Governor Rhoden and Speaker Hansen have not deleted their Constitutionally uninformed (and misinforming!) and disrespectful posts and have expressed no public remorse for their dangerous error.

If anyone deserves termination, or at least a stern talking-to, for making “Public utterances that reflect an uninformed, disrespectful approach to discourse”, it’s Governor Rhoden and Speaker Hansen.