University of Missouri employees opened their inboxes last Wednesday to find an email from UM System President Mun Choi, with a warning to take caution when expressing personal opinions on social media.
The letter, signed by Choi along with Provost Matthew Martens and Vice President of Human Resources Marsha Fischer, said that “the university’s interest in the efficiency of its operations may outweigh the employee’s rights of free expression,” and that speech capable of disrupting that efficiency may be grounds for discipline or termination.
The statement comes as institutions and businesses across the country fire workers who engage in contentious conversations online. In particular, a wave of public employees have lost their jobs after sharing their thoughts about the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.
Last week’s letter did not represent any changes to MU policy, but was a reminder to faculty and staff that, because they are employed by a public entity, their right to free speech has certain limits.
Alex Morey is a First Amendment lawyer with the free speech advocacy group Freedom Forum. She says the university’s interpretation of its employees’ First Amendment rights is sound, where current legal precedents are concerned, but could do more to show it values the principle of free speech.
“It sure would be nice to see, at this very divisive political moment, a more welcoming type statement from our public universities,” she said, “that more robustly nods to the very kinds of First Amendment and free speech rights that allow our public universities to do the critical work that they do.”
David Snyder, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit First Amendment Coalition, also reviewed the statement. Though the letter says MU respects “the rights of employees to speak as citizens on matters of public concern,” Snyder said he was troubled by the implications of some of its language.
“What that statement does, the effect that it has,” he said, “which I think is concerning from a free speech perspective, if not a First Amendment perspective, is I think it creates a chilling effect. I think it tells everybody, ‘Don't talk too much. Watch what you say.’”
Both Snyder and Morey said, if a public employee is determined to speak on a matter of public concern, they should make it clear when they’re speaking outside their role with their institution. The First Amendment, as Choi’s letter reflects, is designed to protect employees when they are speaking as American citizens.
Still, speech with the potential to create “workplace disharmony” is not as safe thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings. As Morey said, the issue is especially difficult to navigate in cases involving public school teachers and faculty.
“I would say in the educational context broadly, courts have been really deferential to public employers who show some level of disruption because of the speech of these public employees,” Morey said. “Even when those public employees are speaking very clearly on their own time, in their personal time, outside the scope of their job duties, and even when those public employees are speaking in a personal capacity on a matter of very clear public concern.”
Both experts stressed the importance of employees knowing their rights, being sure to distance their opinions from their work and seeking legal counsel when needed. Even still, Snyder said it’s “incredibly sad” that some public employees have to worry that speaking out on issues that matter to them can put their careers at risk.
“When your employer says something like this, you stand up and listen, and people don't want to lose their jobs,” Snyder said. “There really is a climate of fear right now in the country about speaking out, or even just speaking, and being punished for that. And I think that's really unfortunate.”
As of Thursday, university representatives said no employees have been terminated or placed on administrative leave under the “disruptive” speech policy.
