Response to the Termination of Suzanne Swierc
The Ball State University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
Preamble
The Ball State University chapter of the American Association of University Professors (BSU AAUP) strongly and unequivocally condemns violence and the celebration of violence. Indeed, true threats, incitement of imminent lawless action (i.e., “fighting words”), defamation (a false statement of fact rather than opinion), and other exceptions to the First Amendment exist and do not constitute protected speech on or off campus. Additionally, celebrating violence does not align with the chapter’s and University’s commitment to beneficence and respect of the dignity of all persons.
The BSU AAUP also strongly condemns politically motivated attempts to censor private speech by making statements of opinions about the legacy of public figures tantamount to celebrating their death, inciting violence, or hate speech. Ball State University has a Freedom of Expression statement, which states that the “University guarantees all members of the University community—including students, faculty, staff, and visitors—the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.” We recognize that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences. However, we believe that the decision by Ball State University leadership to terminate Suzanne Swierc was not in line with its own commitment to free expression. Ms. Swierc was expressing herself on her private Facebook page. She did not incite violence nor celebrate it. The stated reason for her termination – that she caused “significant disruption to the University’s mission and operations” – indicates leadership giving in to political pressure to fire BSU personnel due to the actions of Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and billionaire Elon Musk using their influence to turn large numbers of followers against her. We believe that had these major political and public figures not shared Ms. Swierc’s post, the University would not have terminated her. Thus it is not her words but the actions of non-BSU employees that are rightfully to blame for the disruption of university operations.
Facts of the Case
Around 9:55 AM on Friday, September 12, 2025, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita shared the private social media post of BSU employee, Ms. Suzanne Swierc. In the original post, Swierc stated:
Let me be clear: if you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can’t be friends.
His death is a tragedy, and I can and do feel for his wife and children.
I believe in the Resurrection, and while it’s difficult, I can and do pray for his soul.
Charlie Kirk’s death is a reflection of the violence, fear, and hatred he sowed. It does not excuse his death. AND it’s a sad truth.
The shooting is a tragedy, and I can and do feel for a college campus experiencing an active shooter situation.
The deaths of Melissa and Mark Hortman, the children shot and killed in Minneapolis last month, and the children shot in Colorado today are all tragedies that also deserve your attention.
Charlie Kirk excused the deaths of children in the name of the second amendment.
Around 5:30 PM on the 12th, Ball State University released a statement on Facebook:
The administration at Ball State University is aware of social media posts by university employees. Both posts were on the employees’ personal accounts, and the posts do not reflect the culture on our campus nor the enduring values of the university. The administration is gathering additional information about the posts in order to determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate and permissible under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
On the morning of Saturday, September 13, 2025, the Muncie Star Press published an article about the posts by Swierc and another by BSU employee, Felicia Gray. The article added that Elon Musk also shared Swierc’s post on his platform, X.
On Wednesday, September 17, at 4 PM, Ms. Swierc met with Melissa Rubrecht, Director of Employee Relations. At this meeting, Ms. Swierc was informed that her position at Ball State was terminated. She was given a letter written by Ball State President Geoffrey Mearns, which cited the disruption caused to the campus community by her social media post as the reason for termination. The letter noted that Mearns made the decision with Dr. Ro-Anne Royer Engle, Vice President of Student Affairs.
Around 5:15 PM that same day, the official account of the University released the following statement on its Facebook page:
On September 10, 2025, Ms. Suzanne Swierc posted a statement on social media related to the assassination of Mr. Charlie Kirk. Our Administration determined the post was inconsistent with the distinctive nature and trust of Ms. Swierc’s leadership position at Ball State University and that the post caused significant disruption to the University.
Consistent with recent case law in the Seventh Circuit, specifically, Hedgepeth v Britton, No. 24-14277 (7th Cir. 2025), our Administration evaluated the impact of the significant disruption to the University’s mission and operations and the effect of the post on her ability to perform her work in her leadership position.
As a result of the review, our Administration terminated Ms. Swierc’s employment, effective immediately.
No additional information will be released on this personnel matter.
A separate post on a second employee’s personal account remains under investigation by our Administration., No additional information will be released on that post at this time.
Ball State University’s Freedom of Expression Policy
Ball State University affirms a commitment to “free and open inquiry in all matters” in its Freedom of Expression Statement, recognizing that “ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict.” Sections 1.2 and 1.3 are particularly relevant to the situation at hand:
It is not the proper role of our University, however, to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Our University greatly values civility…but concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, irrespective of how offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.
…Our University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University…these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with our University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.
Section 1.6 of the Freedom of Expression Policy, added after implementation of Indiana’s SEA 202/PL 113, goes on to clarify that nothing in the statement is meant to restrict private activities, and that university personnel expressing personal opinions should avoid appearance of making statements on behalf of the university by avoiding the use of Ball State logos or other identifying marks. Nowhere on Ms. Swierc’s private Facebook page did she list Ball State as her place of employment. Additionally, the post in question was set to “friends only,” a feature whereby the post is only visible to Facebook friends of the poster.
At a Know Your Rights event hosted by the Ball State AAUP on February 21, 2025, Director of Employee Relations Melissa Rubrecht stated that the Office of People and Culture regularly receives calls from community members complaining about employee posts on social media, and Ms. Rubrecht assured faculty and staff that she does not take these into consideration. While BSU leadership has cited Hedgepeth v. Britton (2025) in arguing that Ms. Swierc’s post caused a “significant disruption to the University’s mission and operations,” we note that this is a sharp deviation from how the Office of People and Culture explained such cases were handled earlier this year. We also believe that Ms. Swierc’s post would not have generated such significant disruption had she not been targeted by Attorney General Rokita and Elon Musk. Indeed, by capitulating to the public targeting of Ms. Swierc brought about by AG Rokita, we believe that BSU leadership is deviating from §1.7 of the Freedom of Expression Policy, which states:
While Ball State is committed to each individual’s right to speak, the University itself does not typically take a public stance on political, moral, or ideological issues. Our University takes positions on such issues only when they affect our core mission or our commitment to free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity long serving as the bedrock foundation of higher education and the pursuit of knowledge.
The Necessity for the Free Exchange of Ideas in Higher Education
As emphasized in the BSU Freedom of Expression Statement, a flourishing marketplace of ideas requires the safeguarding of the freedom to share opinions and ideas that others in our pluralistic society may find disagreeable or offensive. Public figures who were heavily involved in politics will evoke many diverse opinions about their actions and legacy, and falsely equivocating negative opinions with celebrating violence or other exceptions to First Amendment protections chills speech, creating an environment where ideas can no longer be exchanged out of fear that one’s livelihood or wellbeing will be threatened should enough influential people disagree. When political figures like AG Rokita decry expressions of private opinion, this also chills speech, as people fear becoming targets of politically-motivated harassment. Additionally, many disciplines in higher education, such as history, political science, criminal justice, sociology, and others require the discussion of controversial political and public figures, which may evoke deeply divided, uncomfortable, and disagreeable feelings among discussants even when conducted with civility. We fear that if private opinion about public figures is censored, public teaching about public figures will face an even greater chilling effect.The BSU AAUP is deeply concerned that politically-motivated sharing of these private opinions and the firing of one of their authors is not only a violation of the First Amendment rights that the University extols, but will also lead to further chilling of the free exchange of ideas necessary for higher education to function. Without united efforts against political overreach, more are at risk of facing similar fates for their public and private comments whenever a situation is politically fraught. We will continue to monitor situations like these that arise, and we ask that all members of the BSU community work alongside us in protecting free speech. We must unite to defend the foundational principles of free speech and academic freedom in higher education, rather than allowing disagreements about political and public figures to divide us. To this end, we follow in the lead of our national organization in sharing resources for online engagement and echo its call to university leadership not to rush to judgment in a way that erodes the very principles that enable universities to function.