A tenured University of South Dakota (USD) art professor, who sued the school and the South Dakota Board of Regents (SDBOR) last month for intending to terminate his position over his social media posts about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, has moved to dismiss the lawsuit. USD has since reinstated the professor.On September 10, art professor Michael Hook made comments about the deadly shooting of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist and cofounder of the conservative organization Turning Point USA, known for advocating for gun rights and condemning abortion; Kirk had a crucial impact on Trump’s reelection in 2024.In the post, Hook reportedly wrote: “I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate-spreading Nazi, a shrug maybe. I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate-spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better. Maybe good people can now enter their lives.”About three hours later, the post was deleted and Hook issued an apology “to those who were offended.”The damage, however, had already been done. South Dakota political leaders, including Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden and Republican House Speaker Jon Hansen, pushed the issue with public criticisms of Hook that called his termination. On September 12, SDU moved to fired Hook and placed him on administrative leave.In response, Hook, who has taught at USD since 2006, sued SDBOR president Tim Rave, USD president Sheila Gestring, and USD College of Fine Arts dean Bruce Kelley over his termination on September 23.“The debate about Mr. Kirk’s beliefs is for the marketplace of ideas,” the lawsuit explained. “The First Amendment guarantees the marketplace stays open. The government may not punish people for their ideas.”USD students organized a petition calling for Hook’s reinstatement that received nearly 22,000 signatures. The petition states that Hook’s Facebook post “was in no way affiliated with the University,” and that firing him for exercising his first amendment right “gives our campus the idea that we are not allowed to use our right to the Freedom of Speech.”On October 3, Gestring sent Hook a letter withdrawing the university’s intent to terminate his contract. According to the Argus Leader, she reportedly stressed the importance of balancing the right to free speech with the “responsibility vested in educators to their students and the university community.”SDBOR policy dictates that faculty members respect others’ opinions and indicate when they aren’t speaking on behalf of the university.“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,” Gestring continued.Reasons for reinstating Hook included his public apology and his previous employment record.Shortly thereafter, on October 6, Hook issued a notice of dismissal, stating, “Defendants have returned Professor Hook to his full duties, and have not punished him in any way, nor do they seek to punish him in any way. So Professor Hook has received the relief he sought in this lawsuit, which makes this case moot.”“I love this work and this university as much now as when I came here 19 years ago,” Hook told the Argus Leader. “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.”Hook is just one of many educators across the country who has faced discipline and termination after sharing thoughts and opinions on social media about Kirk’s murder. Currently, a high school art teacher in Iowa, a teacher’s aide in South Carolina, and a Ball State University employee filed lawsuits after they too were fired.The Ball State employee is represented by the ACLU of Indiana. Stevie Pactor, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Indiana, said in a statement: “People do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they are hired by government institutions. Public employees are free to speak on matters of public concern, so long as they are speaking as private citizens. Swierc’s Facebook post clearly meets these criteria, and her termination was unconstitutional.”