“Hark the Sound of Tarheel Voices”: Free Speech Rights for Faculty at Public Institutions

By: Seth Moore, Vol. 24 Staff Writer

In September 2025, UNC placed Professor Dwayne Dixon on administrative leave. Not only did this action spark outrage among some students. Ultimately, UNC reinstated Dixon a few days later, but this situation raised a recurring question: what are the rights of university faculty regarding free speech?

Professors and the First Amendment

University faculty’s speech is often protected under “academic freedom.” Academic freedom is the concept that faculty have the right to “teach, research, and speak about matters of public concern without being punished.” There is value in this concept because it allows faculty to explore academic interests that may be taboo and challenge students with difficult topics.

Though, academic freedom is not limitless. In 2006, the Supreme Court held in Garcetti v. Caballos that public employees were not protected by the First Amendment for speech they make within their “official duties.” However, the Court carved out an exception for “speech related to scholarship or teaching.” This exception has allowed circuit courts across the country to interpret what protections faculty speech is afforded.

But, what about speech that is not made in a faculty member’s official capacity? In 1968, the Supreme Court held in Pickering v. Board of Education that a teacher cannot be punished for speaking on a matter of public concern. The case established a balancing test that weighed “the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern” against “the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Essentially, government employers are limited in regulating private speech of public employees when those employees are speaking on a ”matter of public concern.” A “matter of public concern” is typically recognized as being speech “relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Generally, unprotected speech includes incitement of unlawful action, true threats, obscenity, fighting words, and defamation.

Professor Dwayne Dixon and UNC

As a public university, the First Amendment applies to UNC, and as such, faculty enjoy the First Amendment protections stated above. So, what led to Dixon being placed on administrative leave? The University placed Dixon on administrative leave after concerns over allegations that he advocated for politically motivated violence.

Dixon is reported to be involved with a group called “Redneck Revolt,” an organization dedicated to being a “pro-worker, anti-racist” group. The issue was that Redneck Revolt had allegedly been involved with another organization, the John Brown Gun Club, that had previously engaged in at least two attacks on ICE facilities. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the Club posted flyers at Georgetown University that were removed for concerns of political violence. The flyers consisted of statements such as “Hey fascist! Catch this!” and “The only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.”

This connection, combined with Dixon’s past behavior became a concern. In 2017, Dixon was arrested in Durham, NC for possessing a semi-automatic rifle at an anti-KKK rally. Though, the charges were dismissed. In 2018, Dixon was charged with assault in connection to protests over the Silent Sam statute at UNC. These charges were also dismissed.

Overall, given the case law, Dixon is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be punished for his private conduct unless it amounts to unprotected speech. If the allegations are true and Dixon was involved in advocating for political violence, it is unlikely that kind of speech would be protected and thus UNC would be able to act. However, if all Dixon is guilty of is advocating for political positions that, although perhaps extreme, do not constitute unprotected speech, action likely cannot be taken against him for his views. Concerns over a professor’s rhetoric are understandable, but until that professor engages in unprotected behaviors, recourse is limited because of the constitutional protections set forth by the First Amendment and the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The situation with Dixon is an interesting insight into faculty speech rights at universities. No matter one’s personal opinion of Dixon’s conduct and private associations, his situation is a good refresher of the First Amendment’s scope on university campuses.  Situations like these are not limited to left-leaning professors. Conservative faculty also experience retaliation of their own for their speech.

The takeaway is that university faculty, particularly faculty at public universities, enjoy First Amendment protections, but those protections are not limitless. Of course, these protections are not always popular, but they exist to allow professors from various backgrounds and across the political spectrum to contribute to the core function of universities to be a free marketplace of ideas.