It’s Constitution Day! Is the First Amendment in Danger?

From my perspective as a criminal justice professor and veteran, I have been shocked at the lack of hesitation (or due process) taken before the mass terminations after someone posts their thoughts on social media. And I suspect I would be in good company if Charlie was still alive. More than being conservative, Kirk was a Christian, and Christians are designed to respond in other ways that don’t default to retaliation. We are taught to be proactive, not reactive, and certainly not vengeful.

I am most concerned for this reason: The political landscape changes in America every so many years. The conservatives aren’t always in power, and neither are the liberals. But America also has a history of backlash, or payback, when the tit-for-tat of reactions is justified by the opposite response years prior. The courts call that precedence.

Imagine these scenarios if you don’t see a slippery slope:

* The Pronoun Stand. This is an ethical minefield. As a professor, my role is to teach, not to violate my conscience. What happens when my beliefs about language and identity, rooted in my faith, clash with a university’s demands? A simple request to use a student’s given name instead of a pronoun could be seen as an act of hostility. The response isn’t a conversation; it’s a disciplinary hearing if I am lucky. This bypasses due process and turns professional disagreement into a career-ending offense.

 * The “Problematic” Reading List. My field, criminal justice, is full of historical figures whose ideas are foundational but also deeply flawed. To understand the systems we have, we must study their origins, warts and all. What happens if I assign a text by a historical figure with views now considered racist? Will a student’s complaint lead to my termination? We’re setting a precedent that requires professors to sanitize the past, which is a dangerous thing for anyone who believes in teaching truth.

 * The “Hateful” Student Group. I advise a student group. What if its code of conduct, rooted in its faith, is deemed discriminatory by the university’s (revived) DEI policies? My association with that group, even as a faculty advisor, could be grounds for my termination. It’s a dangerous precedent where a professor can be fired not for their own actions, but for their association with a group that holds unpopular beliefs.

 * The Controversial Guest. What happens when I invite a guest speaker to campus to discuss a complex topic, like the history of policing or the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment? If that speaker holds views that are unpopular, and they are met with protests and accusations, could I lose my job for simply facilitating a conversation? The precedent we’re setting is that certain views are not just wrong; they are so wrong that anyone who engages with them can be professionally punished.

 * The Public Statement of Faith. As a Christian, my faith informs my commitment to justice and truth. What happens if I write an article or an op-ed where I state that? Is my work considered less valid? The precedent being set is that professors must hide their personal (and by extension, religious) convictions or risk being accused of proselytizing, which is not only a violation of free speech but also a fundamental misunderstanding of academic integrity.

 * The Off-Campus Prayer. I recently attended an event and was seen praying with a group of students. A photo was taken and posted on social media. What happens if someone complains that this violates the “separation of church and state”? Could I be accused of using my position to coerce students? This precedent would make it dangerous for Christian professors to be open about their faith, even in their personal lives.

 * The Misinterpreted Social Media Post. The current climate is one of hair-trigger outrage. A simple “like” on a post could be used to frame me as a supporter of a hateful ideology. My record as a professor and veteran would be irrelevant. The precedent is this: our public discourse has become a weapon. We must all be wary of setting precedents that allow people to be terminated without a full hearing.

We are setting a precedent. Whether good or bad, I’ll let you decide. But it has me concerned.

Final word: These thoughts are my own, offered solely to spark a respectful conversation. You know, like the good old days before we were taught to treat our friends, neighbors, and relatives as enemies just for thinking differently. My employer was neither consulted nor intended to be represented in any way by the above combination of words.