After a staff member left GW last month over a controversial post about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, more than half a dozen higher education experts said officials need to clarify their social media policies and do more to protect free expression on campus.
The departure of former Mount Vernon Campus Assistant Director of Academic Initiatives Anthony Pohorilak in mid-September following his private Facebook post publicized by Fox News calling Kirk’s murder “fair” sparked questions among community members about what GW staff, faculty and students are allowed to post on social media and also coincided with officials’ ongoing review of the University’s current social media policy since August. More than half a dozen experts in higher education said officials need to revise GW’s social media policy to define what constitutes personal speech versus speech on behalf of the University and increase protections of faculty, staff and students’ free speech rights.
GW’s current social media policy provides guidelines for both GW-affiliated content and personal posts by community members that may appear to be endorsed by the University or that violate laws or University policies by outlining restrictions on such posts, detailing potential violations and explains enforcement measures.
The University’s current social media policy stipulates that social media use should be consistent with the University’s commitment to academic freedom and promotes thoughtful discourse on “appropriate matters,” though it doesn’t define those particular matters. The policy prohibits any posts that constitute as abusive, defamatory and harassment, along with those that disclose classified information, claim to speak on behalf of the University unless authorized or negatively impact the University’s image.
GW also provides community members a social media guidance in addition to the policy, which mostly focuses on social media posts made to University-sponsored accounts.
University spokesperson Julia Garbitt said officials are currently reviewing the policy as part of the University’s regular policy review process. She said the review process — which the Office of Communications and Marketing began in August and is expected to be completed by the end of the semester — will determine whether the policy needs to be revised.
Garbitt said officials will make any proposed revisions available through the University’s public comment process when they complete their review. Officials last revised the policy in 2020, according to the policy’s website. The University’s policy review schedule requires responsible offices to review their policies every other year.
More than six experts in higher education said GW’s current social media policy includes vague language on the content they prohibit community members from posting, which could make following the policy difficult. They said the policy can be revised to make clear the University’s expectations for community members when posting on social media while protecting their ability to speak freely.
Ross Marchand, the program counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the University’s social media policy could prevent community members from engaging in protected speech under the First Amendment, like how GW’s policy forbids the use of “abusive” language without specifying or defining what that language looks like. He said the University’s “broad language” in the policy summary — which prohibits community members from using language that negatively impacts the University’s or an employee’s image — could prevent the community from criticizing GW in any way, which undermines the First Amendment.
Marchand said GW, in order to adhere to their commitment to protecting free speech, should make clear that community members can freely post on social media, given their posts don’t violate the law or University non-discrimination, anti-harassment and non-retaliation policies.
Marchand said universities generally have an interest in preventing students and faculty from speaking on behalf of the institution and officials could encourage measures to prevent it, such as recommending the use of disclaimers on social media accounts. He said GW can’t require community members to use disclaimers that they aren’t speaking on behalf of the University, though GW can continue to recommend that them doing so, as it does under the current policy.
“By clarifying the distinction between University speech and personal speech, schools such as GW can go a long way toward protecting speech and preventing confusion on official university stances,” Marchand said in an email.
Ian Kalish, an instructor at the University of Virginia’s First Amendment Clinic, said GW’s current policy does a “good job” of distinguishing between speech done on behalf of the University and personal speech, though GW could also indicate what private posts are acceptable under their policy to encourage community members to speak more freely.
“These policies, in addition to saying what people can’t do, can be explicit about things that the school is not going to intrude in,” Kalish said.
Staff Council Vice President Mindy Galván asked officials during a presentation last month about how staff can express their freedom of speech rights and how to stay safe on campus following Pohorilak’s post. In response to Galván, Chief of Staff Scott Mory provided the Staff Council with a link to the American Association of University Professors’ guidance published last month about speech posted to social media, which encourages university employees to state in their social media bios that the views expressed on their account are personal and not representative of their employer.
Lara Schwartz, a senior professorial lecturer at American University’s School of Public Affairs and the director of SPA’s Project on Civic Dialogue, said universities are increasingly adopting social media policies that are “more repressive,” particularly for staff, because some policies may outline that staff could be disciplined for their civic speech that could disrupt the functioning of the university. She added that staff must understand that academic freedom might not protect their civic engagement and speech because the principle of academic freedom only applies to faculty and students.
“You can engage in best practices like making sure that you state that your speech is your own and not your institutions, but really, I wouldn’t advise anyone to be relying on their institution to protect and preserve their free speech rights or their academic freedom rights, to ensure that happens,” Schwartz said.
Isaac Kimola, the director of the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom at the American Association of University Professors, said universities need to have clear policies on employees’ “extramural speech” made in an individual capacity as a public citizen. He said if a university disagrees with someone’s outside speech, officials need to have a process for deciding whether those comments demonstrate them not being able to effectively fulfill their positions’ duties, which could include transparent and formal procedures outlining disciplinary actions for noncompliance.
GW’s policy states that suspected violations are reported to the Office of Online Strategy within the Office of Communications and Marketing, which will coordinate a review and investigation and potentially bring in other offices to review and investigate. The policy does not specify the full review and investigation process.
“Instead of doing the fact finding due process to answer that very specific question of, does this demonstrate cause that professor is no longer a fit to teach in the classroom, instead, just fires them out of hand,” Kimola said.
Zoomel Ghauri contributed reporting.
