Campus Advocacy Chief of Staff @TheFIREorg | Opinions are my own
Washington, DC
Joined August 2011
- Tweets2.5K
- Following1K
- Followers932
- Likes8.8K
Connor Murnane retweeted
The University of Texas System Board of Regents says UTSA will handle the controversy surrounding a student’s poem about Charlie Kirk’s murder “consistent with the law.”
Good. That’s exactly what is expected of a public university under the First Amendment.
While universities have a duty to address true threats and incitement to violence, these are narrow exceptions to First Amendment protection, not labels administrators can slap on speech they dislike. Universities cannot punish student speech just because it is deemed offensive or angers the public.
We’ll be watching to make sure the university upholds its commitment to the First Amendment.
At @UTSA for Pick Up the Mic, a student read a poem celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk with such glee, then told me I was brave to be out here without my neck covered.
I told her I’d pray for her.
This is the climate. We pick up the mic anyway.
Connor Murnane retweeted
Texas State pulled paid ads from @UniversityStar newsstands for a Democrat running for governor, cutting off revenue the independent student paper relies on to operate.
Public universities can’t dictate what ads student papers publish. The First Amendment makes that clear. 🧵
Connor Murnane retweeted
University admins have spent years pointing disciplinary machinery wherever student activists demanded.
Now they face censors with something students never had: government power.
The law is on their side. But will they stand up and use it?
📰 @washingtonpost
🖊️@glukianoff
Connor Murnane retweeted
LAWSUIT: We’re suing Michigan State University for punishing an elected trustee who refused to sign a speech code that restricts criticism of university leadership.
Michael Balow criticized MSU’s handling of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal and its withholding of documents related to a $100 million athletics investment.
The board chair accused Michael and other trustees of “undermining the president” and MSU’s administration. The board then revised its ethics code, seen below, to require trustees to “uphold the university’s reputation” and support majority decisions.
When Michael refused to sign, MSU used the code to exclude him from university events and revoke his credentials, limiting his ability to carry out his duties.
Think about that. Elected officials tasked with overseeing a public university can be punished for questioning its leadership. And the very people they're supposed to hold accountable get to decide what criticism is permissible.
Trustees are supposed to provide independent oversight, not rubber-stamp university decisions. The First Amendment protects their right to dissent, even when the board majority doesn't like what they have to say.
Connor Murnane retweeted
The @UofMaryland Athletics Department has agreed to First Amendment training with FIRE after two student journalists were reported to campus police for “suspicious activity” while trying to interview @umterps football players.
Student reporters should be able to do their jobs in public spaces without fear of unnecessary police encounters.
We appreciate Maryland Athletics’ willingness to address these concerns. Public universities — including their athletic departments — have a duty to protect press freedom, not intimidate those exercising it.
For @testudotimes, @JudeWilkenfeld and I were outside Jones-Hill House trying to get players to comment. An athletics staffer took pictures of us, and a police dispatch was called for suspicious activity; a cop and 2 cop cars pulled up, and officers ID’d us and asked us to leave.
Connor Murnane retweeted
We applaud @merrillcollege and its dean for defending student journalist Cat Murphy.
It's encouraging to see a school defend the very principles it teaches.
Merrill College students know their rights as journalists.
"Cat Murphy is a master's student at the University of Maryland, credentialed as a reporter for our Capital News Service and doing the job we teach our students to do. Cat recorded openly in a public space alongside other news outlets, and that is her legal right," Dean Rafael Lorente (@DeanLorente) said. "I'm proud of how she handled herself in a difficult situation."
Connor Murnane retweeted
Cornell has suspended all fraternity social events for the rest of the academic year after allegations of serious misconduct, punishing an entire community for the alleged actions of a few.
Cornell has every right to investigate misconduct and hold responsible organizations accountable for their members’ actions. But punishing students who had no involvement is guilt by association.
With roughly one-third of Cornell undergraduates participating in Greek life, the blanket ban restricts students’ freedom of association and shuts down even charitable fundraisers.
Protecting students and respecting their rights are not competing obligations. Cornell has a responsibility to do both.
Connor Murnane retweeted
"Press access is a privilege, not a right."
This is the most common objection to the argument that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by banning news outlets it doesn't like from the White House.
But the fact that you don't have a right to something in the first place doesn't mean the government can take it away to punish you for exercising your First Amendment rights. Federal courts have reaffirmed this principle many times.
Nobody has an automatic right to a property tax exemption. But in Speiser v. Randall (1958), the Supreme Court held that California could not deny one to residents who refused to sign a loyalty oath.
Nobody has a right to a government contract. But in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996), the Supreme Court held that a Kansas county could not cancel a trash-hauling contract just because the contractor wrote editorials criticizing the county government.
The same principle applies in other contexts. Nobody has a right to be a professor at a public university. But firing a professor over his liberal or conservative beliefs would violate the First Amendment. A driver's license may be a privilege. That doesn't mean the state can revoke your license just because you criticized the governor.
If the rule were otherwise, the government would have enormous power to do exactly what the First Amendment forbids it from doing: punish Americans for saying things the government doesn't like.
Connor Murnane retweeted
BREAKING: An Iowa state court has dismissed President Donald Trump’s frivolous lawsuit against veteran pollster and FIRE client J. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register newspaper, a victory for First Amendment rights.
More to come.
Connor Murnane retweeted
LAWSUIT: Eight officers raided his home before dawn.
His offense? He filmed an officer speeding, criticized him when he got to a drive-thru, and embarrassed the department.
In a free country, criticizing police shouldn’t end in handcuffs.
In 2022, Joshua Gibbons filmed a Kingsport, Tennessee police SUV speeding without lights or sirens, violating state law.
He caught up with the officer at a drive-thru and had salty words about his disregard for the law.
That exchange lasted all of one minute. The consequences for Joshua lasted four years.
After someone complained about a different video — an officer flipping Gibbons off — police scoured Gibbons’ YouTube channel for ammunition.
Before dawn the next morning, while Gibbons was still in bed, eight armed officers raided his mother’s home to arrest him — for speeding using a cellphone while driving, and disorderly conduct.
A judge dismissed the speeding and cellphone charges but convicted him of disorderly conduct, saying he was “offended by the way” Gibbons was “talking to that officer.” Gibbons appealed. At a second trial, a jury again found him guilty.
In June, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously reversed that conviction and dismissed the charge.
The court found “no evidence” that Gibbons’ criticism prevented anyone from doing anything lawful.
The court recognized — as many courts had held — that even “profane and insulting” words alone aren’t a crime, especially when directed at police officers, who are trained to exercise restraint.
With FIRE’s help, Gibbons is suing to vindicate his First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment protects your right to film and criticize police. Kingsport PD needs to hear that message loud and clear.
Connor Murnane retweeted
"How terrible would it be to live in a country where every newspaper and every reporter has to parrot what the government says?
That may be fine in China and Russia, but it is not how we do things here in America."
🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @TheLeadCNN
When the White House opens its doors to the press, it must comply with the First Amendment. The president is as free as any other person to criticize media coverage. But he can’t ban outlets from the White House just because he doesn’t like their reporting or commentary. Press credentials aren’t a reward for loyalty to the government. A free, even adversarial, press is a sign of our country’s strength. The public deserves to hear about its government from independent voices, not just its leader’s loyalists and allies.
Connor Murnane retweeted
When the White House opens its doors to the press, it must comply with the First Amendment. The president is as free as any other person to criticize media coverage. But he can’t ban outlets from the White House just because he doesn’t like their reporting or commentary. Press credentials aren’t a reward for loyalty to the government. A free, even adversarial, press is a sign of our country’s strength. The public deserves to hear about its government from independent voices, not just its leader’s loyalists and allies.
Connor Murnane retweeted
The Whitman Republican Club applied for recognition from @whitmancollege, but after grilling members about national GOP positions, the student senate rejected its bid 25-0.
One senator even suggested they “scrub the title and make a debate club.”
WRC needs your support NOW. ⬇️
The @whitmancollege Republican Club was unanimously denied recognition after student senators pressed club members to criticize the GOP and President Trump — all while recognizing Planned Parenthood and climate change groups.
This is viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple.
Connor Murnane retweeted
FIRE is looking into reports that the @UUtah is investigating two College Republican leaders after they criticized a student who brought a cake mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination to their campus booth.
The students are allegedly accused of harassment and attempting to dox the other student after posting a photo of her. But criticizing someone’s speech and sharing publicly available information do not, by themselves, justify those allegations.
A student has the right to say something deeply offensive about Charlie Kirk, but that does not give them the right to be shielded from criticism. Others are equally free to condemn the message, challenge the speaker, and make their disagreement known.
If the university is investigating or threatening discipline over protected political expression, it must stop.
The First Amendment cuts both ways.
College Republican officials are threatening legal action against the University of Utah after the school launched an investigation into alleged threats and doxxing. As part of their investigation, they requested meetings with several Utah College Republican officials.
On September 15, the University of Utah confirmed that they were aware of activity from their community members that had made significant waves online, including reports of threats and harassment.
Read more: tinyurl.com/5afeh7ax
Connor Murnane retweeted
VICTORY! A federal court ordered DHS and ICE to stop threatening a Rochester man with investigation or prosecution over a protected email criticizing the then-director of ICE.
Connor Murnane retweeted
BREAKING: Federal court stops ICE from enforcing a "WARNING NOTICE" it issued to a Rochester man over an email criticizing the agency's director.
Connor Murnane retweeted
Carnegie Mellon is investigating professor Uju Anya over her social media posts calling the anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s assassination “Kirkmas” and telling a critic, “Die first, white man.”
People are free to take offense to Anya's comments. But @CarnegieMellon’s response points to a much bigger problem. Its departmental policy “does not tolerate harassment, discrimination or disrespect in any form,” including some off-campus communications.
“Disrespect in any form” is an insane standard for a university. Disagreement, criticism, protest, satire, and even harsh language can all be labeled “disrespectful.” None of that is misconduct. A policy this broad gives administrators a blank check to investigate almost anything controversial.
CMU has also called Anya’s posts “hostile and threatening,” even though campus police say they have identified no credible threat to campus. Offensive speech does not become a threat just because a university labels it “threatening,” and CMU cannot evade its free speech promises that way.
CMU promises that “all ideas may be expressed freely,” including “unpopular or challenging opinions.” If this investigation concerns nothing more than “disrespectful” speech, CMU must end it and fix its departmental policy.
Connor Murnane retweeted
TAKE ACTION: A student journalist was reported to police for alleged harassment after calling a communications director’s interference with the student paper “dangerous and detrimental” to free speech.
With FIRE on campus as this happened, the timing reeks with retaliation.
A student newspaper tried to interview university employees about campus operations and @SIUE’s communications director said she had authority over how those interviews were to be conducted and that her attendance was “non-negotiable.”
The First Amendment says otherwise. 🧵
Connor Murnane retweeted
Ep. 282: Breaking down our 2027 College Free Speech Rankings
Harvard, institutional neutrality, how we determine the rankings, partisan censorship, how schools can improve their ranking, and more!
Joining us to break it all down is @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino; vp of research Angela Erickson; chief researcher Sean Stevens; general counsel Ronnie London; and campus advocacy chief of staff @ConnorMurnane.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
03:18 Learn about our inaugural Soapbox conference
04:02 Preorder Nico’s book Free Speech Generation
5:00 Check out FIRE’s 2027 College Free Speech rankings
06:05 Who are the top- and bottom-ranked schools?
09:27 What’s new with the Harvard evaluation?
13:08 How does FIRE choose which schools to rank?
13:46 What can universities do to improve their ranking?
15:54 What is institutional neutrality?
18:05 What exactly are students being asked about campus speech?
21:25 How does FIRE make sure defending free speech doesn’t inadvertently protect censorship in the classroom?
25:19 Is campus censorship coming more from the “right” or the “left”?
26:53 Did the University of Washington settlement involving Professor Stuart Reges affect its ranking?
30:45 What does it mean to pre-register our methodology?
31:35 Why did Claremont McKenna drop in the rankings?
33:07 What advice does FIRE have for students at low-ranked schools facing censorship?
36:47 Do politically homogeneous campuses make students more comfortable speaking freely?
40:26 Do low-ranked colleges tell FIRE how they are improving?
42:56 What can administrators do now to improve next year’s ranking?
43:50 Does FIRE account for turnover in university leadership?
45:47 What do the rankings reveal about different student demographic groups?
49:41 Does FIRE account for differences between types of institutions?
52:00 What’s up with MIT?
56:02 Should attacks on tenured professors carry more weight than actions against other faculty?
57:02 Who does FIRE contact when evaluating a university?
58:09 Are there regional patterns in the rankings?
58:57 Were there bigger ranking swings than usual this year?
01:00:44 Outro
Connor Murnane retweeted
Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services dropped a “Dear Colleague” letter declaring that it is not bound by the speech-protective harassment standard the Supreme Court announced in its 1999 landmark decision, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education.
Sound familiar? It should. The Obama administration used a similarly unconstitutional approach over a decade ago. FIRE opposed it then. We oppose it now.
Under Davis, student-on-student harassment must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.” HHS now says “severe or pervasive” can be enough in administrative enforcement.
That is not a small semantic shift. “And” is not “or.”
The difference lowers the threshold for federal intervention and increases the risk that protected expression will be swept into harassment enforcement. At least when HHS applies that broader standard to colleges and universities, the First Amendment imposes limits the agency cannot simply write around. HHS’s own letter expressly reaches medical schools, colleges, and universities receiving HHS funding.
HHS claims Davis is only a private damages standard. But Davis itself said Title IX “narrowly circumscribe[s]” the harassment that can trigger a school’s duty to respond and “cabins the range of misconduct” the statute prohibits.
The federal government used to understand the value of one coherent standard. In 2001, under President George W. Bush, federal officials said schools benefit from “consistency and simplicity” and rejected a “multiplicity of definitions” for liability and enforcement. In 2020, the first Trump administration returned to that principle and adopted Davis for Title IX. That was the right call, and FIRE applauded it.
Now the second Trump administration is moving in the wrong direction. DOJ announced it is using Davis, while HHS is telling recipients that a lower standard may govern its civil rights enforcement. DOJ’s current Title VI enforcement against UCLA, for example, expressly alleges “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” harassment.
It is also a major red flag that HHS cites its prior unlawful enforcement actions against Harvard and Columbia as support for its approach.
That leaves colleges facing conflicting federal signals and gives them every incentive to adopt broad, speech-restrictive rules rather than risk federal investigation. HHS should withdraw its sub-Davis guidance, and the federal government should give institutions one clear, constitutional harassment standard. FIRE will be watching.
Today OCR announced it is issuing guidance on federal civil rights laws to protect against discrimination rooted in antisemitism.
This guidance will serve as a central reference document about legal rights and responsibilities and examples of OCR’s enforcement actions to combat antisemitism.
Our letter advances Executive Order 14188, which declares “the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously.”
Read our press release: hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-ocr-i…
