Michael Hook #

Introduction #

Phillip Michael Hook is an American art professor at the University of South Dakota (USD) who was suspended and fired after a Facebook post about Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist assassinated on Sept. 10, 2025, while speaking at a Utah college. Hours after the killing, Hook — posting on his personal Facebook page — called Kirk “a hate spreading Nazi.” Republican officials in South Dakota demanded his dismissal, and the university suspended him two days later and moved to fire him. Hook sued, alleging unconstitutional retaliation against his speech, and U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier ordered him temporarily reinstated while the case proceeded. Per Fox News, the Board of Regents later agreed not to fire him, and Hook dropped his lawsuit.

Background Information #

Hook taught art at USD. His Facebook page was a personal account, though it identified him as a USD professor; he wrote the post from home while not working and deleted it within three hours, his lawyer said. The post appeared on the day Kirk — a Trump-allied activist later eulogized as a free speech advocate — was fatally shot.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation #

The controversy stems from a single post written the same day Kirk was killed. Per MS NOW, Hook wrote in his Sept. 10 post: “Okay. I don’t give a flying f*** about this Kirk person. Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was. 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 could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi. A shrug, maybe.”

Fox News, quoting Inside Hire Ed, rendered the post’s opening as, “Okay. I don’t give a flying f— about this Kirk person,” reporting that Hook said it hours after Kirk was killed. Later that same day, Hook published a follow-up apology: “Apparently my frustration with the sudden onslaught of coverage concerning a guy shot today led to a post I mow [sic] regret posting. I’m sure many folks fully understood my premise but the simple fact that some were offended, led me to remove the post. I extend this public apology to those who were offended. Om Shanti.”

The apology did not stop the backlash. South Dakota Speaker of the House Jon Hansen soon called for Hook’s dismissal, as did the Legislature’s Freedom Caucus, and Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden said he was “shaking mad” about the post. Hook was suspended on Sept. 12 and served a notice of his pending termination. Per MS NOW, Republican state officials supported his firing, and the university told Hook it intended to fire him and would place him on leave in the meantime.

Public Reaction and Consequences #

Hook filed a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional retaliation against core political speech. Opposing his request for a temporary restraining order, university officials wrote in a court filing that the post “angered many people, both internal and external” to the university, and argued that a restraining order was unnecessary because even if Hook prevailed, he could obtain reinstatement and back pay.

At a Sept. 24 hearing, more than 40 people showed up at the federal courthouse in Sioux Falls, some walking in with Hook; among them was Rick Weiland, a Sioux Falls activist. Hook’s lawyer, Rapid City attorney Jim Leach, argued that a public sector employee “doesn’t forfeit the right to free speech because they happen to be a public employee” and that Hook was suspended because he angered powerful people in South Dakota with commentary on a “matter of public concern.” “Yet here, we have the government, at the highest level, punishing Professor Hook for his political speech,” Leach said, arguing that Speaker Hansen’s communications with USD President Sheila Gestring appeared to be all it took to set the wheels of termination in motion, and that the record — including the termination notice — contained no evidence the post was disruptive.

Justin Bell, representing the Board of Regents, acknowledged that no evidence in the disciplinary or court record showed disruption, but noted the court record was barely more than 24 hours old, Hook having filed his case the day before. He argued the post generated “hundreds” of calls and emails to the school and that comments “as insidious as Professor Hook’s,” made while mentioning his university status, made disruption reasonably foreseeable. “All we know is that Speaker Hansen is one of the people who reached out,” Bell said, adding that the First Amendment “does not protect speech of this nature.” Judge Schreier took the request under advisement.

Current Status #

MS NOW reported on Sept. 25 that Schreier, a Clinton appointee, had granted a temporary restraining order keeping Hook in his position, reinstating him through Oct. 8, when a preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled. The judge reasoned that Hook’s speech “is entitled to First Amendment protection” and that the school had failed to produce “any evidence of disruption,” writing that the professor “has demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claim.”

Fox News dated the reinstatement order to Sept. 26, reporting that Hook was temporarily reinstated while legal proceedings continued, with a reasonable chance of prevailing in his suit. Shortly thereafter, Fox reported — citing The Argus Leader — that the South Dakota Board of Regents agreed not to fire Hook, and he dropped his lawsuit. Neither outlet’s account describes any settlement payment or damages to Hook, and MS NOW’s report, published before the resolution, describes only the temporary order and the scheduled hearing.

Impact on Their Career/Life #

Hook kept his job at USD. MS NOW framed the ruling as a sign that at least some employers may have overstepped legally in punishing employees for speech about Kirk, reinforcing that so-called hate speech is not categorically outside First Amendment protection. Fox placed his case in a national pattern — professors disciplined over posts about Kirk’s assassination, many of them later reinstated as the spring semester began — and reported that the Board of Regents’ agreement not to fire him ended his termination fight. The episode turned a post written at home and deleted within three hours, followed by a public apology, into a federal lawsuit and a courthouse hearing attended by more than 40 supporters.