Making controversial statements on social media as a lecturer: where is the line?
It is not always straightforward: the thin line between universities’ codes of conduct and their employees’ freedom of expression. How free are lecturers in what they share online? “Freedom of expression is a fundamental right that may only be restricted under strict conditions.”
On 10 October, Radboud University lecturer Harry Pettit wrote on X that it was time “to finish what the Palestinians started on 7 October, for a new round of resistance that would wipe out ‘Israel’ once and for all.” This post was one of a long series of controversial statements by Pettit about Gaza, which were in breach of the university’s code of conduct.
Before the rise of social media, it was clear where the public life of professors ended and their private life began, but that line has become much more blurred today. This means that statements which professors make in what is ostensibly a ‘private’ capacity can still be assessed by the university in light of their professional role, with potentially serious consequences.
The Pettit Case (Radboud)
Pettit’s statement on 10 October was the final straw for 113 current and former students, lecturers, staff members, and professors. Citing feelings of insecurity and fear, they drew up a petition later that same month. In it, they called on Radboud University’s Executive Board to report Pettit to the authorities and to suspend him temporarily while the Public Prosecution Service conducted its investigation. Furthermore, the petition's initiators called for clearer university policy that would set boundaries on political or activist statements by staff, while still safeguarding academic freedom.
In November, Pettit and the university reached a departure agreement, under which the lecturer received a financial settlement. Student and petition initiator Milos Boksan attributed Pettit’s departure to the nearly two thousand signatures the petition garnered.
The Buijs Case (UvA)
In January 2023, University of Amsterdam professor Laurens Buijs criticised what he described as “woke culture” within the social sciences in an opinion piece for Folia. He argued that this way of thinking threatened academic freedom, saying he felt there was little room for his views on, among other things, the concept of “non-binary” and the associated “obsession” with “pronouns”.
Ironically, Buijs himself faced a wave of criticism following these controversial statements. This was followed by a period in which Buijs referred to colleagues and other academics on his personal social media accounts as, among other things, “monsters”, “corrupt” and “dangerous”. In April, the University of Amsterdam announced in a press release that it had decided to place Buijs on leave. The university stressed that the decision had nothing to do with freedom of expression. “We do, however, expect our staff to adhere to normal standards of conduct.”
The Erasmus Professor Case
At Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam, a professor whose identity has not been disclosed also came under fire this year after reposting dozens of anti-Palestinian messages on her personal X account, according to AD. In one of the posts, Palestinians were described as “bloodthirsty Nazi Arab jihadists”.
In August, the Rotterdam-based university, Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), told AD that it had previously pointed out the integrity code to the professor in response to the reposts. The controversy also prompted EUR to review its social media policy more critically. “In doing so, we constantly seek a balance between protecting our values and freedom of expression.”
Freedom of Expression
The discussion surrounding the three cases above repeatedly leads to the same question: when does the right to freedom of expression prevail, and when does the university’s code of conduct take precedence? According to Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm, associate professor of information law at the University of Amsterdam, lecturers in principle enjoy freedom of expression. “It is a fundamental right,” he says. However, freedom of expression is not a miracle cure. In other words, it does not make lecturers immune to possible sanctions for breaching the Code of Conduct. “Under strict conditions, that fundamental right may be restricted.”
According to Alberdingk Thijm, the nature of the statement is crucial. For example, does it involve discrimination against specific groups, or deliberately offensive language? In such cases, an appropriate sanction may be imposed and freedom of expression must give way. “Criticism is allowed, but saying that you think all Palestinians should die serves no public interest,” Alberdingk Thijm says. “However, when a university decides to suspend cooperation with Israeli universities, lecturers are perfectly entitled to express their views on that.”
Social Media
This raises the obvious follow-up question: can a university set rules for what lecturers post on their personal social media accounts? According to Alberdingk Thijm, it is difficult to distinguish between private and professional statements. “When a professor shares a controversial post on a private X account that is not restricted, students can also see it. This happened with Pettit: students saw his posts and alerted the university. Professors therefore need to be aware of the potential consequences such posts can have for themselves, their students, and the university.”
Not every university has specific rules about what lecturers can or cannot post on their personal social media. For example, the University of Amsterdam does not, whereas Radboud University does: its code of conduct lists nine do’s and don’ts. The Radboud University asks staff to consider whether their online activity could embarrass those around them, others, or the university itself. In addition, staff are expected to be mindful of the relationship between work and private life. Radboud also reminds them that, even in their free time, they are seen as representatives of the university.
Sanctions
Returning to the law, the sanctions for breaching the code of conduct can vary widely, says Alberdingk Thijm. They can range from a reprimand or a transfer to another department to, in the worst case, dismissal. Whether such measures are justified depends, according to the courts, not only on the nature of the statement. The employee’s motives, the damage suffered by the employer, and the severity of the sanction imposed are also taken into account. “In addition, any restriction on freedom of expression must be necessary to protect another specific interest,” Alberdingk Thijm continues. “For example, the university’s reputation or the safety of students.”
Moreover, there must be a direct link between the social media statement and the sanction. Alberdingk Thijm has seen in case law that this can be a point of debate. “Sometimes the employer skirts around the real reason for dismissal – such as a controversial social media post. The employment relationship was supposedly already disrupted, as an excuse to justify the heavy sanction. That is why the courts weigh all circumstances before reaching a decision.”
Democracy
There is good reason why academic freedom is so hotly debated and so strictly protected. Alberdingk Thijm sees freedom of expression as indispensable in a democratic society. “Professors’ opinions, and those of people in general, influence the choices made in public debate. But that is not all. On an individual level, it provides a sense of autonomy and is a way to develop oneself.”
