Identity of Speakers
-
Rebel A. Cole
Faculty/Staff
OtherTenured finance professor at Florida Atlantic University
Additional Information
-
Incident Nature:
Lawsuit
Social media
-
Incident Political Orientation:
Not Clear -
Incident Responses:
Faculty sanctioned
Litigation
Title IX or other federal statute
-
Incident Status:
In litigation Federal District Court
- Did not involve Speech Codes
Summary
On November 12, 2025, Rebel A. Cole, a tenured finance professor at Florida Atlantic University, filed a federal lawsuit against FAU and several university administrators, including President Adam Hasner and Interim Provost Russ Ivy. The verified complaint alleged that the university retaliated against Cole for posts on his personal social media account in response to the murder of Charlie Kirk. Cole claimed that FAU placed him on administrative leave with pay, removed him from teaching and supervising students, barred him from campus and university events, and reassigned his courses and duties. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorneys fees, asserting that the university provided no evidence that his presence disrupted operations or posed a safety risk.
On September 10, 2025, immediately following Kirk’s murder, Cole posted on social media condemning users who celebrated the killing, calling their posts incitement and stating he would identify them. By September 14, FAU had received an anonymous email with screenshots of his posts. The following day, September 15, university administrators placed Cole on administrative leave, citing concerns that his social media activity could create a hostile environment for students, pose a potential safety risk, and disrupt the university’s operations and reputation. He was removed from all teaching, PhD supervision, research activities, and departmental events, while the university conducted an internal investigation. News of the suspension was reported by local media, generating public attention and threats toward Cole and his family.
Cole argued that his social media posts addressed a matter of public concern and that the university’s actions constituted viewpoint discrimination. Despite returning from leave, his teaching schedule remained disrupted, his research projects were delayed, and his ability to supervise graduate students and participate in departmental activities continued to be restricted, leaving his professional responsibilities significantly limited while the First Amendment case proceeded.
