In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
By Joshua Scheer
I started the morning reading about the case of Professor Sang Hea Kil in an interview with her on Mondoweiss. I strongly encourage everyone to read that interview, which I have reposted on the site this morning.
That interview/reporting led to a deeper dive into both her case and the broader crisis of academic freedom and free speech—an issue Scheerpost has been closely covering as colleges and universities increasingly stifle dissent under the current Trump regime. While some administrators and public figures may openly criticize Trump, a quieter but more pervasive reality has taken hold: widespread self-censorship and a culture of fear that has seeped into campuses across the country. You can listen to several of our podcasts exploring these issues here.
To return to Professor Kil’s case: she was first suspended in May 2024 over allegations related to a February 2024 demonstration, and in June 2024, the university moved to fire her, citing policy violations connected to her activism. Sang Hea Kil, a tenured full professor in the Justice Studies Department and faculty adviser for Students for Justice in Palestine, was ultimately terminated in late November 2025 after nearly 18 months on suspension. Her dismissal came despite the unanimous recommendation of a faculty hearing committee, which found that no disciplinary action was warranted. However, SJSU President Cynthia Teniente-Matson overturned that decision and upheld her firing. Kil’s case—supported by civil rights organizations and drawing widespread attention—has become a flashpoint in debates over academic freedom, shared governance, and free speech on U.S. campuses, especially amid heightened political pressure surrounding Palestine advocacy.
Faculty Panel Overruled
Kil’s case arose from her presence at and response to a tense February 2024 campus protest connected to a talk by a visiting professor whose public statements had rejected describing Israel’s assault on Gaza as genocide. Kil has said she attended the event intending to challenge those views through dialogue, not to disrupt the university’s operations.
University administrators later accused Kil of violating “time, place, and manner” protest rules and professional conduct standards, including her responsibilities as a faculty adviser. Kil disputes the allegations, arguing that administrators themselves created confusion by relocating the event without notice and restricting access.
After a public hearing held under the California State University system’s collective bargaining agreement, a three-member Faculty Hearing Committee unanimously rejected dismissal, demotion, or further suspension as appropriate punishment. The panel found that Kil had already suffered severe professional consequences and raised concerns about external pressure influencing the disciplinary process, including communications involving Hillel Silicon Valley.
With reporting from Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace that the committee found that Kil “should not receive any of the three possible disciplinary sanctions listed under Education Code 89535 [dismiss, demote, suspend].” “The committee believes Dr. Kil has already endured significant negative consequences, including the burden of preparing her defense in this matter and not being able to teach or perform the duties for which she has been hired.”
Despite those findings, SJSU President Cynthia Teniente-Matson overturned the committee’s recommendation, imposing termination—the harshest possible sanction under state education code.
The university has declined to comment publicly, citing personnel confidentiality.
Civil Rights Groups Sound the Alarm
The decision drew condemnation from a wide range of organizations. The California Faculty Association, which represents CSU faculty and is representing Kil in arbitration, called the dismissal an attack on academic freedom.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations San Francisco Bay Area (CAIR-SFBA) denounced the firing as a rejection of faculty governance and due process, warning that it establishes a dangerous precedent.
“Faculty governance is not supposed to be theater,” said CAIR-SFBA Executive Director Zahra Billoo, arguing that overriding the faculty panel amounted to a “professional death penalty” imposed for political speech.
Adding also “If a public university can fire a tenured professor for participating in protests against a genocide—despite a faculty panel finding no basis for punishment,” CAIR-SFBA warned, “then academic freedom itself is on trial.”
The Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace likewise condemned the university’s action, asserting that protest policies and the IHRA definition of antisemitism are increasingly being used to conflate criticism of Israel with hate speech and to suppress advocacy for Palestinian rights.
A Broader Crackdown on Dissent
Kil’s dismissal comes amid what many observers describe as a nationwide crackdown on campus dissent related to Israel and Palestine. Since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza, professors across the country have faced suspensions, investigations, non-renewals, and forced resignations tied to pro-Palestinian speech.
While some of the most visible cases—such as those involving Maura Finkelstein at Muhlenberg College and Katherine Franke at Columbia University—occurred at private institutions, Kil’s firing stands out because it involves a tenured professor at a large public university system.
That distinction significantly raises the stakes and also creates conditions that can discourage even tenured faculty from speaking out. In our interview with Professor Braaten about academic freedom in Texas, he discussed why he chooses to speak out about academic freedom, using tenure as justification: “If I’m one of the lucky few who has tenure, I should use that platform to speak out.” Yet, this case illustrates why even tenure may not always provide protection. He further noted—not specifically about this case but in the broader context of rising threats under the guise of anti-Semitism—that: “It is pretty cynical to use anti-Semitism as a means of controlling speech… prohibiting expressive activity on campus, and limiting academic freedom.”
Henry Reichman, a retired California State University professor and longtime academic freedom expert, testified on Kil’s behalf that termination is traditionally reserved for conduct that directly impairs a professor’s ability to teach or perform scholarly duties.
“None of this goes to her fitness to do the job for which she was hired,” Reichman said during proceedings.
We previously hosted Professor Reichman as a guest to discuss the urgent challenge of defending the ivory tower i in the age of Trump , as part of our academic freedom initiative.
What Comes Next
Kil is currently appealing her dismissal through arbitration, the final internal avenue available under the CSU contract. If the termination is upheld, she has indicated she may pursue legal action.
In public remarks, Kil has described her case as part of a “New McCarthyism” in higher education, in which geopolitical pressures, donor influence, and political lobbying override constitutional rights and faculty self-governance.
This case also raises fundamental questions about faculty members’ free speech rights when they engage in speech outside the classroom setting. Some argue that professors should lose institutional protections when speaking on issues beyond their formal field of expertise—for example, when a physics professor addresses Israel or Palestine in a classroom discussion. Critics of this view warn that such a standard would sharply narrow academic freedom and discourage scholars from engaging in broader public debate on matters of urgent social and political concern.
The case underscores a necessary—and increasingly urgent—conversation about the limits universities are placing on speech. Many now argue that if faculty speak outside the classroom, or beyond their specific field of study, they somehow forfeit protection from retaliation. That logic is especially troubling at public universities, which are funded by taxpayers and bound by constitutional free speech protections. If speech on matters of public concern can cost a tenured professor their job, then the very purpose of academic freedom—and the public mission of higher education—is fundamentally at risk.
Thats why ScheerPost is engaging in a deeper conversation about this issue for right now please comment on cases that need attention and stay tuned for more.
I end with a video of Professor Kil in an interview with WorkWeek, they discusses the incident, the role of university administrators, the response of California Faculty Association (CFA-SEIU) leadership, and the broader climate in which criticism of Israel is frequently labeled antisemitic. She also addresses California Senate Bill 715, sponsored by State Senator Scott Wiener and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, legislation that opponents argue could further restrict political speech on campuses.
Critics of Israel’s war on Gaza say there is a coordinated political campaign targeting those who speak out against U.S.-backed Israeli policies, with college faculty increasingly facing scrutiny and discipline for their views. At San José State University, tenured Justice Studies Professor Sang Hea Kil was accused by university administrators of involvement in an allegedly unauthorized encampment protesting the war.
Kil notes that despite opposition from herself and others—including some SEIU locals in California—SEIU International President David Huerta declined to intervene to block the bill’s passage.
This interview with Professor Sang Hea Kil took place on October 28, 2025, but it is especially important because we live in California, a so-called blue state, where educators’ voices are being trampled, and a culture of fear and widespread self-censorship is once again taking hold.
Some important notes from the disscuion are Soft Doxing” and “Soft Doxers”: Sang explains that Jonathan Roth allegedly uses social media to “name and shame” individuals he deems anti-Zionist, conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Title VI: Described as federal protections against religious discrimination.
Union Complicity: Sang criticizes her local union (CFA, SJSU) for implementing policies—such as banning camping—without informing members and for failing to support her during her termination process. She notes that a change in leadership has brought some support from the new union president.
Political Context: The targeting of faculty is linked to broader political trends, including the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, politicians like Scott Wiener advocating stricter “time, place, manner” policies, and perceived neutrality or complicity from larger unions (e.g., SEIU) and the Democratic Party in suppressing criticism of Israel.
SB715 and AB715: These bills are discussed as mechanisms regulating speech and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, with potential implications for higher education. Sang parallels ICE’s actions against David Huerta with the possible effects of AB715 on educators.
Academic Freedom and Free Speech: Sang frames her case as an attack on academic freedom, tenure, and faculty co-governance, particularly regarding the right to criticize Israel.
University Administration and Trustees: She criticizes the CSU Board of Trustees and Chancellor as “pro-corporation,” warning that they may adopt “MAGA initiatives” to reshape the university system.
Silence on Genocide: Sang highlights the widespread refusal by university administration, faculty groups, and even her union to use the term “genocide” for events in Gaza, attributing this to political considerations tied to U.S. support for Israel.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.