The attempts by students and administrators to "cancel" University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) law professor Jason J. Kilborn sparked a major, multi-year legal battle over academic freedom that culminated in a major federal appeals court victory for the professor.

 

Professor Jason Kilborn cancelation

The attempts by students and administrators to "cancel" University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) law professor Jason J. Kilborn sparked a major, multi-year legal battle over academic freedom that culminated in a major federal appeals court victory for the professor.

Summary of the Controversy

The attempt to terminate or discipline Professor Kilborn began in December 2020 after he included a hypothetical employment discrimination scenario on a civil procedure final exam.

• The Exam Question: The prompt described a fictional worker suing her boss after managers allegedly called her a "n____" and "b____". Kilborn had used this exact redacted format on tests for a decade without incident to simulate real-world litigation, but it provoked intense student backlash in late 2020.
• The "Homicidal" Comment: During a subsequent four-hour Zoom meeting with a member of the Black Law Students Association (BLSA) to address their complaints, Kilborn colloquially joked that the dean might have withheld a student petition from him out of fear that he "might become homicidal".
• The Administrative Backlash: The student reported the comment as a threat. UIC administrators swiftly suspended Kilborn, banned him from campus, canceled his courses, and forced him to undergo medical evaluations and drug testing before clearing him to return.
• The Retaliation: Although initially cleared, the university faced renewed campus protests led by civil rights figures like Rev. Jesse Jackson. UIC subsequently stripped Kilborn of committee positions, denied him a 2% merit raise, and ordered him to undergo an intensive, months-long diversity training program. Ironically, the training documents he was forced to read utilized the exact same redacted slurs he had used on his exam.

The Lawsuit and Appeals Court Victory

Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Kilborn sued university administrators in early 2022 for violating his First Amendment rights. While a lower district court initially dismissed his lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit revived Kilborn's First Amendment retaliation claim.

The court established that public university professors maintain a right to free speech within a pedagogical environment. The judges ruled that Kilborn's exam question and his in-class topics—even if considered "insensitive"—addressed matters of public concern and were constitutionally protected academic speech.

Current Status

The Seventh Circuit denied the university's request to rehear the case, sending it back to the district court level. The litigation remains ongoing through its discovery and settlement phases, with UIC already amassing more than $1.2 million in legal fees defending its actions.