Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman Defends University of Kentucky’s Probe Into Suspended Law Professor
Commonwealth’s top legal officer backs institutional investigation amid federal lawsuit and free speech concerns
Kentucky’s Attorney General, Russell Coleman, has publicly defended the University of Kentucky’s investigation into a tenured law professor who was suspended from his duties amid allegations related to rhetoric on Israel and antisemitism, a dispute that has since escalated into federal litigation.
The professor, who had been granted tenure and promoted earlier in 2025, was removed from classroom duties and barred from campus access as the university opened a disciplinary inquiry into statements he made and an online petition he circulated concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The university administration said the petition and related conduct could be interpreted in accordance with state and federal guidelines on antisemitism, and cited concerns about creating a hostile environment for students and staff as the basis for the investigation and interim restrictions on his duties.
In response to the resulting lawsuit filed in federal court, which challenges both the disciplinary process and the adoption of an external definition of antisemitism in university proceedings, Attorney General Coleman has defended the legitimacy of the investigation and the university’s authority to take such action under state law.
Coleman’s office has emphasised the importance of due process and legal compliance in higher-education settings, noting that public universities must balance academic freedom with obligations to maintain safe and nondiscriminatory campuses.
The legal challenge brought by the professor seeks reinstatement to his teaching role and a declaration that certain definitions applied in disciplinary contexts infringe on constitutional free-speech protections.
Coleman’s support for the university’s actions reflects his broader role as Kentucky’s chief legal officer in advising state institutions and upholding statutory frameworks governing conduct and disciplinary procedures.
The case highlights ongoing national debates over academic freedom, the boundaries of acceptable speech in educational settings, and the interplay between institutional governance and state policy directives that were enacted by the Kentucky legislature and signed into law earlier this year.
As the litigation proceeds, both sides are preparing written arguments and motions in federal court to clarify the legal standards applicable to the contested disciplinary measures and policy definitions in question.
The professor, who had been granted tenure and promoted earlier in 2025, was removed from classroom duties and barred from campus access as the university opened a disciplinary inquiry into statements he made and an online petition he circulated concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The university administration said the petition and related conduct could be interpreted in accordance with state and federal guidelines on antisemitism, and cited concerns about creating a hostile environment for students and staff as the basis for the investigation and interim restrictions on his duties.
In response to the resulting lawsuit filed in federal court, which challenges both the disciplinary process and the adoption of an external definition of antisemitism in university proceedings, Attorney General Coleman has defended the legitimacy of the investigation and the university’s authority to take such action under state law.
Coleman’s office has emphasised the importance of due process and legal compliance in higher-education settings, noting that public universities must balance academic freedom with obligations to maintain safe and nondiscriminatory campuses.
The legal challenge brought by the professor seeks reinstatement to his teaching role and a declaration that certain definitions applied in disciplinary contexts infringe on constitutional free-speech protections.
Coleman’s support for the university’s actions reflects his broader role as Kentucky’s chief legal officer in advising state institutions and upholding statutory frameworks governing conduct and disciplinary procedures.
The case highlights ongoing national debates over academic freedom, the boundaries of acceptable speech in educational settings, and the interplay between institutional governance and state policy directives that were enacted by the Kentucky legislature and signed into law earlier this year.
As the litigation proceeds, both sides are preparing written arguments and motions in federal court to clarify the legal standards applicable to the contested disciplinary measures and policy definitions in question.
