Jason Kilborn: Exam Question, UIC Sanctions, and Seventh Circuit Ruling

The Jason Kilborn UIC exam controversy began with a December 2020 civil procedure final at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, where Kilborn included a hypothetical referencing redacted racial and gender slurs. The fallout cost him two semesters in the classroom, a merit raise, and an eight-week diversity training requirement. In March 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit revived his First Amendment retaliation lawsuit against the university, holding that his classroom speech was constitutionally protected and that the case should go forward.

What the Exam Question Actually Said

The question described a fictional employee who alleged that managers had called her a “n____” and “b____,” with the slurs expurgated to the first letter followed by blank underscores.¹ The hypothetical was designed to put students in the position of handling the kind of charged employment discrimination scenario they would face in practice. Kilborn said he had used the same question for at least ten years without complaint.²

Some Black students told the dean the question distressed them. Days after Christmas 2020, the Black Law Students Association issued a statement demanding that Kilborn step down from committee appointments and that the law school adopt new policies.³ Dean Darby Dickerson met with Kilborn and apologized to students on the law school’s behalf.⁴

How the Dispute Escalated

On January 7, 2021, Kilborn held a four-hour Zoom call with a BLSA student leader. During the call, he said the dean may not have shared a student petition with him because she feared he might “become homicidal” if he saw what was written about him. He later described the phrase as metaphorical.² The student reported the remark as a threat of imminent violence, and UIC’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Team recommended administrative leave and a campus ban.⁵

Kilborn was placed on paid leave in mid-January 2021, barred from campus, and stripped of his spring teaching assignments.³ After he completed a two-part mental health assessment, the campus ban was lifted, but the investigation continued.

The investigation widened. UIC pulled in remarks Kilborn had made in a class two semesters earlier: a comment during a discussion of frivolous litigation that “all the cockroaches come out of the walls” when plaintiffs lose; a reference in the same session to not subjecting his “corporate bottom line to that public lynching,” followed by an on-the-spot apology for the word choice; and a moment during a discussion of race-based police stops when he recited a Jay-Z lyric using an African American Vernacular English accent. The university treated the exam, the classroom remarks, and Kilborn’s out-of-class conversations as a single pattern of conduct violating its nondiscrimination policy.⁶ The May 2021 report concluded that his conduct “affected many Black students and substantially interfered with their participation in the university’s academic program.”³

The Sanctions UIC Imposed

An interim July 2021 agreement fell apart in November after a rally at the law school led by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who publicly called for Kilborn’s dismissal.⁷⁸ UIC then imposed the sanctions Kilborn would later challenge in court:

A bar from the classroom for two semesters total, with return conditioned on completing a training program.
An eight-week diversity training consisting of coursework, five self-reflection papers, and meetings with a trainer who evaluated his “engagement and commitment to the goals of the program.”
Ineligibility for an across-the-board 2% merit raise.

His return to teaching depended on what the university deemed “satisfactory completion” of the training.⁶ FIRE noted that the training materials themselves contained the same redacted slurs for which Kilborn had been punished.⁹ Kilborn eventually completed the program and was allowed back into the classroom.¹⁰

The Lawsuit and District Court Dismissal

Kilborn sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 27, 2022, in Kilborn v. Amiridis, No. 1:22-cv-00475, naming then-Chancellor Michael Amiridis and other officials. His claims included First Amendment retaliation, compelled speech, procedural due process, and state law claims.⁹¹¹

In December 2023, the district court dismissed the case. Judge Sara Lee Ellis ruled that the retaliation claim failed because Kilborn’s speech did not involve a “matter of public concern,” the threshold requirement for First Amendment protection of public employee speech.¹² Kilborn appealed.

What the Seventh Circuit Held

On March 12, 2025, a three-judge panel of Judges Rovner, Hamilton, and Kirsch reversed. Writing for the court, Judge Thomas Lee Kirsch II stated, “We conclude that Kilborn has plausibly alleged that his speech is constitutionally protected and reverse the dismissal of his claim.”¹

The panel decided three things that matter:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which limits First Amendment protection for public employees speaking pursuant to their official duties, does not apply to academic speech tied to teaching and scholarship. UIC’s argument that Kilborn’s classroom speech was categorically unprotected because it was part of his job failed.¹³
The exam question, the in-class remarks, and the out-of-class statements all addressed matters of public concern, including racial discrimination, frivolous litigation, and pretextual police stops, and were protected under the Connick-Pickering framework.¹⁴
UIC’s stated justification for punishing Kilborn could be viewed as pretextual, with the response appearing disproportionate and possibly retaliatory.¹⁴

The panel affirmed dismissal of the federal compelled speech claim on qualified immunity grounds and the procedural due process claim, but vacated dismissal of the state law claims and sent them back.¹⁴

UIC sought rehearing en banc. The full court denied the petition on May 2, 2025. No active judge called for a vote, and all three panel members voted to deny. Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote separately to flag what he called the “profoundly important” question of whether a university has its own institutional academic freedom interest in setting classroom standards. He concluded that rehearing was not warranted because UIC had never raised that argument, litigating instead on the narrower question of whether its actions violated clearly established law.¹⁵

Why the Ruling Matters Beyond Kilborn

The Seventh Circuit is now the sixth federal appeals court to recognize an academic speech exception to Garcetti, joining the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits.¹⁶ For faculty at public universities in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, that means classroom speech and scholarship cannot be treated as unprotected simply because they fall within the scope of official duties. Courts must instead apply the Pickering balancing test, weighing the faculty member’s interest in commenting on matters of public concern against the employer’s interest in efficient operation.¹⁷

The Supreme Court has never decided whether Garcetti applies to academic speech; the 2006 opinion flagged the question and left it open. With six circuits now recognizing the exception, the question may eventually reach the high court.

Where the Case Stands Now

The case is back before the Northern District of Illinois for further proceedings on the First Amendment retaliation claim and the state law claims. The Seventh Circuit indicated the factual record needs further development, which points to discovery and potentially trial.¹ No settlement has been reported. Kilborn remains a tenured professor at UIC’s law school.¹⁰

1
ABA Journal. Law Prof Suspended Over Exam Question Can Sue for First Amendment Retaliation
2
Legal Newsline. Law Prof Wins Appeal to Proceed in UIC Retaliation Case
3
Inside Higher Ed. When Suspending a Professor Isn’t Enough
4
Above the Law. Law School N-Word Controversy Is More Complicated Than It Appears at First Glance
5
Reason. Is This Law Professor Really a Homicidal Threat
6
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Kilborn v. Amiridis, No. 23-3196
7
Chicago Sun-Times. Jesse Jackson, Black UIC Law Students Protest Professor Kilborn
8
FIRE. University of Illinois Chicago Reneges on Agreement With Law Professor Jason Kilborn
9
FIRE. Professor Suspended for Redacted Slurs on Law School Exam Sues University of Illinois Chicago
10
Chicago Tribune. Jason Kilborn University of Illinois Chicago Claims
11
Court Listener. Kilborn v. Amiridis Docket
12
AAUP. Kilborn v. Amiridis, No. 23-3196
13
Duke Campus Speech Project. Kilborn v. Amiridis, University of Illinois Chicago
14
Wisconsin Law Journal. First Amendment Academic Freedom
15
FindLaw. Kilborn v. Amiridis, No. 23-3196
16
FIRE. Another Federal Appeals Court Recognizes Academic Exception to Restrictions on First Amendment
17
FIRE. Another Federal Appeals Court Backs Academic Free Speech for Public Employees