The University of Tennessee Nearly Expelled a Student for Racy Tweets, Now Agrees To Pay Her $250,000
The settlement vindicates Kimberly Diei's First Amendment right to comment on sexually explicit rap songs without suffering government retaliation.

In 2020, Kimberly Diei, a pharmacy student at the University of Tennessee, tweeted about Cardi B's sexually explicit song "WAP" under the handle KimmyKasi. Diei did not spell out "wet-ass pussy," but she did propose some additional lyrics in a post that tagged Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion (who collaborated on the song), adding, "Let me be on the remix please." In another post, Diei alluded to the Beyoncé song "Partition," joking about spending "all this time getting my hair done just for your man to fuck it up." In a third post, Diei wrote, "I'm bout to write a book about the birds and bees entitled 'it started with a dick suck'" because the "truth is that's how most of us got here."
Although Diei wrote those posts under a pseudonym and did not mention any connection to the university or its College of Pharmacy, her racy online speech prompted two administrative investigations and nearly resulted in her expulsion. With help from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Diei sued the university in federal court, arguing that the First Amendment bars state-operated schools from investigating or punishing students based on off-campus, constitutionally protected speech unrelated to their academic activities. Last September, a federal appeals court agreed, and last week Diei reached a $250,000 settlement with the university that FIRE announced today.
"UT's pharmacy school learned an important lesson today," said FIRE attorney Greg H. Greubel. "There is nothing unprofessional about students expressing love of hip-hop and their sexuality on social media. Kim has proven something FIRE has said for 25 years: The First Amendment robustly protects students' rights to have a voice outside of school, even if college administrators don't like what they have to say."
Diei was just one month into her studies when the pharmacy college's Professional Conduct Committee informed her that it had received a complaint about her social media activity. The committee unanimously concluded that her "sexual," "crude," and "vulgar" speech violated the college's standards of professionalism. Although the committee decided not to expel Diei, it received another complaint the next school year, which prompted it to conclude that her online commentary constituted "a serious breach of the norms and expectations of the profession." This time, the committee voted unanimously to dismiss Diei from the pharmacy school, a decision that was ultimately overruled by the college's dean.
In a February 2021 lawsuit, FIRE argued that "the College of Pharmacy's professionalism policies are unconstitutional on their face" because they give the Professional Conduct Committee and its chair "complete discretion" to "punish a broad range of protected speech," including "off-campus, personal speech," for "no legitimate pedagogical reason." Those policies, FIRE said, were also unconstitutionally vague because they provided "no basis for clear and consistent application," inviting viewpoint-based discrimination. Diei also challenged the policies as applied to her and argued that her treatment was a form of unconstitutional retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment.
After a federal judge dismissed Diei's lawsuit, she asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to review that decision. In its ruling last September, a three-judge panel unanimously concluded that "Diei's speech, as alleged, was clearly protected by the First Amendment."
The 6th Circuit noted the Supreme Court's June 2021 decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., which held that a Pennsylvania public school violated the First Amendment when it suspended a 14-year-old girl, Brandi Levy, from the cheerleading team for a year because of her profane Snapchat complaint about not being picked for the varsity squad. In a message that was visible for just 24 hours to 250 of her friends, Levy had posted a picture of herself with her middle finger raised, accompanied by the caption, "Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything."
By an 8–1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in the cheerleader's favor. While public schools may sometimes have a legitimate interest in regulating students' off-campus speech, Justice Stephen Breyer said in the majority opinion, the school in this case had failed to cite any academic disruption sufficient to justify the penalty it imposed.
Accepting Diei's allegations as accurate for purposes of the appeal, the 6th Circuit saw her situation as similar. Because Diei "disclaim[ed] receipt or knowledge of the professionalism policy under which [she] was purportedly disciplined," the appeals court said, "we cannot, at this stage, credit the College's claimed pedagogical purposes." Although "her speech may have disrupted the College in ways not apparent from the complaint," the opinion said, that had not been established by the record at that point.
"This ruling confirms what I've known all along," Diei said after the 6th Circuit revived her lawsuit. "I have a right to express myself in my private life that's separate from school, and so do my classmates. I enrolled in pharmacy school to learn, not to have my taste in music and my thoughts on culture policed."
The 6th Circuit's decision impelled the university to reach the settlement announced today. Although Diei told The New York Times she "never had a strong interest in politics," her experience awakened her to the perils of censorship. "I wasn't about to let my university get away with silencing me or any other student for speaking our truth," Diei, now a pharmacist at a Walgreens in Memphis, said in a FIRE press release. "Staying positive while fighting for my rights for years wasn't easy, but it was necessary. We all need to speak up when someone tries to take our rights away—our voice is way too powerful to let anyone shut it down."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Speaking your truth?
That you started with a dick suck?
Started? Like first date started?
Man, I was born too early.
more likely in wrong hood.
Freedom of association? What if they want nothing to do with her?
The way this is presented, I do think they are within their rights to get rid of her but that it's a weak rationale and low grade offense. If she links the account to the institution and there's more egregious stuff posted (as I'm guessing is the case) then I'm all for them enforcing the conduct policy she agreed to.
I bet there's more to this and even if she's completely in the right it's ridiculous to give her such a large payout over this. At most they should have nullified and/or returned her tuition if they truly overreached.
Thanks to the givermint, 250K just ain't what it used to be.
I'd take it.
How consistent are they? Do they treat all students so puritanically? I doubt it; they wouldn't have any students left. If their enforcement is as shoddy and inconsistent as appears, then no one knows what their policy really is, and they are committing perjury by pretending their policy is valid.
And four years to come to a resolution? The US judicial system is a joke, more concerned with ritual than justice.
Those questions hint at something else being at play here. From what is shown here, she said pretty normal things for a college kid on social media. I'm sure you can pull up thousands of such posts from other students at the school where they faces no repercussions. Why her specifically? I think this speech and their code of conduct are likely just a small part of what was going on between her and the school.
I put it down to those "complaints" which I bet were anonymous. Someone had it in for her.
I think this speech and their code of conduct are likely just a small part of what was going on between her and the school.
Per your own point, I don't think it is/was specifically the school. I think an anonymous tipster, or two, called the line with some sort of actionable grievance. They heard Diei was sleeping with a prof. that they were sleeping with to get an A, Diei hooked up with an underage crush at a party on campus, who knows. Point being, this wasn't some Blasey-Ford Coakley accusation that couldn't be in any way investigated or corroborated and the University couldn't just shrug and ignore it.
The idea that the admins were surfing social media looking for students posting under pseudonyms hoping to see faces they recognized to impose code of conduct violations on sounds between unlikely and wholly fabricated.
UT's fault for putting up an anonymous tip line. At the same time, future employers sure as shit would can your ass for stuff like this making its way to your place of business, even if your place of business asked for it. Just ask James Damore.
If $250K is tuition and legal fees, great. That said, FIRE needs to get the fuck off their high horse as this was a settlement for one student with one school, not a judgement. Especially considering that, tomorrow, they'll take the next case for the next paycheck on the side of the profs and/or the admins against the students.
They're a state ran institution, ergo, they have no freedom of association.
State school. No, they don't have a 'freedom of association' right. A private institution could make that claim but a public institution cannot.
While you're right that there might be more to the case and that a valid 'academic disruption' might have been provable, the case never got to those merits. The school sought a motion to dismiss (at which point all the plaintiff's claims must be treated as true), succeeded at the trial court, lost at the appeals court and settled rather than try to prove their counter-allegations.
+1 This is FIRE and Reason's typical B.S., talking up what is, essentially, a run-of-the-mill litigation in exchange for a paycheck case into FIRE's salvation of The Western World.
Once again, this almost certainly wasn't some random admin going around looking for someone posting offensive rap lyrics on social media under a pseudonym in order to kick someone out of pharmacy school. There is at least one and potentially two other people involved in this issue who aren't heard from. It's entirely possible that Diei is taunting bordering on harassing these people, got told don't do it again, and then precipitated another complaint.
Fair being actually fair, it could be admins actually harassing her. However, truth (not) being told, FIRE and UT are keeping under wraps what actually happened... with FIRE patting themselves on the back for being at the vanguard of free speech.
NO, you can't allow schools to get away with this
It was 8-1 , so obvous was it that she had been wronged.
golf clap?
The FIRE lawyer is wrong about one aspect of the case...it's entirely possible for students' online speech to be simultaneously unprofessional and constitutionally protected.
Had to roll my eyes a bit at that part.
I'd add their mouth says, "Kim has proven something FIRE has said for 25 years: The First Amendment robustly protects students' rights to have a voice outside of school, even if college administrators don't like what they have to say." but their history says, that if they have to defend teachers against criticism from their students *and* administrators otherwise, they ab-so-fucking-lutely will do it and wipe themselves off with the same 1A after doing so.
But that can' happen a couple times and then it is the fault of the school not to deal with the unprofessional aspects
"There is nothing unprofessional about students expressing love of … sexuality.”
Really, counsel? Try saying what Kim posted at work today and see what happens to you. Better yet, when Kim gets her first pharmacy job, let her supervisor say to her exactly the same thing that she posted on social media. Let’s see how many nanoseconds it takes before she files a harassment complaint.
Evidently, the school's nannies don't have much better to do than investigate random naughty speech.
I think I know where the University of Tennessee can start cutting some costs.
Got it.
You can train to dispense abortion pills, but not talk about how it comes about that you want an abortion.
You can dispense condoms, but not talk about the body parts the condom goes on.
Makes perfect sense.
NPR claimed last year that Walgreens and CVS would be selling mifipristone, an abortion drug.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/01/1235265078/abortion-pill-cvs-walgreens-mifepristone
Has Walgreen's denied the report?
In logic your kind of silly statement is brought up to show how not to be stupid. Nobody except ;you said those things. you are using contrafactuals to argue against factuals , always a sad dumb move.
And logically , maybe you shouldn't assume it is fine to dispense abortion pills. In a college esp guys will be aborting a woman's baby without the woman knowing he put mifepristone in that drink he bought her because he is so fond of her.
Just throwing this out there : Tennessee State University is the name of an actual school here in TN... so, the headline could possibly be a little confusing, considering this happened at The University of Tennessee
Last September, a federal appeals court agreed, and last week Diei reached a $250,000 settlement with the university that FIRE announced today.
NGL, I'm genuinely curious how much of that - if any - FIRE took as payment.
In a February 2021 lawsuit, FIRE argued that "the College of Pharmacy's professionalism policies are unconstitutional on their face" because they give the Professional Conduct Committee and its chair "complete discretion" to "punish a broad range of protected speech," including "off-campus, personal speech," for "no legitimate pedagogical reason."
Hey Jake, ask FIRE whether they think Professional Rules should exist at all for any professional trade. And if so, their scope and coverage, and why. (I shouldn't have to tell you this if you were a real journalist.)
What are professional rules, and why do they exist?
I mean, come on you gibbering gimp retarded moron fake news hack, Jake. This most basic and fundamental social concept is SO SIMPLE that it can be expressed with full comprehension IN TWO MINUTES by a family of Australian cartoon dogs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAmGp7aO5I
"If there's no trust, NONE of this is possible."
TRUST and PROMISES. The professional world requires that the consumer world can trust and rely on a standard of conduct and behavior by said professionals IN that world. That's why they SET standards of conduct and professional rules.
I'm not a pharmacist. I know nothing about the pharmacy world or what the social expectation of those who dispense potentially lethal medications to people who get a brief explanation of what it is before swiping their debit card and being handed a stapled paper bag. But I feel slightly better about consuming that pill knowing that the pharmacist is held to certain standards by her industry.
Think of it this way (in fact, maybe we ought to do this): you walk up to the pharmacy counter (or doctor's office, or lawyer's firm, or whatever), you get to scroll through the pharmacist's Twitter feed right there on a tablet. Would you want this woman dispensing your pills? Let the consumer decide.
They're so eager to share on social media, then let their consumers get a look at what they're sharing.
Or, maybe just do something a little simpler and less invasive, and hold them to professional standards that foster trust and reliance in the profession.
FFS Sullum. You are the most uncivilized person I've ever read.
You didn't have to tell us you are not a pharmacist, we'd be suprised if you finished high school
Yeah, I can’t wait til she twerks for me when I pick up my Viagra script
Have you consulted with a physician about your multiple personalities?
Scores on the ACT have decreased markedly over the last six years, sinking to a 30-year low. Every single one of the ACT average benchmarks for 2023 was below where a student would need to be to succeed in college.
First rule of Logic, debating, legal representation: Recur to first Principles.
Schools are sht. the fine can be thought of perfectly punitive.
It’s wild how universities overreach like this. Freedom of speech should be protected, especially when it comes to personal social media accounts. It’s not like the tweets were part of her academic work. Speaking of academics, dealing with strict policies and heavy workloads can be overwhelming. That’s why services like 99papers https://99papers.com/essay-writing/ can be a lifesaver when you’re juggling essays and trying to stay out of trouble. Students should focus on learning, not worrying about being punished for personal opinions. Glad she won the case—hopefully, it sets a precedent.