Preston Damsky, a former law student at the University of Florida (UF), finds himself in a contentious legal battle following his expulsion from the university over social media posts and a seminar paper that have drawn accusations of promoting hate speech. The controversy ignited earlier this year when Damsky shared incendiary comments on social media, including remarks describing Jewish people in highly derogatory terms.
In a lawsuit against UF, Damsky contends that his free speech rights under the First Amendment have been violated by the university’s decision to expel him. The university, however, argues that Damsky’s statements are not protected by the First Amendment as they qualify as hate speech. The legal fallout began after UF Dean of Students Chris Summerlin notified Damsky on August 4 about the expulsion, to which Damsky formally appealed a month later. UF’s response on October 10 reiterated that the expulsion was lawful and did not infringe upon his rights.
Damsky’s legal troubles trace back to a seminar paper he submitted in 2024, which posited that the phrase “We the People” in the Constitution referred solely to white Americans. This paper, despite being controversial, earned him a book award for academic excellence, awarded by Federal Judge John L. Badalamenti, who disagreed with Damsky’s views but noted the paper did not pose any threats or disrupt university activities.
However, as Damsky’s online rhetoric escalated, he posted messages on X (formerly Twitter) that characterized Jewish individuals in deeply harmful ways, including a statement where he identified himself as an “anti-Semite.” In response to these posts, which called for the elimination of Jewish people, a UF law professor confronted him directly, prompting Damsky to provide equally troubling replies.
On April 3, Damsky received a trespass warning from UF, effectively banning him from campus for three years due to what was deemed escalating threats in his communications. While the university has maintained confidentiality regarding Damsky’s disciplinary actions, it cites student safety as a driving factor behind its decisions.
Amidst this tumult, Damsky has publicly acknowledged his Jewish ancestry but insists that his views are not influenced by his background. Despite the deeply charged nature of his rhetoric, Jane Bambauer, a UF law professor and First Amendment expert, argues that while Damsky’s speech may be distasteful, it falls within the realm of protected speech unless it incites violence or constitutes a direct threat.
Students have expressed discomfort regarding Damsky’s presence in an academic environment. Devin Kinnally, a pre-law senior at UF, noted the potential for harassment connected with Damsky’s views and emphasized the university’s responsibility to foster a safe learning atmosphere.
As the legal case progresses, it raises critical questions about the balance between free speech and the responsibility of educational institutions to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for all students. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Damsky’s position, underscoring the significance of the case in the broader context of constitutional rights.
The situation remains unresolved as the court weighs the implications of free speech within an academic setting against the potential for harm in a community. The outcome could have lasting repercussions for how universities navigate similar conflicts in the future.