A University of Kentucky law professor is suing the school, claiming his constitutional rights were violated after he was removed from teaching for publicly criticizing Israel. The case, now in federal court, pits First Amendment protections against state-mandated antisemitism definitions, raising serious concerns about free expression on college campuses.
Professor Ramsi Woodcock, tenured at the J. David Rosenberg College of Law, was reassigned in October 2023 after publishing a blog post and circulating a petition that called Israel a “colonization project” and advocated for global military intervention against it. The university barred him from teaching and restricted his access to the law school building. Woodcock filed a lawsuit on November 13, 2025, arguing that the university’s investigation into his comments, which it claimed may have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, was a politically motivated attempt to suppress dissent.
The university acted in accordance with a Kentucky General Assembly resolution passed earlier in 2025. That resolution required public colleges and universities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The IHRA’s working definition includes certain criticisms of Israel as potential examples of antisemitism, such as denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination or equating Israeli policies with Nazi practices.
Woodcock’s legal team argues that enforcing this definition in a disciplinary investigation amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. His lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, names the University of Kentucky, President Eli Capilouto, and other top administrators. He is seeking a court order to halt the investigation and restore his full teaching duties.
University spokesman Jay Blanton stated that Woodcock was not suspended but reassigned while the university investigates whether his conduct created a hostile learning environment. Blanton emphasized that faculty speech is protected unless it infringes on others’ rights or violates federal law.
The outcome of this case could influence how public universities balance free speech with civil rights obligations, especially on issues tied to international conflicts. With several states adopting the IHRA definition, the legal boundaries of acceptable academic discourse are likely to face increased scrutiny in the courts.
