Late on January 14, the University of Arkansas law school announced it had rescinded the offer of employment to Prof. Emily Suski, who had been tapped for the dean position less than a week ago. The University’s statement cited “feedback from key external stakeholders.”
What happened?
Rep. Nicole Clowney (D-Fayetteville) told a different story. In a widely-shared Facebook post, she said that “a few state legislators along with at least one constitutional officer” took umbrage with Prof. Suski’s hiring. Their reasoning? Prof. Suski, a specialist in health and poverty law, civil rights law in public schools, and clinical legal education, signed onto a “friend of the court” brief in a case that has challenged bans on transgender students participating in sports as their authentic selves.
As of this writing on the morning of January 15, 2026, we don’t know who the legislators or the constitutional officer are, but we can make educated guesses. It’s almost certainly some of the usual suspects plying their culture war garbage, emboldened by the federal government’s assault on DEI and free speech.
What does this mean?
We think there’s two major concerns here.
First, there’s the obvious attack on free speech and academic integrity. Prof. Suski had no part in the actual case concerning trans students in sports; she merely signed on to a brief supporting one side on the case that legislators apparently disagreed with. In no universe is that grounds for dismissal. Prof. Suski has a right as both an academic and a lawyer to support lawsuits in which she has expertise.
And she does have expertise in this matter; the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported last week that Prof. Suski “has received more than $4.5 million in grants for CHAMPS, a public-private, legal-medical partnership that has grown from a budget of zero dollars to an annual budget of $750,000 and serves low-income children and families in 31 South Carolina counties.” Sounds like someone that could do some real good in Arkansas.
But no: the shortsightedness of the culture warriors takes precedence, once again, over what’s good for Arkansas. Prof. Suski undoubtedly brings an incredible amount of expertise to the state, but Bart Hester and Tim Griffin are more concerned with scoring points in a game only they want to play. This is a huge loss for the state. It is embarrassing, unconstitutional, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Which, incidentally, brings up our second concern.
Governments function best when they stay out of the way of experts and let them get on with it. Overt interference on the grounds of political disagreement does not exactly signal to experts that Arkansas is the place to be.
Put otherwise, moves like this force experts, academics, and folks that generally want to do their job as they’ve been trained to make tough choices about whether they want to risk this kind of government overreach. It’s very reminiscent of Felicia Branch’s case at UALR Bowen Law School. Free speech is not on the table in Arkansas anymore.
It’s forced brain drain.
The hiring process for this role was over two years long; that would have been multiple interviews, campus visits, discussions with family, looking for real estate (famously easy in Fayetteville), and the joy of getting the gig, only to have the rug pulled out from under you less than a week later.
Who else will want this job now if that’s how they’ll be treated? Likely someone less qualified and less-well suited to deal with Arkansas’ unique issues. What signal does this send to other high-income, skilled folks thinking about moving here?
Nothing good, that’s for sure.
Other legislators on both sides of the aisle could push back against Hester and Griffin’s idiocy, but we, sadly, won’t hold our breath.
This is a developing story. We’ve reached out to Prof. Suski for comment but have not yet heard back from her or her representatives.
Update, Jan 16: Here is an emailed statement we received from Prof. Suski: “After a rigorous review process, I was honored to be selected to lead the University of Arkansas School of Law and was preparing to serve the students, faculty, and the state of Arkansas with integrity and commitment. I am disappointed and hurt by the University’s decision to rescind my contract. I have been informed that the decision was not in any way a reflection of my qualifications to serve as dean, but rather the result of influence from external individuals. Questions concerning that feedback are best directed to the University of Arkansas.”
