The University of Kansas’ recent suspension of four university cheerleaders raises serious questions about how the university handled the incident.

Most concerning is that the university used social media to publicly chastise and embarrass the students before they could be afforded due process for an incident in which it still isn’t clear that those suspended intentionally did anything wrong.

The incident was sparked by a photo posted to the Snapchat social media account of sophomore cheerleader Lili Gagin. The photo shows three cheerleaders, all white males, standing side by side in sweaters with the letter “K” for Kansas on the front. The sweaters were licensed by the university and sold in the KU Bookstore last year as part of a basketball game promotion. On the photo, someone added the text “Kkk go trump.”

The Snapchat message was posted Nov. 19, and the university learned of it via Twitter Nov. 21 during a KU men’s basketball game. Within two hours, KU Athletics and KU had announced Gagin’s suspension on their official Twitter accounts.

“Unacceptable. She is suspended from cheering pending formal investigation. This behavior won’t be tolerated,” KU Athletics tweeted to its 179,000 followers.

The university’s official Twitter account added for its 64,000 followers: “There is no place for this in our community. These types of messages are unacceptable.”

Gagin says she didn’t post the photo to Snapchat, that someone else used her phone to send the message. The male cheerleaders’ intent isn’t definitive — was it simply a group photo of the three in the same sweater or did they mean to spell out KKK? Finally, is “Kkk go trump” an overtly racist message or simply poorly worded social commentary?

The university is right to pursue an investigation, and the suspensions may ultimately be warranted. To be clear — such suspensions are not an infringement on the cheerleaders’ right to free speech. The students have the right to express any views they wish. But they can’t expect to engage in offensive speech free of consequence, including the loss of the right to represent the university as a cheerleader.

Free speech isn’t the problem here. The problem is the university’s response. Just as deleting the original Snapchat can’t undo the damage, the posts from the university’s official Twitter accounts can’t be reversed.

University spokeswoman Erinn Barcomb-Peterson said the university reacted quickly on Twitter because KU officials wanted “to send an immediate response” to something that was getting a lot of attention on social media. In what was perhaps an “on second thought” moment, the university deleted its tweets the next day and added a clarification to Facebook.

It’s unfortunate but certainly not surprising that college students may have posted something inappropriate and perhaps even racist to social media. What is surprising is the University of Kansas’ own trigger-happy rush to judgment on social media. There’s nothing to cheer about on either side of this episode.