Not every statement made by a public employee about her job addresses a matter of public concern, however. “When a public employee's speech is purely job-related, that speech will not be deemed a matter of public concern.... Unless the employee is speaking as a concerned citizen, and not just as an employee, the speech does not fall under the protection of the First Amendment.”
Buazard v. Meridith, 172 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir.1999). In
Tuttle v. Missouri Department of Agriculture, for instance, we held that a grain inspector's conversation with his supervisor touching on recent worker cutbacks, employment policies, possible increases in salaries, promotions, and safety issues did not address matters of public concern because the employee was speaking solely as an employee.
172 F.3d 1025, 1034 (8th Cir.1999). Statements that deal with personnel matters are not generally protected by the First Amendment, and statements of “purely academic interest” to the speaker will be given broader protection than those in which she has a personal interest.
See Shands, 993 F.2d at 1343. The question before us, then, is whether Belk's statements, which were unquestionably related to her employment, addressed solely personnel matters or matters of public concern.