Tennessee taxpayers could fund a $1.9 million settlement after a public university fired a professor over a controversial Facebook post about conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Story Snapshot
- The University of Tennessee Board of Trustees approved a tentative $1.9 million settlement with former professor Tamar Shirinian, who was fired after celebrating conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Facebook.
- A federal judge earlier ruled her comment was not “core political speech” and said the university’s interest in calming backlash outweighed her free speech claim.
- The settlement ends her civil-rights lawsuit, but she will not get her job back or be reinstated to the faculty.
- The case highlights how public universities and courts are handling online speech, with studies showing professors lose most First Amendment lawsuits against their institutions.
What Exactly Happened Between UT and Tamar Shirinian?
Former University of Tennessee anthropology professor Tamar Shirinian posted a personal Facebook comment in September 2025 after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated during a campus event in Utah. In that post, she called Kirk a “disgusting psychopath,” said the world was “better off without him,” and dismissed concern for his widow and children. The university quickly placed her on administrative leave and started termination proceedings, calling her behavior “gross misconduct” in a letter from Chancellor Donde Plowman.
Shirinian later apologized publicly, calling her words “insensitive” and “uncharacteristic,” but the university moved ahead anyway. She was fired in February 2026. After her dismissal, she filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the university punished her for political speech made in a personal capacity and engaged in viewpoint discrimination because her comments attacked a prominent conservative figure. Her case argued the school violated her First Amendment rights by targeting the content and viewpoint of her post rather than any clear job-related misconduct.
Why Is Tennessee Paying $1.9 Million If the Judge Backed the University?
During the lawsuit, a federal judge refused to halt the university’s termination process and ruled that her Facebook post was not “core political speech” because it went after Kirk as a person, not his ideas. The judge also said the University of Tennessee’s interest in dealing with public backlash and protecting campus reputation outweighed her speech rights in this situation. That ruling weakened her legal position but did not end the case, which was headed toward a jury trial in early 2027.
Facing that trial, the University of Tennessee System Board of Trustees approved a tentative settlement to pay Shirinian about $1.9 million to resolve the dispute. Local reporting says she will not be reinstated to her former position and will not return to teaching at the university, even with the payout. Shirinian has told reporters she is “pleased with the outcome,” suggesting the settlement meets her main legal goals despite losing on some early motions in court. The agreement still needs final approval under state processes, including sign-off by the governor.
What This Case Says About Free Speech, Elites, and Who Really Pays
Studies of professor speech cases show public universities win more than 70 percent of First Amendment lawsuits brought by faculty, often by arguing that employee speech is tied to their professional roles and can be limited. Courts increasingly use the Supreme Court’s Garcetti doctrine to say public employees have no free speech protection when their speech “owes its existence” to their job duties, even if it happens off campus or online. Shirinian’s case fits this pattern, with the judge siding with the institution’s interest in managing outrage over a professor’s social media comments.
A former University of Tennessee professor who celebrated conservative influencer Charlie Kirk's murder on social media will receive a $1.9 million settlement after suing over her termination. 🔥 #NewsFireGR #News…
Read here 👇👇https://t.co/nPVWtK0byM— NewsFire.GR (@NewsFireGR) July 1, 2026
At the same time, the university’s choice to settle for $1.9 million signals it saw real legal and political risk in pressing the case to a jury. Conservative critics now see the payout as proof that “leftist” professors can attack a slain activist and still walk away rich at taxpayer expense, while many liberals view the firing as another example of powerful institutions punishing dissenting speech when donors and politicians complain. For people across the spectrum who already believe a small group of elites run public institutions for their own protection, this case looks like classic damage control paid for by ordinary citizens.
Why Both Left and Right Are Upset With How Government Handles Speech
Many conservatives watch this case and see a university that labels harsh words as “gross misconduct” yet still writes a seven-figure check instead of standing firm, reinforcing their belief that higher education leaders care more about lawsuits and image than real accountability. Many liberals see a judge downplaying online speech as “not core political” and a university firing a professor over comments made on a personal page, which fits a long trend of shrinking space for controversial ideas in public institutions.
Both sides can agree on one thing: taxpayers are paying the bill while university officials and lawyers move on. The settlement does not clearly answer where the line lies between offensive speech and punishable conduct for public employees online. It leaves citizens wondering whether rules change based on whose outrage is loudest and which political figure is involved. In that sense, the case feeds a broader fear that the system protects institutions first and the public’s freedoms only when it is convenient.
Sources:
washingtontimes.com, campus-speech.law.duke.edu, scribd.com, utdailybeacon.com, instagram.com, knoxnews.com
