Tennessee Professor Fired Over Charlie Kirk Comment Reaches $1.9M Settlement
The University of Tennessee System Board of Trustees has approved a $1.9 million settlement with former assistant professor Tamar Shirinian, who was fired after posting a critical Facebook comment about slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The settlement, approved on June 29, resolves a federal lawsuit in which Shirinian alleged the university violated her First Amendment rights.
Shirinian will not be reinstated to her faculty position at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. The settlement still requires approval from the Tennessee Attorney General and Governor Bill Lee, with a court deadline of August 28 for both parties to file final documents ending the case, according to Knox News.
Background
The case traces back to September 12, 2025, two days after Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Shirinian, then an assistant professor of cultural anthropology, posted a comment on a friend’s private Facebook post stating that the “world is better off without him in it” and calling Kirk’s wife a “sick f--- for marrying him.”
A social media provocateur spread Shirinian’s comment online, sparking public outrage. UT System President Randy Boyd announced an investigation on September 15, and Chancellor Donde Plowman subsequently suspended Shirinian and initiated the firing process. Shirinian sued the university in federal court on October 29, and Plowman finalized the termination on February 11, 2026.
In her February firing letter, Chancellor Plowman wrote that Shirinian’s words “celebrated a gruesome murder, which horrifically took place on a college campus similar to our own, and then went on to callously demean the grief and loss felt by the widow and young children of the victim,” as Fox News reported.
The Settlement
Board Chair John Compton recused himself from the vote approving the settlement. Compton explained the rationale, saying, “Any continuing litigation would require significant time and attention, and financial resources, and those resources are better directed toward advancing the institution’s mission, vision and values,” as Inside Higher Ed reported.
Shirinian’s attorney, Robb Bigelow, said in a statement: “My client is pleased that the parties reached a resolution. Litigation is always difficult, and we’re grateful to everyone on both sides who worked diligently to bring this matter to a close.”
A Pattern of Kirk-Related Settlements
The Shirinian case is the largest in a series of legal settlements involving employees fired for comments about Charlie Kirk following his assassination. Combined, these cases have cost public universities over $2.6 million.
In January 2026, Austin Peay State University in Tennessee reinstated a theater professor and paid a $500,000 settlement after he was fired for sharing an old news headline about Kirk’s views on gun rights. The university acknowledged it had not followed the required tenure termination process.
In May 2026, Ball State University in Indiana paid a $225,000 settlement to former administrator Suzanne Swierc, who was fired after posting on Facebook, “If you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can’t be friends.”
Analysis and Implications
The pattern of settlements suggests that universities may be recognizing the legal vulnerability of firing employees for comments made in private settings about public figures, even when those comments are offensive. As public university employees, faculty members’ speech is protected by the First Amendment when it addresses matters of public concern, though courts have historically given public employers latitude to discipline speech that disrupts operations.
A key element of Shirinian’s lawsuit sought to disclose the identity of a donor who allegedly threatened to withdraw a $10 million gift if she was not fired, raising significant questions about donor influence on academic decision-making.
What’s Next
The settlement now awaits approval from Tennessee state officials. The broader questions raised by this case — about the boundaries of academic freedom, the role of social media in employment decisions, and the influence of political pressure on university governance — remain unresolved as similar cases continue to emerge on college campuses nationwide.