KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — The University of Tennessee is moving forward with a proposed $1.9 million settlement with a former professor who sued the school after she was disciplined and later terminated over social media comments made following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
The settlement would resolve litigation brought by former assistant professor Tamar Shirinian, who argued that university officials violated her constitutional rights when they placed her on administrative leave and later fired her after a social media post that drew national outrage.
Shirinian’s comments came shortly after Kirk was killed during a speaking event at a college campus in September 2025. In the post, she described Kirk as a “disgusting psychopath” and wrote that “the world is better off without him in it.”
The remarks generated immediate backlash and quickly spread across social media, prompting calls for disciplinary action from activists, alumni and political figures.
University leaders responded by placing Shirinian on administrative leave while reviewing the matter.
Months later, the university terminated her employment. In a letter explaining the decision, University of Tennessee Chancellor Donde Plowman wrote that Shirinian’s comments celebrated a murder and mocked the grief experienced by Kirk’s family.
“Your words celebrated a gruesome murder, which horrifically took place on a college campus similar to our own,” Plowman wrote, “and then went on to callously demean the grief and loss felt by the widow and young children of the victim.”
Shirinian subsequently filed suit, alleging that the university violated protections afforded by the First Amendment.
Meet Tamar Shirinian. Tamar is a professor at @UTKnoxville. Someone sent this horrific post to my DM’s. UTK must take action. Email: [email protected] to ask President @randyboyd to act now. Also, why do we even have queer theory or queer anthropology specialists at… pic.twitter.com/3mcxTzettr
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 14, 2025
According to local reporting, the proposed settlement includes no reinstatement to her former position but would provide a payment of approximately $1.9 million. The settlement was approved by the University of Tennessee Board of Trustees and now requires additional state-level approvals before becoming final.
Following news of the agreement, Shirinian expressed satisfaction with the outcome. “I am very pleased with the outcome,” she said in a statement. Her attorney, Robb Bigelow, said both sides worked to resolve the dispute and avoid further litigation. “My client is pleased that the parties reached a resolution,” Bigelow said. “Litigation is always difficult, and we’re grateful to everyone on both sides who worked diligently to bring this matter to a close.”
The case drew national attention because it sat at the intersection of two highly contentious issues: free speech protections for public employees and the limits of acceptable public commentary following acts of political violence.
Legal experts have long noted that public universities face unique constitutional challenges when disciplining faculty members for speech made outside the classroom. Courts have frequently scrutinized whether government employers are punishing employees for protected expression, even when that expression is offensive or deeply unpopular.
The settlement avoids a potentially lengthy legal battle that could have further clarified how courts view speech involving public employees, political violence and social media activity.
This story creates a question that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
Was the professor’s statement offensive? Absolutely. Was it cruel? Without question. Celebrating the murder of a husband and father while mocking the grief of his family is the sort of thing most decent people instinctively recoil from.
But there’s a separate question that courts often ask: Can the government punish someone for saying it?
That’s where these cases become complicated. Universities spend years telling students that free speech matters most when it’s unpopular. Then a truly ugly example comes along and everyone suddenly discovers how difficult that principle can be in practice.
What’s likely to frustrate taxpayers is the final number.
Many Americans will look at this case and conclude that a professor made reprehensible comments, lost her job, and is now walking away with nearly $2 million. Others will argue that constitutional rights don’t disappear simply because the speech is offensive.
The settlement doesn’t resolve that debate. It may actually intensify it. What it does demonstrate is that when public institutions make employment decisions involving speech, the legal risks can be enormous. And in this case, those risks appear to have carried a seven-figure price tag.
