The University of Tennessee at Knoxville has initiated termination proceedings against an assistant professor for a social media comment made after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. However, legal experts specializing in free speech argue the university may be on weak legal ground if it proceeds with the dismissal.
Cultural anthropology professor Tamar Shirinian was suspended on September 15 after her comment drew widespread public attention. Free speech scholars suggest that while the remark was offensive, it likely falls under protections afforded to public employees speaking as private citizens.
Key Takeaways
- The University of Tennessee is seeking to fire Professor Tamar Shirinian for a social media post about conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
- Shirinian's comment, stating the world was "better off without him," was made from a personal account.
- First Amendment experts argue the comment is likely protected speech, despite being offensive, and does not constitute a direct threat or harassment.
- The university's own policies and state law protect academic freedom and the expression of diverse ideas, even those considered disagreeable.
- A 2016 incident involving another UT professor who made a controversial tweet resulted in no disciplinary action from the university, raising questions of consistency.
Professor's Comment Sparks National Outcry
The controversy began after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative figure. Professor Tamar Shirinian posted a comment from her personal social media account stating, “The world is better off without him in it.” She also used derogatory language to describe Kirk's wife.
The comment gained national visibility when conservative activist Robby Starbuck shared a screenshot of it alongside Shirinian's university profile page on the social media platform X. Starbuck's post, which urged his nearly 845,000 followers to contact the university, was viewed millions of times.
The resulting public pressure included calls for action from elected officials, including U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn and U.S. Representative Tim Burchett. The university responded quickly to the growing backlash.
University Takes Swift Action
On September 15, just one day after the post went viral, UT System President Randy Boyd announced an investigation. Campus leadership suspended Shirinian from her teaching duties and publicly stated their intention to terminate her employment.
Public vs. Private Employee Speech
Private companies generally have broad authority to discipline or fire employees for public statements they dislike. However, public institutions like the University of Tennessee are government entities and are bound by the First Amendment, which provides greater speech protections for their employees, especially when they speak as private citizens on matters of public concern.
Legal Experts Question University's Position
Despite the university's decisive action, First Amendment scholars believe a legal challenge to the firing would likely succeed. They argue that Shirinian’s comment, while inflammatory, does not meet the legal standard for unprotected speech.
Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, described the situation clearly.
“It’s not harassment, it’s poor taste. It’s not a threat, it’s a tacky comment,” Paulson stated. “In fact, if the university adopted a policy that said, ‘You can be punished for not being sufficiently saddened by the death of a prominent American,’ it would be struck down immediately by any court in the land.”
Donald Downs, a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who has experience with campus speech codes, agreed with this assessment. “Who is threatened by what this professor said?” Downs asked. He emphasized that while he found the comment deplorable, Shirinian is entitled to legal protections. “She’s got due process protections, she has certain academic freedom protections and extramural speech, and those have to be respected.”
University Policies and State Law
The University of Tennessee's own policies, along with state law, establish a framework that strongly supports free expression on campus. These rules are designed to protect the exchange of ideas, which is considered fundamental to higher education.
Key Protections in Place
The university operates under several layers of free speech protection:
- The First Amendment: As a public institution, UT must adhere to the U.S. Constitution's speech protections.
- Campus Free Speech Protection Act: A 2017 Tennessee law explicitly states that it is not the role of a university to shield individuals from ideas they find “offensive, unwise, immoral, indecent, disagreeable.”
- UT System Board of Trustees Policy: This policy reinforces that civility is valued but cannot be used to justify silencing discussion. It also protects a faculty member's right to speak as a private citizen.
The board's policy on personal expression advises faculty to be professional and make it clear they are not speaking for the university, which Shirinian appeared to do by posting from a personal account not identified with her employer.
The Pickering-Connick Test
Courts often use a legal standard known as the "Pickering-Connick test" to evaluate public employee speech cases. The test balances two key factors: whether the employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern, and whether that speech caused a "material and substantial disruption" to the employer's operations. Experts note that in many social media cases, the disruption is often caused by the organized public outrage campaign itself, not the initial comment.
A Contradiction with Past Precedent
Critics of the university's move to fire Shirinian point to a similar incident in 2016 involving another UT professor. Glenn Reynolds, a law professor, tweeted "Run them down" in response to a news report about protestors blocking a highway in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Reynolds' tweet also generated significant public backlash. His column for USA TODAY was suspended for a month, and his Twitter account was briefly locked. However, the university's law school decided not to punish him.
At the time, the college's dean, Melanie D. Wilson, stated that the tweet was "an exercise of his First Amendment rights." Reynolds issued an apology and continues to be employed by the university.
Questions of Inconsistent Application
Paulson notes that the free speech protections for UT faculty are even stronger today than they were in 2016. He questioned the university's differing responses.
“I would want to ask the University of Tennessee-Knoxville why that doesn’t apply in this situation? Why did it apply in 2016, but not today?” Paulson asked. “How is that different from someone earlier seemingly calling for violence against pedestrians?”
Reynolds himself commented on the current situation, stating via email that it is "problematic whenever anyone, especially a government employee, is punished for expressing an opinion... outside of work." He argued his 2016 post was different because it concerned self-defense against violent rioters, whereas Shirinian's comment approved of a murder based on political opinions.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges universities face in balancing free speech principles with intense public and political pressure in the age of social media.
