University of Tennessee – Faculty Senate Free Speech Resolution

Summary

On November 18, 2025, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) Faculty Senate passed a resolution calling on university administrators to publicly reaffirm the institution’s commitment to free speech. The resolution requested a clear statement endorsing due process, academic freedom, and protection for faculty and students to express controversial or unpopular ideas without fear of retaliation. The Senate emphasized that the resolution was not directed at any individual case but reflected broader concern that recent events had created uncertainty about the protection of speech on campus. Faculty members noted that a public reaffirmation could help clarify institutional expectations and protect both faculty and students in future situations involving controversial expression.

The resolution followed controversy surrounding assistant professor Tamar Shirinian, who had posted comments on social media after the death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. Her remarks drew widespread criticism and led the university to suspend her pending termination. In response, Shirinian filed a lawsuit challenging the suspension and potential firing, alleging that the university violated her First Amendment rights and university policies protecting academic freedom. Critics, including academic-freedom advocates, argued that her speech, though offensive to some, was constitutionally protected and that disciplinary action lacked due process. The case quickly became a flashpoint in broader debates about the limits of faculty speech and the responsibilities of public universities to uphold academic freedom.

In its statement on free speech and academic freedom, the Faculty Senate underscored UTK’s commitment to fostering “a campus atmosphere that simultaneously allows for a robust exchange of ideas and for the inclusion of the widest variety of people.” The Senate clarified that protecting free expression does not prevent the university from enforcing policies against harassment, threats, or unlawful discrimination, but that restrictions must be narrowly tailored and viewpoint-neutral. It reaffirmed that controversial or unpopular speech, including criticism of public figures or political positions, falls within protected academic expression. Senators also highlighted past incidents on campus, including white-supremacist messaging and other offensive speech, noting that condemnation of such messages should coexist with broad protections for lawful expression. The statement emphasized the importance of transparent processes, consistent application of policies, and clear communication from administrators to prevent misunderstandings about what constitutes protected speech.