Shirinian v. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Summary

On October 29, 2025, Tamar Shirinian, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, filed a federal lawsuit against the university, the University of Tennessee System, President Randy Boyd, Chancellor Donde Plowman, and Faculty Senate President Charles Noble. Shirinian sought reinstatement, placement back on the tenure track she had applied for in August 2025, back pay, compensation for emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit challenged the university’s decision to place her on administrative leave and initiate termination proceedings after she made an inflammatory personal social media comment following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, alleging that her First Amendment rights were violated. Shirinian also asked a federal judge to allow her to return to teaching while the lawsuit proceeds and to block the university’s efforts to terminate her. She asserted that the university’s actions reflected selective enforcement and political retaliation.

The controversy began on September 12, 2025, when Shirinian commented on a personal Facebook post a friend had made. She wrote that the world was better off without Kirk and that his children were better off living in a world without a disgusting psychopath, adding an expletive referring to Kirk. She also criticized Kirk’s wife, Erika, calling her a sick f— for marrying him. Conservative activist Robby Starbuck shared a screenshot of her comment on X, prompting a nationwide response, including more than 100 emails, voicemails, and calls to university leaders demanding her dismissal. The University of Tennessee Knoxville suspended Shirinian with pay on September 15, the day after Starbuck’s post, and quickly began termination proceedings, citing violations of faculty conduct standards and expectations for civil engagement.

In her filings, Shirinian acknowledged that her post was inappropriate but argued that it was made in her personal capacity, unrelated to her professional duties, and protected by the First Amendment. She raised concerns about inconsistent enforcement of university standards, highlighting a 2016 incident in which a UT law professor publicly urged protestors to run them down during an interstate demonstration but faced no discipline. Shirinian argued that this double standard, along with a parallel South Dakota case in which a federal judge reinstated a professor who had called Kirk a hate-spreading Nazi, showed selective enforcement and viewpoint-based retaliation. She contended that her comment, unlike the 2016 incident, did not encourage violence and that she had believed her post was private. She also argued that disciplining her created a chilling effect on faculty speech and academic freedom.

The university countered that her speech disrupted operations, undermined the institution’s mission, and was not protected under the three-prong First Amendment test for public employees, which considers whether the speaker acted as a private citizen, addressed a matter of public concern, and whether her rights outweigh the university’s operational interests. The university also argued that Shirinian waited too long to seek reinstatement and that returning her to the classroom would prolong disruption. Shirinian’s lawsuit includes claims that the university engaged in viewpoint discrimination by targeting her speech because of its political content. Her attorneys have emphasized that her comment did not incite violence and that she believed it was private, while the university maintains that her speech caused disruption.

Following her suspension, Shirinian issued an apology describing her remark as ineloquent and heartless and expressing regret for her language. In response to campus concerns about free speech, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution on November 18, 2025, asking university leaders to publicly reaffirm their commitment to academic freedom and free expression.

On December 18, 2025, a federal judge denied Shirinian’s first motion, which had sought to halt termination proceedings and allow her to return to teaching. The judge concluded her social media comment was not “core political speech” because it attacked Kirk as a person rather than his political ideas and found that UT’s interest in addressing the backlash outweighed her speech rights. On the same day, Shirinian filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing her comment was inherently political and pointing to Tennessee’s partnership with Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, in schools. Her attorneys stated that if the motion succeeds, she would be reinstated to the classroom, allowed to publish as a UTK professor, removed from administrative leave, have termination proceedings halted, and have her tenure-track position continue without interference or retaliation.

As of early 2026, the lawsuit remained pending, with Shirinian still on administrative leave. A federal judge has scheduled a five-day jury trial to begin on January 19, 2027, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in Knoxville.