The University of Tennessee is moving toward a $1.9 million settlement with former anthropology professor Tamar Shirinian, ending a federal court fight over her firing after she criticized conservative activist Charlie Kirk following his death in September 2025.
The University of Tennessee System Board of Trustees Audit and Compliance Committee approved a $1.9 million settlement on June 29. The agreement would resolve Shirinian’s lawsuit, but it does not return her to the Knoxville campus classroom.
Settlement Requires State Approval
The settlement still needs approval from Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti before it becomes final. Shirinian’s attorney, Robert Bigelow, said the agreement would resolve the case in full.
The proposed payment resolves a dispute that began with a personal Facebook comment, escalated to university disciplinary action, and ultimately became a federal civil rights lawsuit. The university did not admit wrongdoing as part of the reported agreement.
Shirinian had sought to return to teaching during the case. The settlement instead ends the litigation without reinstatement, leaving the former professor separated from the university.
Comment Followed Kirk’s Killing
The dispute began after Charlie Kirk was killed Sept. 10, 2025, while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Kirk was the founder of Turning Point USA and a major conservative political figure.
Shirinian later wrote a Facebook comment criticizing Kirk. The comment said the world was “better off without him,” and included harsh remarks about Kirk, his wife and his children.
She later apologized for the post. She described the comment as insensitive and uncharacteristic of her.
A screenshot of the post spread online. Conservative activists and some Tennessee political figures called for action against Shirinian after the screenshot circulated.
UT Placed Professor On Leave
University officials placed Shirinian on paid administrative leave in September 2025. Chancellor Donde Plowman then began termination proceedings.
Plowman argued that Shirinian’s words appeared to celebrate a killing and demean the grief of Kirk’s surviving family. The university treated the comment as a faculty conduct issue, not only a private online statement.
The disciplinary process continued for months. Shirinian was fired in February 2026.
The firing turned a campus personnel matter into a public legal test. The case centered on whether a public university can punish an employee for personal political speech that leaders consider damaging to the institution.
Lawsuit Claimed Retaliation
Shirinian filed a federal lawsuit in October 2025. She claimed the university violated her First Amendment rights by retaliating against her for speech made on a personal account.
The lawsuit named University of Tennessee leaders, including UT System President Randy Boyd and Chancellor Plowman. It argued that her comment was not made in the course of her university duties.
Shirinian’s legal position was direct. She argued that offensive political speech can still receive constitutional protection when a public employee speaks as a private citizen on a matter of public concern.
The university rejected that view. It argued that the comment disrupted the school’s mission and damaged trust in its faculty standards.
Political Pressure Became Central
Political pressure became a key part of the dispute. Shirinian argued that university officials acted after outside criticism intensified.
University leaders received more than 100 messages demanding her dismissal after the post circulated. The pressure included calls, emails, and voicemails.
The lawsuit also alleged that political figures contacted university leaders about the case. Those allegations became part of Shirinian’s claim that the university enforced its standards selectively.
The university did not concede that outside pressure drove its decision. It maintained that Shirinian’s comment violated professional expectations for faculty members.
Judge Allowed Amended Claims
The case was still moving in federal court before the settlement emerged. In June, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jill E. McCook granted most of Shirinian’s request to amend her complaint.
The amended complaint removed some defendants and added others. It also added new legal claims, including due process and defamation-related allegations.
That ruling expanded the scope of the litigation shortly before the settlement notice. Continued proceedings could have required a deeper review of internal communications, termination steps, and contacts with outside officials.
The settlement avoids a trial and closes the case before a court decides whether the firing violated the Constitution.
Free Speech Rules Framed The Dispute
The University of Tennessee is a public institution, which made the case legally significant. Public universities must enforce workplace rules while also respecting constitutional limits.
Tennessee’s campus speech policy protects free speech principles for students and faculty. It says the university should not suppress ideas because they are offensive, immoral, disagreeable, conservative, liberal, traditional, radical, or wrongheaded.
That policy did not automatically decide the case. But it gave Shirinian’s attorneys a framework for arguing that the university punished the viewpoint of her speech.
The university’s position focused on workplace impact. Its leaders argued that faculty members have obligations tied to public trust, student confidence, and institutional standards.
Tennessee Case Follows Similar Settlement
The University of Tennessee settlement follows another Tennessee case involving faculty speech after Kirk’s death. Austin Peay State University reinstated professor Darren Michael and agreed to pay $500,000 after he was fired over a related social media post.
That earlier case involved a different university and different facts. But both disputes showed how quickly public campus discipline can become expensive litigation when political speech and employment rules collide.
The UT case is larger financially. At $1.9 million, the proposed settlement represents a major cost for ending the lawsuit before trial.
Case Ends Without Court Ruling
The settlement leaves several questions unresolved. A court will not decide whether Shirinian’s firing violated the First Amendment. The university also avoids a legal finding that its disciplinary process was unlawful.
For Shirinian, the agreement provides a financial resolution but no return to her faculty position. For the university, it ends a case that had drawn national scrutiny and could have required extended discovery.
The latest known status is that the board committee has approved the proposed settlement. The agreement still requires state approval before the payment and dismissal of the lawsuit can be finalized.
