University of Tennessee reaches $1.9 million settlement with fired professor

The University of Tennessee System Board of Trustees approved a $1.9 million settlement for Tamar Shirinian, the former University of Tennessee at Knoxville anthropology professor fired after comments about Charlie Kirk. The deal still needs approval from Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, and it does not reinstate Shirinian to her former position.

Shirinian was placed on leave in September 2025 after posting on her personal Facebook page that the world was better off without Kirk and calling him a “disgusting psychopath.” She later sent Chancellor Donde Plowman a written apology, describing the comments as “ineloquent and heartless” and saying they did not endorse violence. UT formally terminated her on February 11, 2026, for misconduct, setting up a jury trial that had been scheduled for January 2027 before the settlement was reached.

The case has become one of the clearest tests in Tennessee of how far universities can go when faculty speech collides with political outrage and donor pressure. In litigation, Shirinian alleged that a donor threatened to pull a $10 million gift if she was not fired, an allegation that put the institution’s finances and its handling of viewpoint disputes under a harsher spotlight. Her attorney, Robb Bigelow, said his client was pleased with the resolution.

The settlement also fits into a wider pattern that has stretched across Tennessee higher education since Kirk’s death. Austin Peay State University previously reinstated theatre professor Darren Michael and paid him $500,000 in a separate settlement tied to his own Kirk-related post. In February 2026, Tennessee lawmakers began discussing tenure reform, with some members casting the proposals as a response to the campus discipline fights that followed the social media controversies.

Shirinian’s case now stands as a reminder that the stakes in these disputes extend beyond one faculty member’s employment. Universities are being forced to decide whether speech rules are being enforced consistently when the political consequences are severe, while state officials, trustees and donors continue to shape the boundaries of academic freedom in real time.