Professor Reinstated with $500,000 Settlement After Firing Over Social Media Post
In a significant turn of events highlighting the intersection of academic freedom and social media expression, a Tennessee theater professor has been reinstated to his position after being terminated over a Facebook post following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Darren Michael, an associate professor of acting and directing at Austin Peay State University (APSU), not only regained his job last month but also secured a substantial $500,000 settlement from the university. The agreement, as reported by local news outlet WKRN News 2, also includes coverage for therapeutic counseling services that Michael sought after his dismissal. This case has drawn attention to the tensions between university administration decisions, political influence, and faculty rights in an increasingly polarized social media landscape.
The controversy began on September 12, 2023, just two days after Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was fatally shot by a sniper while speaking at Utah Valley University. Professor Michael had shared an article on his personal Facebook account titled “Charlie Kirk says gun deaths are ‘unfortunately’ worth it to keep 2nd Amendment.” Notably, Michael added no personal commentary to the article when sharing it. However, this simple act of sharing caught the attention of Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, who posted a screenshot of Michael’s Facebook post on X (formerly Twitter) with the caption “What do you say, Austin Peay?” The senator’s post included Michael’s photograph and professional resume, essentially drawing public attention to the professor’s identity and workplace. Within hours of Senator Blackburn’s post, APSU President Mike Licari announced Michael’s termination, stating that the professor’s social media activity was “insensitive, disrespectful and interpreted by many as propagating justification for unlawful death,” adding that such actions did not align with the university’s “commitment to mutual respect and human dignity.”
The university’s swift decision to terminate a tenured professor over a social media post without following established due process procedures ultimately proved costly. The settlement agreement specifically acknowledges this procedural failure, stating, “APSU agrees to issue a statement acknowledging regret for not following the tenure termination process in connection with the Dispute.” This statement will be distributed via email to faculty, staff, and students through the university’s communication channels. The case raises important questions about academic freedom and the rights of faculty to engage in public discourse, even on controversial topics. The half-million-dollar settlement suggests recognition from the university that proper procedures were not followed in their rush to terminate Michael, who as a tenured professor was entitled to specific protections and due process before dismissal.
The situation illuminates the growing pressure that public universities face when navigating politically charged issues. Senator Blackburn’s public call-out of Professor Michael represents an increasingly common phenomenon where elected officials use their platforms to spotlight individual academics whose views or actions they find objectionable. This form of public scrutiny, amplified by social media, can create immense pressure on university administrators to take immediate action, sometimes at the expense of established academic protocols and faculty rights. The settlement in this case may serve as a cautionary tale for other institutions considering similar rapid-response terminations without following tenure protections, especially when those decisions come in response to political pressure or public outcry rather than through established university disciplinary channels.
For Professor Michael, the personal and professional impact of this ordeal extended beyond temporary loss of employment. The inclusion of reimbursement for therapeutic counseling in the settlement acknowledges the psychological toll that such public controversy and sudden termination can take on an individual. Being thrust into a national spotlight, having one’s professional reputation questioned, and losing employment over sharing a news article without comment represents a traumatic experience that required professional mental health support. While his financial compensation and job restoration represent tangible remedies, the emotional and reputational impacts of such an experience may have lasting effects on his career and wellbeing. The case highlights the personal consequences that can result when academic expression becomes entangled with political controversy in the age of social media.
The resolution of this case may have implications beyond just one professor and one university. It represents a significant moment in the ongoing national conversation about academic freedom, the boundaries of free expression for faculty, and the role of due process in university employment decisions. As universities across the country grapple with increasingly polarized political environments, this case demonstrates the potential legal and financial consequences of rushing to judgment in response to public pressure. The substantial settlement serves as a reminder that tenure protections exist for meaningful reasons, including safeguarding the academic freedom necessary for the pursuit of knowledge and truth, even when that pursuit touches on controversial topics. For both universities and faculty members navigating this complex landscape, the case offers valuable lessons about the importance of established procedures, the potential consequences of bypassing them, and the real human impact of decisions made in the heat of political controversy.
