University Reinstates Professor After Charlie Kirk Post Controversy

by Chris Peterson

There is news coming out of Tennessee about Austin Peay State University reinstating a tenured professor, whom they had fired for a social media post made in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s death, and agreeing to a $500,000 settlement.

For those who missed it, the university fired theatre professor Darren Michael after he reshared a social media post in the aftermath of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Michael did not add commentary. He did not praise the violence. He reposted an article that quoted Kirk’s own previously published statements about gun violence and the Second Amendment. That was it.

Within days, the university terminated him.

Months later, Austin Peay has now reversed course, reinstated Michael, and agreed to a significant financial settlement after acknowledging that it failed to follow the required procedures for firing a tenured faculty member. According to reporting, the administration conceded it did not properly adhere to its own policies and protections.

That matters. A lot.

Let me be clear upfront, because this is where these conversations tend to go sideways. I do believe in freedom of speech. I also believe that the use of that freedom comes with consequences. Especially in public-facing roles. Especially when speech touches something raw, violent, or deeply painful. Institutions are allowed to say, “This does not align with our values,” and respond accordingly.

But not every bad decision, uncomfortable moment, or poorly timed post rises to the level of career-ending punishment. And certainly not when the person involved has tenure and contractual protections designed to prevent exactly this kind of reactionary decision-making. That is the part of this story that keeps sticking with me.

Despite what some higher education critics think, tenure is not a reward for good behavior. It is not a shield for cruelty. It exists to protect academic freedom, due process, and the idea that universities should not be governed by panic, politics, or public pressure cycles. When a university fires a tenured professor, it is supposed to be slow. Deliberate. Documented. Boring, even. Committees. Hearings. Clear findings. A record. Working in this industry, I’ve seen the process first-hand.

Instead, what we got here looked a lot like a scramble.

The public university framed the post as insensitive and harmful. That is a fair conversation to have. It framed it as inconsistent with institutional values. Again, fine. Universities get to articulate their values. But it moved straight to termination, apparently without following the collective bargaining agreements and tenure review processes that were already in place.

And when that happens, the issue stops being about one Facebook post and starts being about whether an institution can be trusted to uphold its own rules. That is where my concern lives.

If Austin Peay was worried about community harm, there were other options. A formal reprimand. Mandatory training. A mediated conversation. A temporary suspension pending review. All of those would have sent a message that the university took the situation seriously while still respecting due process.

Termination should be the last stop, not the first.

What troubles me is not that the university disagreed with the content or timing of the post. It is that it appeared to respond to external political pressure with speed rather than care. When elected officials and public figures weigh in, universities feel heat. I understand that. But higher education institutions are supposed to be built to withstand that pressure, not collapse under it.

The settlement itself tells the story. Universities do not pay half a million dollars and reinstate tenured faculty unless they know they are on shaky ground. This was not a case of “we stand by our decision but are moving forward.” This was an admission, implicit or explicit, that the process failed.

And process matters, even when the person involved is unpopular, inconvenient, or politically awkward.

Today it is a professor who reposted something controversial. Tomorrow it is a faculty member who writes an op-ed. Or assigns a text. Or asks the wrong question in class. Or tweets frustration after a long week. If tenure and collective bargaining agreements can be brushed aside when things get loud, then what exactly are they worth?

I keep coming back to this question: what does this say about Austin Peay as an institution?

Not about its politics. About its governance.

The university eventually did the right thing, but only after damage was done. A professor’s career was derailed. Students lost an instructor. Taxpayers are now footing a settlement that could have been avoided. Trust was eroded, and rebuilding that trust takes more than a press release and a check.

Universities should be places where ideas are challenged, debated, and sometimes mishandled without the nuclear option being deployed every time controversy erupts. They should model how to handle conflict thoughtfully, not how to escalate it.

You can believe in consequences without believing in scorched earth. You can care about community standards while still honoring contracts. You can condemn violence, reject insensitivity, and still defend due process.

Those things are not contradictions. They are the foundation of higher education.