In a controversial move, the University of Arkansas Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law has terminated law professor Felicia Branch due to comments she made on social media about the death of far-right activist Charlie Kirk. Branch's remarks, which celebrated the demise of Kirk citing his method of targeting individuals, sparked a significant backlash leading to her firing.

Branch, in her Facebook post, explicitly mentioned Kirk's tactics against individuals like Preston Mitchum, a queer Black activist. She stated she would “not pull back from CELEBRATING that an evil man died by the method he chose to embrace.” This post came under intense scrutiny, leading to a clamor for her dismissal, prominently from white Republican leaders in Arkansas, including the governor and the attorney general.

Initially, Branch was suspended with pay in September while the university conducted its investigation. Despite the investigation’s findings and a subsequent appeal by Branch, which led to a faculty panel recommending only a warning, the university’s chancellor, Christina Drale, decided to uphold Branch’s termination. In her statement, Drale mentioned that Branch's posts disrupted “the operation and effectiveness of the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic, the Bowen School of Law, and UA Little Rock.”

This decision has ignited discussions about the balance between free expression and professional conduct within academic settings. Branch's supporters argue that her dismissal reflects a double standard, especially considering that Charlie Kirk, known for his provocative and often divisive statements, built his career around such speech.

The irony of the situation is not lost on observers, as the debate intensifies over academic freedom, free speech, and the boundaries of acceptable discourse in professional environments. The university's stance has raised questions about the potential implications for other academics and professionals who express controversial opinions on social media platforms.

As the legal and academic communities continue to grapple with these issues, the case of Felicia Branch serves as a potent reminder of the ongoing struggle to define the limits of free speech in highly polarized times.