A former director of race and equity at UCLA claims he was terminated following a firestorm ignited by his social media reactions to the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Johnathan Perkins alleges the dismissal constitutes a violation of his First Amendment rights, sparking a debate about the boundaries of free speech and acceptable discourse.
Perkins voiced his controversial opinions on Bluesky, a social media platform, stating he felt no sadness over Kirk’s death. These posts, made shortly after the shooting at a Turning Point USA event, quickly drew widespread condemnation and ultimately led to UCLA placing him on leave while investigating the matter.
In now-deleted posts, Perkins appeared to justify Kirk’s death, referencing the activist’s previous statements regarding gun violence. He suggested Kirk had embraced a lifestyle where such an outcome was a potential consequence, employing phrases like “reaped what he sowed” and “chickens coming home to roost.”
Further intensifying the controversy, Perkins explicitly stated his satisfaction when “bigots die,” and asserted it was acceptable to feel joy when someone who had expressed hatred towards his community met with violence. He even used the phrase “F--- Around and Find Out” in connection with the incident.
UCLA responded with a statement emphasizing its commitment to free expression, but firmly condemning the celebration of violence. The university initiated an investigation, acknowledging the posts while refraining from directly naming Perkins.
The university later confirmed the termination of Perkins’ employment, but declined to provide specific details, citing personnel policies. These policies dictate that employees facing termination are given an opportunity to respond before any final action is taken.
Perkins, in an interview with the UCLA student newspaper, defended his statements, clarifying that he did not “celebrate” Kirk’s death, but maintained his position that it was acceptable not to mourn someone he considered a “horrible, horrible bigot.” He doubled down on his initial stance, arguing against the expectation of sadness in such a situation.
The case raises complex questions about the limits of free speech, particularly when it comes to expressing reactions to tragic events and the potential consequences of online commentary. It highlights the growing tension between protecting individual expression and maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment.
