In a shocking turn of events, a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) has been dismissed following controversial statements about the late political activist Charlie Kirk, who was tragically assassinated earlier this year.
According to KATV, ABC 7, the incident, stemming from Felicia Branch's remarks about Kirk's death, led to her suspension and eventual termination by university officials amid widespread criticism from Arkansas state leaders.
The story unfolds in Little Rock, Arkansas, where Felicia Branch, a law professor at UALR's Bowen Law School, found herself at the center of a heated controversy. Branch's comments were tied to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent 31-year-old political figure and founder of Turning Point USA. Kirk was killed on Sept. 10, 2025, while speaking at an event hosted by Utah Valley University.
The event was part of Turning Point USA's "American Comeback Tour," aimed at engaging young conservatives across the country. Kirk's untimely death sent shockwaves through political circles, and Branch's subsequent remarks about the incident quickly drew attention. Her statements, shared on social media, were met with sharp criticism from several high-ranking Arkansas officials.
Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Attorney General Tim Griffin, and Lieutenant Governor Leslie Rutledge publicly expressed their disapproval of Branch's comments. The backlash prompted UALR to take immediate action, initially placing Branch on suspension while the matter was investigated. The university's response escalated as the situation gained more traction in the public eye.
On Oct. 13, 2025, UALR Chancellor Christina S. Drale issued a formal letter to Branch regarding her status at the institution. In the letter, Drale informed Branch of her termination, citing a violation of the professional standards upheld by the Bowen Law School and the Board of Trustees. The decision marked the end of Branch's tenure at the university, sparking further debate over the boundaries of free speech for educators.
Branch, in her defense, argued that her comments were made in a personal capacity, not as a spokesperson for UALR. She communicated this stance in a statement to Dean Crawford during her suspension period, emphasizing her role as a private citizen. Branch also contended that her social media posts did not directly cause significant disruption, pointing to the limited responses they received.
Instead, she attributed the ensuing controversy to third parties who amplified her remarks beyond their original context. Chancellor Drale addressed these arguments directly in her letter, acknowledging Branch's claims about speaking privately and the nature of the disruption.
Drale wrote, "In your statement to Dean Crawford regarding your suspension, your argument appears to center on two arguments: 1) you were speaking as a private citizen, not as a representative of a public institution, and 2) your posts did not cause a disruption because the direct responses to your social media posts were relatively low."
Continuing her response, Drale added, "Your claim is that third parties caused the disruption." Despite Branch's defense, the chancellor determined that the impact of the professor's words necessitated serious consequences. Drale further noted that a "warning or reprimand" would not be as effective in addressing the breach of expected conduct.
The termination has raised questions about the balance between personal expression and professional responsibility, especially for those in academia. UALR's decision reflects the institution's commitment to maintaining a certain standard among its faculty, particularly in high-profile or sensitive matters. The case has also drawn attention to the broader implications for educators who voice opinions on polarizing issues.
For Branch, the outcome represents a significant professional setback, with her career at UALR coming to an abrupt end. The controversy surrounding her dismissal continues to fuel discussions about the limits of free speech in educational settings. Many are watching to see if this incident will set a precedent for how universities handle similar situations in the future.
Meanwhile, the memory of Charlie Kirk, whose life was cut short during a public engagement, remains a poignant backdrop to this unfolding story. His assassination at Utah Valley University has left a lasting impact on political discourse, with events like these amplifying the stakes of public commentary. Branch case serves as a reminder of how quickly personal statements can intersect with public tragedy, leading to far-reaching consequences.
As the dust settles on this incident in Little Rock, the debate over Branch's termination is far from over. Community members, educators, and officials alike are grappling with the ramifications of her dismissal and what it means for institutional policies. The story of Felicia Branch and Charlie Kirk's tragic death will likely remain a topic of discussion for some time, as society navigates the complex terrain of free expression and professional accountability.