A Kansas professor has been placed on administrative leave after her social media posts about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk triggered intense national backlash, reigniting debates about free speech, academic responsibility, and online outrage.

On September 10, the day Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during an appearance at a Utah university, Nuchelle Chance — an assistant psychology professor at Fort Hays State University — shared a brief Facebook post that read, “Me thinks the word ‘karma’ is appropriate. Sad day all around.” The post included a partial quote from Kirk referencing the Second Amendment.

Two days later, as police identified Tyler Robinson as the suspected shooter, Chance followed up with another post: “But when we tell y’all that statistically… White American men are the most dangerous animals on the planet we’re wrong. Let’s not be hasty they say…”

These remarks quickly spread across social media after being amplified by the conservative account Libs of TikTok, setting off a wave of outrage. Critics accused Chance of celebrating Kirk’s death and using racially inflammatory language, while supporters argued that her words were taken out of context and weaponized against her.

In a TikTok video, Chance addressed the controversy, claiming she was being targeted by “MAGA” groups and insisting that her “karma” comment was misinterpreted. She explained that she did not celebrate Kirk’s killing, calling that idea “immoral.” Regarding her post about “White men,” she said she was referring to statistical trends in mass violence, not making a personal attack, and that her use of the word “animal” was drawn from behavioral science terminology.

“The backlash is a manufactured outrage campaign rooted in misogynoir,” Chance told Fox News Digital, using a term describing the intersection of racism and sexism experienced by Black women. She added that her posts were “misinterpreted — intentionally and deliberately.”

Chance also defended her professional integrity, stating that her political views have no place in the classroom. “I have never discussed my political views in the classroom. That would be inappropriate and unprofessional — and, frankly, asinine. My role as an educator is to foster critical thinking, not to impose personal belief,” she said.

She emphasized that her academic work focuses on justice and inclusion, not bias. “My scholarship and teaching reflect a commitment to justice and inclusion. I welcome diverse perspectives in my classroom and remain committed to creating a space where every student feels seen, heard and respected,” she added.

Fort Hays State University confirmed that the posts were under review. “Individuals who post commentaries to their personal social media accounts do not speak for the university,” the school said in a statement. Officials stressed their commitment to “free, open and respectful dialogue,” and described the case as a “confidential personnel” matter requiring careful handling.

The university did not specify any disciplinary measures, but Chance’s faculty page has been removed from its website. In an automated email reply, she stated, “I am currently on a two-week administrative leave from Fort Hays State University and will not be checking my university email regularly during this time.”

A university spokesperson said they are “still working through the issue and asking those who have expressed concerns for patience as we address this matter with the seriousness it warrants.”

Chance’s case is not isolated. Across the country, several educators have faced disciplinary actions over their online remarks following Kirk’s death. In South Dakota, professor Michael Hook was temporarily reinstated after being dismissed for calling Kirk a “hate-spreading Nazi” in a post. Meanwhile, Iowa teacher Matthew Kargol is suing his district after being fired for writing “1 Nazi down.” Both argue that their comments are protected speech.

These incidents are now part of a growing national conversation over how far schools and universities can go in disciplining employees for controversial online speech. Supporters of the educators frame these cases as critical free speech battles, while critics say such comments reflect poorly on academic institutions and erode public trust.

As Nuchelle Chance awaits the outcome of the university’s review, her case continues to spark fierce debate online and in legal circles. For some, it’s about defending the right to express personal opinions, however unpopular. For others, it’s about the responsibility that comes with representing a public institution. Either way, her story underscores how one post can ignite a firestorm in today’s hyperconnected world.