This piece examines the fallout at UCLA after its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion director publicly celebrated the assassination of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, charts the university’s eventual termination decision, notes Perkins’ planned legal challenge and fundraising, and highlights why defenders of free speech can still insist institutions hold employees accountable for threats or praise of violence.
We watched something ugly unfold when a public figure associated with a major university celebrated the brutal killing of a conservative activist. Saying you disagree with someone is one thing, but cheering their murder crosses a line that undermines the basic rules of civil society. For many, this wasn’t merely an academic debate; it was a moral failing that reflected badly on the campus that employed him.
Jonathan Perkins, who ran UCLA’s DEI office, put incendiary comments on social media after the September 2025 assassination that made clear he was not mourning but rejoicing. “It is OKAY to be happy when someone who hated you and called for your people’s death dies — even if they are murdered,” he wrote on Bluesky. “Good riddance,” he added. “I’m always glad when bigots die.” Those exact words landed him in hot water.
Universities are supposed to be places where debate is fierce but human dignity is protected, and once an administrator publicly endorses violence, the institution’s credibility takes a hit. UCLA’s letter cited the nature of Perkins’ role and how his conduct “significantly undermined trust in your leadership and adversely affected the office’s effectiveness and credibility.” That kind of language signals a decision driven by institutional survival as much as policy.
Critics on the right saw Perkins’ firing as overdue and necessary, a corrective against a culture that too often excuses abusive rhetoric coming from the left. Conservatives have long argued that academic institutions tolerate double standards when it serves activist goals, and this episode looked like a rare moment where the university acted to restore some balance. Still, the delay in action raised questions about consistency and institutional priorities.
Perkins has a history of stirring controversy, with past incidents resurfacing in the wake of these comments. After previously admitting to a hoax and later recanting, he continued to make headlines for provocative statements toward high-profile conservatives. That pattern made it easier for opponents to argue that his behavior was not an isolated lapse but part of a troubling trend.
After waiting for the statute of limitations to pass, he recanted his hoax admission. He recently celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination and had also wished death upon Justice Clarence Thomas.
Perkins makes me ashamed to be a UCLA alumnus.
Perkins’ last day on the payroll was Jan. 30, and the university said it took time to conclude its review. He plans to sue, claiming his social-media remarks were protected speech, and that legal battle will likely center on the tension between First Amendment rights and an employer’s obligation to maintain a safe, non-hostile workplace. From a conservative perspective, free speech is crucial, but that protection does not obligate public employers to retain staff whose words undermine their duties.
He’s also turned to fundraising to cover relocation, legal fees, and care for his pets, creating a messy post-employment scene that many find galling. Asking for donations after celebrating violence looks tone-deaf, and it complicates public sympathy for his plight. Whether supporters view him as a martyr for speech or as someone who crossed an ethical line depends on where they sit politically.
This event feeds into a larger argument about higher education and ideological capture, which many conservatives insist has hollowed out once-great public institutions. The campus environment should permit vigorous disagreement without cascading into threats, threats of violence, or celebrations of murder. When administrators fail to hold staff accountable for crossing that boundary, confidence in their mission erodes.
The university’s decision to terminate sent a message: even at institutions often criticized for ideological bias, there are limits to tolerated conduct. Conservatives will watch how courts rule on Perkins’ lawsuit, because the outcome could set a precedent about when expression crosses the line into grounds for dismissal. Meanwhile, public trust in academic leadership remains fragile.
Whatever the legal outcome, this episode will be cited by those who say campuses need clearer standards and firmer enforcement against officials who promote hostility. Universities must weigh faculty and staff rights with their duty to protect students and the community from rhetoric that endorses violence. The stakes are high, and the fallout will be debated for months to come.
Add comment