The University of Kentucky has placed an employee on paid administrative leave after he posted an “offensive remark” about the death of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Brad Van Hook, UK’s key shop manager, commented on a WKYT Facebook post, paraphrasing a quote from American lawyer and civil rights advocate Clarence Darrow, the Herald-Leader reported.
“I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great satisfaction,” Van Hook’s comment said.
UK spokesperson Jay Blanton confirmed Van Hook is under investigation, stating the university referred the comment to “appropriate officials.”
“The statement attributed to him — no matter who made it and what their affiliation is — does not reflect who we are as a community,” Blanton said in a statement. “It is cruel. It is insensitive and it is wrong.”
Kirk was shot and killed on Wednesday, Sept. 10, while speaking at Utah Valley University, according to the Associated Press.
The X account @libsoftiktok, which has 4.4 million followers, first brought widespread attention to Van Hook’s comment in a post on Wednesday night.
The Herald-Leader reported that the account “spent much of Thursday” sharing posts targeting people who made negative comments about Kirk’s death, “often tagging their employers.”
According to the Herald-Leader, the account initially misidentified Van Hook as an Eastern Kentucky University employee, but EKU clarified he is not affiliated with the school.
This is an ongoing story.
Jim Gormley • Sep 12, 2025 at 10:28 am
No matter how wrong or distasteful officials at the University of Kentucky may find this employee’s comment, it is nevertheless protected free speech under the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Notably, the employee was not acting in his capacity as a U. K. employee when he made the comment on the WKYT Facebook page; he was on his own time and was acting in his private, personal capacity. The First Amendment gives Americans wide discretion to express themselves without fear of legal retaliation. If U.K. attempts to take disciplinary action against this employee or fire him based upon his public comment, then U.K. and its officials should expect to be sued for retaliation for the employee engaging in Constitutionally protected free speech. No matter how wrong or distasteful the U. K. officials may find the employee’s comment; it is protected Free Speech under the U. S. Constitution.