Suspended UCLA Race and Equity Director Doubles Down After Celebrating Charlie Kirk’s Murder
UCLA placed Johnathan Perkins, its director of race and equity, on leave in mid-September after social posts that celebrated the killing of Charlie Kirk. He made those posts on Bluesky, a platform that in this instance hosted egregious calls for violence. The episode has sparked outrage and raised questions about campus hiring and oversight.
He posted on a public social feed where ideological extremes cluster, and the reaction was swift. Here’s just a sample of what he said:
UCLA’s director of race and equity has been placed on leave over social media posts he made about the killing of Charlie Kirk, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.
Jonathan Perkins, an official with UCLA’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office, apparently published the remarks on BlueSky. The posts seemed to express both satisfaction and indifference to the fatal shooting of the conservative activist.
The posts were “written in my own hand, in my own voice, in no way the echo of my employer, UCLA,” Perkins said in a written statement provided to The Times, adding that they were protected by the First Amendment.
UCLA made its own position clear on its website: “UCLA has placed a campus employee on immediate leave and has launched an investigation following reports of social media posts regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk. While free expression is a core value of UCLA, violence of any kind – including the celebration of it – is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.” The university framed the posts as inconsistent with campus standards. That statement set the expectation of disciplinary review.
After the initial suspension Perkins escalated his rhetoric, posting “Kill your masters” on Bluesky. That line alone reads as a direct call to violence and contradicts UCLA’s public stance. He later removed the post, which suggests he recognized the danger of leaving it live.
This episode is not isolated in Perkins’ history. Journalistic records show a past incident from his time as a law student that resulted in controversy and an investigation. The background amplifies concerns about judgement and credibility in a senior campus role.
In April, a University of Virgina third-year law student, Jonathan Perkins, wrote a letter to the editor of the Virgina Law Weekly where he described how he was harassed by university police while walking home one night, due to being African American. The account is long and richly detailed, complete with dialogue between him and the officers and descriptions of his thought process during the events. He concludes this account with the statement that:
I am writing this column because it is important for my classmates to hear a real-life anecdote illustrating the myth of equal protection under the law. Incidents like this one are not surprising to me. Sadly, I have even grown to expect them.
Naturally, Perkins’ letter sparked discussion at a prestigious law school like UVA, and the Virginia Law Weekly ran a companion piece to the letter, in which a reporter interviewed members of the faculty and other students about the incident. But unfortunately for Perkins, perhaps his story sparked too much discussion — leading to an investigation of the incident by University officials.
Perkins later admitted he made up the entire incident. That admission matters because it speaks to character and truthfulness, traits expected in leaders of campus equity programs. Critics say hiring someone with that history to lead sensitive programs raises obvious red flags.
UCLA has extended Perkins’ leave, which was due to end on Friday, while its internal probe continues. The university faces a choice between protecting campus norms and answering questions about personnel decisions. Meanwhile, conservatives and free speech advocates are watching closely for how consistency and accountability will be applied.
For conservatives, this is a test of university priorities: will institutions enforce rules evenly or excuse violent rhetoric when it aligns with certain ideologies? The case lays bare tensions around free expression, campus safety, and the stewardship of diversity offices. Expect this to remain a live debate as the investigation proceeds.
