Emily Neto News Editor

Ruth Marshall, a professor in the Political Science department, has been placed on leave following a post on X. Cover the details of the post and UofT’s response. How does this event shape our perception of our professor’s moral/social obligations? Is it justified to place a professor on leave for a political social media post due to public funding complications? We encourage you to use examples for this pitch – ie. Jimmy Kimmel pulled off air! Is free speech limited? Just some food for thought… 
 
On September 10th, Ruth Marshall – an associate professor in UofT St. George’s Political Science and Religious studies department – commented on X: “shooting is honestly too good for so many of you fascist c*nts” following the assasination of U.S. political activist Charlie Kirk on September 10th, 2025.  

​The post, which has since been deleted, stirred up plenty of controversy. The University of Toronto administration took immediate action. Ruth Marshall was placed on leave, and the Jackman Humanities building was quickly closed, which is where Ruth Marshall’s office was located. Further comments on the matter were not made by UofT’s administration. 

Following this decision, the Ontario Colleges Minister, Nolan Quinn, released a critical statement regarding Ruth Marshall’s post: “Universities and their professors are supposed to foster critical thought, respectful debate, and be safe learning environments – and this professor’s violent rhetoric flagrantly flies in the face of that. I’ve been clear with the University of Toronto: they need to act”. Furthermore, in an interview with the Toronto Sun, Ontario Premier Doug Ford called the comment “disgusting”.  

Amid the dispute, Ruth Marshall followed up on her post, providing context  that her comment was not in response to the death of Charlie Kirk, but was a comment in response to “atrocity denial in Gaza,” and the comment was not intended to commend violence. 

This situation has sparked a range of perspectives online, with some expressing shock and disgust at her harsh rhetoric, while others argue that Ruth Marshall was simply voicing her opinion. One comment addressing this matter on Reddit reads: “Honestly, after the whole Peterson debacle, nothing’s gonna happen” – Jordan Peterson was a former UofT Psychology professor who openly criticized gender diversity initiatives. Although Peterson’s hateful comments received plenty of opposition, he retired with emeritus status in 2021. 

Ever since the controversy, many are grappling with the idea of whether the post was an intended threat and whether it is justified to place a professor on leave for making provocative political comments. Are professors supposed to act solely on behalf of their institutions? 

It can be argued that academia is rooted in social commentary, which is a large factor in harnessing critical thought. Without debate or critique, the department lacks an essential aspect of academic expression – diverse perspectives.  

If UofT continues to stifle speech and political commentary from students and faculty alike, there will be damage to the university’s reputation. Yet, offensive and problematic posts from members of the university can be equally as damaging if they are not acted upon, especially if said comments are subject to public scrutiny. This begs the question: going forward, how will the University of Toronto differentiate between legitimate critique that fosters debate and comments that promote hate and damage the institution’s credibility?