A professor has apologized for his publicized twitter rant in response to the French terrorist attack.

UPDATE: Prof. apologizes for French terrorist attack rant

The professor who ranted on Twitter about the nature of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical publication where several employees were massacred Wednesday has, since apologized and denounced the attacks.

Adam Kotsko, an assistant professor of humanities at Shimer College, tweeted that the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo’s employees was unsurprising as, in his words, it’s “a newspaper devoted to hate speech.” His tweets garnered national media attention and the ire of a multitude of Twitter users.

“I want to be completely clear: I unambiguously denounce the attacks, not only for the needless death and destruction they immediately caused, but because of the inevitable backlash they will bring down on the Muslim community in France and elsewhere.” Tweet This
“Making the statements I did was hugely irresponsible and insensitive, and I quickly realized this and deleted them,” Kotsko wrote in his blog post. “Unfortunately, someone screen captured them and reframed them as a justification of the attacks. I want to be clear that I did not intend to justify the attacks.”

“Hence I want to be completely clear: I unambiguously denounce the attacks, not only for the needless death and destruction they immediately caused, but because of the inevitable backlash they will bring down on the Muslim community in France and elsewhere,” he also wrote.

The professor, who holds a Ph.D. in theology, ethics, and culture from Chicago Theological Seminary, wrote that his rant was based on “misinformation” about the attacks.

“I had somehow gotten the impression that the publication in question was an exclusively anti-Muslim one, devotedly solely to insulting and marginalizing Muslims,” Kotsko said. “This is obviously false. Secondly, I did not realize the full scale of the attack, which does not appear to be the result of inarticulate rage (as I had initially envisioned) but of significant planning motivated by a political strategy that, while profoundly misguided and unrealistic, does make it something other than a crime of passion.”