Concerns Over Campus Culture Following Controversial Flyers at Georgetown
At Georgetown, a flyer with the phrase “Hey Fascist, Catch Twy” was posted, referencing a message tied to the assassin of Charlie Kirk. This flyer, promoting the John Brown Club—a group that seemingly glorifies political assassinations—was recently taken down following Linda McMahon’s announcement. However, this removal does not change the unsettling fact that such posters appeared on campus in the first place. It raises questions about the underlying campus culture that allowed this to happen.
When Kirk was assassinated, former President Trump remarked at his memorial that “the gun was pointed at him, but the bullet was on us all.” This wasn’t just dramatic wording; it served as a stark warning. The normalization of political violence poses a real threat to individual discourse and civic engagement. A flyer at Georgetown illustrated how ingrained this normalization is within the campus atmosphere.
The reality is quite troubling. Recently, students at Notre Dame had mixed reactions to Kirk’s murder—some expressed horror and sadness, while others celebrated it. Meanwhile, the Turning Point USA chapter at the University of Cincinnati was suddenly dismantled without explanation. At Georgetown, the presence of such flyers indicates a shift in attitudes towards celebrating violence within spaces that should foster thoughtful debate and moral reflection.
Merely removing the flyer doesn’t eliminate the troubling ideas that have taken root in academia. Georgetown University has a responsibility to its alumni and the taxpayers who fund the institution through nearly $500 million in federal aid each year. It’s crucial that public funds don’t support a culture that celebrates violent political acts. The university’s existing policies regarding student organization conduct and speech already aim to prevent the endorsement of violence, yet the consistent application of these standards seems to be lacking.
This inconsistency is concerning. While conservative speakers may face hostility in the name of “safety,” groups that glorify murder seem to evade scrutiny, cloaked under the umbrella of free speech. This double standard can foster an environment where students of all political beliefs feel threatened, eroding Georgetown’s credibility and blurring the lines between violence and legitimate debate. The recent 2025 University Free Speech Report placed Georgetown near the bottom of the rankings, indicating a significant issue in addressing controversial speakers.
Georgetown needs to uphold its Jesuit mission of cura personalis (care for the whole person) and magis (greater service). This isn’t about silencing voices; it’s about adhering to established laws, policies, and principles. The real challenge lies in whether Georgetown will legitimize mob violence or strive to preserve a culture of respectful discourse. The students molded here will someday become influential leaders in various sectors, including politics and law.
While removing the flyers is a start, the university must further confront the cultural issues that allow such sentiments to proliferate. It needs to reject narratives that endorse violence and to cultivate moral courage within its community.
Leadership must now act. Will they support students who, in light of Kirk’s assassination, continue to engage in meaningful dialogue? Will there be a unified stand against political violence, beyond just taking down flyers? This requires more than superficial action; it demands a commitment to fostering a culture of rigorous inquiry where discussions are free from threats.
