If a person is executed for expressing views on a university campus, one might expect the educational institution to respond promptly. I mean, you’d think they would want to assure their students that the campus is a place for open inquiry, right? They would hope that speakers, regardless of their political stance, would be welcomed and safe. But, following the shocking assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk, the university’s reaction has been largely muted.
This lack of response stands in stark contrast to the outcry that occurred after George Floyd’s death in 2020 when student emails overflowed with messages from university leaders. For instance, Jay Ellison, the dean at my own college, quickly labeled Floyd’s killing as an act before any court decision. Similarly, the provost and president voiced strong opinions about the racial implications of Floyd’s death.
Various departments took action, restricting graduate admissions to individuals in black studies or suspending work to stand in solidarity with protests. The History Department even pledged support for Black Lives Matter. Yet, none of these statements condemned the riots that wreaked havoc across American cities; instead, they seemed to endorse them as a form of “justice.”
The university’s response to Charlie Kirk’s death seems to undermine free speech while highlighting hefty security concerns
Ironically, the University of Chicago promotes the “Chicago Principles,” which supposedly commit to fostering open discussion and maintaining institutional neutrality on political issues. But honestly, these principles feel more like slogans aimed at donors than actual campus reality.
When we consider the impact of George Floyd’s death, we see it sparked a wave of riots and aggressive racial politics. It’s a critical moment for university free speech — is it just an unfortunate coincidence that a public murder on a campus could lead to a chilling effect nationwide? I think that question has a clear answer.
It’s not only Chicago that faces this issue. Recent inquiries to prestigious institutions like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale revealed they all had made grand statements regarding Floyd but fell silent about Charlie’s tragic death.
Charlie was aware of this double standard, which is why he committed himself to the college scene. He understood how deeply the left had infiltrated academia.
The “Fearless” tour reflects Charlie Kirk’s mission for free speech across national universities
Once, the university was rooted in Christian values and a pursuit of truth. Today, the curriculum seems to question the very existence of “truth,” getting lost in politically charged discussions around various topics.
Marxism, by its very nature, opposes truth and peace. For Marxists, it’s all about power dynamics — who holds it and who doesn’t. This perspective suggests that violence is justifiable if it’s deemed necessary for “progress.” That’s how radical activists felt justified in their actions against students they labeled as oppressors. To them, violence isn’t just wrong; it’s part of the process.
Educating young minds without instilling virtue? That’s a formula for disaster. The upheaval of the summer of 2020 serves as a harsh reminder of this reality.
After Charlie Kirk’s death, many conservative speakers affirm they won’t be silenced
For all these reasons, Charlie became a martyr of sorts. He was willing to speak the truth, grounded in his Christian beliefs, right in the heart of a campus that often promotes falsehoods. His murder illustrated the perils faced by those who challenge the prevailing narrative.
Looking back, it didn’t seem surprising that such an event was on the horizon. Incidents of violence against conservative speakers have been bubbling to the surface for years. Take what happened in Berkeley, where protests not only silenced one speaker but essentially shut down future events for others.
Charlie embraced the campus tour while others hesitated; his courage ultimately led to his demise
After many prominent conservatives bowed out, Charlie took the plunge, securing insurance and security resources — yet he was still killed for doing so.
If he couldn’t manage to survive the campus tour with all his fortitude and preparations, who could? Even well-off figures like Ben Shapiro, with backing from a substantial media company, must consider the costs of liability flaring into millions. Courage alone can’t cover expenses, nor can a firm belief in one’s cause compensate for financial risks.
American universities, despite their significant financial gains, show little inclination to foster or protect the free exchange of ideas post-Charlie’s assassination. Sitting in silence, they practically seem complicit in this tragedy. None of this is surprising, given the ideologies they’ve supported.
Make no mistake: Charlie’s assassination, marked by a shot to the neck, symbolizes the silencing of his voice
He will never have the opportunity to speak on a campus stage again, and his absence speaks volumes. With their silence, universities reveal their true stance — Charlie’s discourse was never truly welcome.
