It is ironic, but not surprising, that Charlie Kirk was assassinated on a college campus. After all, that’s where he so frequently met with students to debate political issues in his calm, friendly and open way. He wanted to convince, not coerce. He wanted to share his insights, not mock those who thought differently.
It was also not surprising because our colleges and campuses have become hotbeds of intolerance — especially against conservatives.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan group that monitors and advocates for free speech on campuses, reports that there have been at least 14 attempts to disrupt Kirk’s appearances since 2020. Earlier this year, hundreds of protestors at Florida State University and San Francisco State tried but failed to drown out the young conservative.
Incredibly, a petition was circulated trying to block his final appearance, at which he was killed, at Utah Valley University. What a tragedy that the effort failed. FIRE reports that Kirk was the third most frequently targeted speaker behind conservatives Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro.
Kirk’s appeal was successful, with Turning Point USA, the organization he founded, becoming one of the greatest political movements for young people of all time.
That’s what killed him. Had he not been effective, had he not attracted hundreds of thousands of young voters to his conservative principles — had he perhaps not enabled Donald Trump to win the presidency in 2024 — he would likely still be alive.
As of this writing, I do not know who or why someone killed Charlie Kirk. But it seems likely that the conservative father of two was targeted because of what he believed and the impact he had.
The irony is that even as Kirk preached the virtues of free speech, many of the colleges he visited failed to guarantee that essential right. Charlie reached out to students, debating but also respecting the views of others; would that our schools would do the same.
FIRE works hard to expose how educational leaders are abandoning the guarantee of open discourse on their campuses. FIRE goes to bat for speech of all kinds, from pro-Palestinian demonstrations to Kirk-like lectures on the virtues of capitalism. Its premise, as explained on its website, is that “Free speech makes free people.”
As a member of FIRE’s Advisory Council, I am totally supportive of their “down the middle” approach, even as I sometimes vehemently oppose those FIRE represents.
Among the many initiatives undertaken by FIRE is its annual survey of colleges and universities, used to rank schools by their adherence to policies that guarantee students can speak openly. The rankings have become well known in recent years, as critics slammed colleges for shutting down controversial ideas and hosting homogeneous faculties that hew to the political left. The survey has also gotten the attention of college administrators who do not like showing up at the bottom of the list — an ignominious position occupied in recent years by Harvard University.
The newest survey of 68,510 students has just been released; the results are not encouraging. Among the findings:
- 166 of the 257 schools surveyed got an F for their speech climate.
- For the first time ever, most students would like to prevent speakers, from both left and right, from being given a platform at their schools to express controversial views on hot topics like abortion and transgender issues. Students do not want to be challenged by opposing (sometimes uncomfortable) opinions.
- Just over one-third of students said that it was “extremely” or “very” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus. In other words, about two-thirds of students believe their campus does not guarantee this essential right.
- Some 28 percent of students say they often self-censor in the classroom.
- Alarmingly, especially in light of the murder of Charlie Kirk, a record one in three students now thinks it is acceptable, under some circumstances, to use violence to stop a campus speech. That is up markedly from just four years ago.
What are schools doing to open up their campuses and to convince students that debate and tolerance are critical to free societies and to our country? Not nearly enough. But there are insidious forces at these institutions — people pretending to be intellectuals — that do not welcome different points of view.
At Harvard, for instance, where the vast majority of the faculty describes itself as liberal or very liberal and 93 percent were “unhappy” with the reelection of Donald Trump, more than two-thirds of those surveyed this year by The Crimson opposed the notion of hiring more conservative professors. They do not want diversity of opinion.
Though it is no longer the worst-performing school in the survey, Harvard is still in the bottom 10 percent and continues to get an “F” for its speech environment. Nearly 80 percent of students on Harvard’s campus say shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable, and a disturbing 32 percent of students say using violence to that end can on rare occasions also be warranted. The students parrot their illiberal professors.
FIRE encourages college and university administrators to make a stronger commitment to this most basic of American rights. For those who doubt how fragile this freedom is, we need only look across the pond to the United Kingdom, where the government is now locking up citizens for texting content believed to be damaging to protected groups like transgender individuals.
It is chilling that European Union countries, as well as the UK, are disavowing freedom of speech. It is the quickest route to subjugation and a loss of personal liberties. Our schools must be in the vanguard of protecting the First Amendment. We all — students, parents, alumni and administrators — must demand it.
Unless attitudes change, there will be more Charlie Kirks.
Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim and Company.
