In the latest report from FIRE, President and CEO Greg Lukianoff sketches a dire situation: “[T]he overall state of free speech on campus is grim.” Who is responsible for this bleak reality? Lukianoff blames everyone; college administrators, the government, and students who advocate for “censorship, and limit academic freedom.”
Some of the statistics are shocking, yet unsurprising for anyone who has been paying attention. A third of students say the use of violence is acceptable when preventing someone from speaking. Almost 70% are fine with “shouting down” opinions they disagree with and students continue to self-censor themselves both with peers and in the classroom.
The tragic killing of Charlie Kirk is now more than one year past. In the time since, the weight of his life and death are immeasurable, and his crusade on behalf of the First Amendment still carries on. But, as FIRE Chief Researcher Sean Stevens states, “The impact of Charlie Kirk’s assassination continues to negatively reverberate on campuses across the country.”
And, still, just as it was when Kirk was alive, America’s present political circumstance can be best described in one word: chaos.
There’s a war in Iran, escalating concerns about AI dystopia, a rising movement of socialism across the country, and metaphoric debates about $20 burritos that speak to how many people feel cash strapped when trying to get groceries and gas. Each of these debates is really an argument over the condition of the country and the shape of the future.
While many conversations are routinely swallowed up in the swarm of social media, the place where the real future will be molded remains the battle ground that Kirk composed his discourse of defense: the college campus.
The university was supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, a ground for inquiry into the fundamental human questions of truth, justice, nature, love, death, the good life, and what is the proper political order. But over time, the supposed free market was taken over by DEI administrators, progressive culture compliance officers, and what was branded as open debate became the choreography of a woke consensus.
“Trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and “micro-aggressions” became not just eggshells to be tip-toed but landmines to avoid a symbolic death of public persona for anyone of a conservative political persuasion. Everyone has been witnessing escalating tactics. Violent protests in opposition to Israel have begot clashes with law enforcement. Occupations of campus property prevent students from participating in the actual purpose of a college education. And Texas has even seen an example of a student who was dismissed from class for defending Kirk in the face of those celebrating his death.
Lone Star legislators, to their credit, have taken action by passing laws over the past few sessions to ban DEI offices and, most importantly, recognize free speech on college campuses in state code. Despite those efforts to cool the climate, FIRE remains heated in its assessment of Texas campuses.
Under the pink dome, there is an opportunity to provide fair standards for students and professors of all political perspectives.
Many times over, claims of harassment are made under the guise of violating federal laws. The Office for Civil Rights is charged with enforcing Title IX and Title VI regulations, and despite the Trump administration bringing standards back to pre-Biden-era advisement, there remains a disjunction.
The U.S. Supreme Court set a precedent in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education that punishable harassment must be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. It’s that “and” in the tri-part definition that is missing in Texas. Even more glaringly absent is the lack of a definition of harassment outside the penal code, which leaves the interpretation up to the university systems themselves. Those same universities have shown they are more than willing to tamp out voices of dissent from the progressive orthodoxy.
Kirk cannot be forgotten and neither can his message. To win the battleground of ideas requires allowing for all ideas to be heard. Universities are supposed to allow a pursuit on that ever-elusive path toward knowledge and wisdom. Free speech is merely the vehicle to chart that route, and clear guardrails must be established. Fair standards of speech must be made clear in state law, or risk handing over control to those in academia who will continually move the boundaries of what is, and what is not, allowed to be said.
