Conservative Free Speech Advocate Killed in Utah

One of the principal difficulties in George Washington’s presidency was dealing with the French Revolution and whether we should support their fight. While Washington’s cabinet was divided on the issue, one important player from the revolution was not.

Written in 1776, Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” may be the most important document written to convince colonists of the need to rebel against the king. Then, 15 years later, Paine was at it again — this time defending the French and their right of revolution. In 1791, he wrote “The Rights of Man,” in which he argued that liberty must be consistent and universal. If people only defend rights for themselves or for those with whom they agree, they undermine the very principle of liberty.

Paine wrote, “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” This statement is especially true when it comes to freedom of speech. It is easy to support speech that echoes our own beliefs; it is far more difficult to defend the rights of those whose views we find offensive, dangerous or even hateful. Yet that right must be guaranteed.

The problem is we have forgotten that. We have come to a point where anyone who dares say anything we disagree with is not just wrong, but evil. For the last few years, speakers on college campuses — places where debate and the exchanging of ideas should be most sacred — have been harassed, shouted down, attacked and canceled. This dangerous trend reached an apex last Wednesday with the assassination of conservative political activist, author and media personality Charlie Kirk. What warranted his assassination? Kirk traveled to college campus and challenged students’ perceptions. Something, unfortunately, most colleges refuse to do.

The idea of respecting others’ views is a founding principle in America. President Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural speech, “Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Jefferson understood that free debate strengthens truth — not weakens it. Tolerating others’ speech will not damage our nation; in fact, it’s what makes it work. Only through free debate can truth be found. Not only is this a founding principle, but it also has been reaffirmed by the courts on several occasions.

One of America’s greatest legal minds, Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote the dissenting decision for United States v. Schwimmer (1929). The case involved Rosika Schwimmer, a Hungarian pacifist who was denied citizenship because she refused to agree to take up arms in defense of the country. While the Court agreed to deny her citizenship, Holmes disagreed. He declared that the Constitution embodies “freedom for the thought that we hate,” a phrase that has since become one of the most powerful statements of the First Amendment’s purpose.

Justice Robert H. Jackson made a similar argument in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), when he wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”

Here Jackson warned that the First Amendment does not exist to protect conformity; it exists to guarantee the right to dissent from orthodoxy, even when that dissent offends patriotic or religious sensibilities.

Even though our Constitution protects our freedom of speech, that right must be accepted by the people at the grassroots level. It is most disappointing that this growing trend of stifling ideas is on our college campuses.

There was a time when campuses were the ones protesting for more free speech. It is on our campuses where ideas should flow freely, but that also means there is a chance of offense. That offense, too, must be protected, not canceled.

In an interview, Canadian psychologist, author and media commentator Jordan Peterson said, “In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.” Here is the thing about college: during a student’s four-year stay, if his or her beliefs are never challenged, then they are not receiving a true education. Note I said “challenged,” not attacked or forced to change. If a student ever changes his or her views, it should be because they have evaluated their beliefs and found them wanting. At the same time, after critical evaluation, a student can strengthen his or her beliefs. And that is the point.

Currently, conservative students in almost every college will have their beliefs not just challenged but attacked on a regular basis. While I feel this has gone too far, if these conservative students make it out, their beliefs will be strengthened. The same may not ring true for liberal students.
Many liberal students will never be challenged inside the classroom by teachers nor students. While this seems unfair to conservative students, it actually is a huge disservice to liberal students as well. College should challenge students from all walks of life to reassess and develop their own ideologies, not just confirm their preconceived notions or allow them to simply conform to the status quo.

Some of our nation’s most polarizing social issues are not being debated on our college campuses because professors have become too afraid of the repercussions coming from every angle. Academia claims to foster free speech, but its once-hallowed halls are now some of the most intolerant.

Back to Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA. Kirk’s mission was to go on campuses and engage in debate with students. He was free to do something the faculties felt they could not. He believed free and open debate had disappeared in this nation — especially on campuses — and knew the only way to move forward was through open dialogue. We know he could be brash; it was part of his schtick. But he got people talking and thinking. And that can never be wrong.

Whether you liked him or hated him, free speech and debate took a hit last week. Not only did a family lose its husband and father, but our nation lost a part of itself. John Stuart Mill wrote, “The worth of a man is in proportion to the objects he pursues. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature.”

Charlie Kirk will be remembered as someone who had something for which he was willing to fight.

James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@ gmail.com.