The assassination of Charlie Kirk has sparked an outcry over the silence from universities, which is a far cry from their previous statements on George Floyd’s murder. The murder of prominent conservative speaker Charlie Kirk on a university campus has prompted widespread concern and criticism of the response from academic institutions. Critics argue that the silence from universities is inconsistent with their previous condemnation of racial violence following the death of George Floyd in 2020. While universities issued strong statements during the aftermath of Floyd’s death, they have not provided a similar level of public reaction or condemnation following Kirk’s assassination
The article notes that the lack of response from universities is particularly alarming, as one would expect institutions of higher education to respond immediately to such a violent act. The murder of Kirk, an icon of conservative thought, has exposed a potential double standard, with universities remaining largely silent despite the expectation that they would speak out against the chilling effect of such violence.
Furthermore, the article discusses the broader implications of this silence, suggesting that universities have moved away from their traditional roles in fostering knowledge and virtue. Instead, they have become environments influenced by Marxist ideologies, which have fostered a climate where violence is often justified as a means to ‘progress.’ This ideological shift is seen as contributing to the current state of events, including the failure of universities to condemn the recent killing of Kirk.
The article also highlights the irony of the University of Chicago’s ‘Chicago Principles’ and ‘Kalven Report,’ which are meant to protect free speech, but are seen by critics as more of a marketing tool to attract donors rather than a reflection of the university’s actual policies. The article further suggests that the silence from universities is not neutral but indicates a potential form of complicity in the ideology that has led to such violent acts.
In addition to the lack of institutional response, the article expresses concern over the financial implications of speaking on campus, with speakers like Ben Shapiro highlighting the costs associated with security and liability. The narrative suggests that, without significant financial resources, it is increasingly difficult for conservative speakers to speak on university campuses, raising concerns about the future of free speech in higher education.