Following Charlie Kirk’s assassination during a talk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, the American public is reassessing our relationship with free speech. The American government has lauded Kirk as a martyr for free speech, and this perspective has been echoed by right-wing circles across the country.

Kirk was killed for exercising his right to free speech. He was known for debating with college students across the country, inviting them to prove him wrong. It’s what he was doing the moment he was shot. When asked about the assassination in a text exchange with his partner, Kirk’s alleged killer stated, “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”  

Kirk engaged in harmful speech, pushed the idea that there is an alarming trend of transgender school shooters, that Muslims intend to destroy American customs and had insulted the mental capacities of minority job candidates. These statements dangerously misrepresent and generalize minority populations.

Kirk also encouraged anti-intellectualism. His organization, Turning Point USA, hosts the “Professor Watchlist,” a database of headlines regarding “radical behavior among college professors.” This watchlist exclusively targets left-leaning professors. One professor is listed because he identifies as a socialist and has BLM in his Twitter bio. Another is listed because she is a critical race theorist. 

The right to freedom of speech allowed Kirk to engage in debate, regardless of the misinformation and discrimination that he disseminated. In a radical shift, former proponents of free speech are now attacking this constitutional right. Kirk’s death shouldn’t be celebrated — but that doesn’t mean that those condemning him should be censored. 

Recently, two Clemson professors were fired for inappropriate comments made on social media regarding Kirk’s assassination. One professor reposted: “Karma is sometimes swift and ironic,” which was followed by calls for their removal from both state lawmakers and President Trump. This behavior opens the door to punishment for private speech, especially among academics. Will public universities be punished for how their professors criticize the status quo?

Outside of the academic sphere, Jimmy Kimmel Live! was suspended by ABC due to Kimmel’s suggestion that Kirk’s murderer had held right-wing beliefs. This occurred under pressure from the Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr. Recently, Trump suggested that other broadcasters who criticize him could have their licenses revoked.

At Furman University, dialogue between opposing viewpoints is heavily emphasized within and outside of the classroom. Oftentimes, this includes opinions that may be harmful or make others uncomfortable. Recently, a pro-Israel Cultural Life Program drew controversy after its speaker, Alan Dershowitz, dismissed claims of genocide. While these comments were egregious, hosting events like these encourages students, especially the most impassioned, to reinforce their views and values through thinking critically about opposing viewpoints. Listening to a variety of perspectives improves us not just as students and thinkers, but as people. We learn how to hold ourselves accountable.  

Furman students have shown themselves capable of handling hot topics. In the spring of 2024, Furman’s branch of the Young Democratic Socialists of America brought forth a referendum encouraging the Student Government Association to put out a statement condemning human rights violations in Gaza. This past semester, Furman Students for Democracy held a rally in support of academic freedom and diversity, equity and inclusion. Furman students cannot allow recent crackdowns on freedom of speech to dampen student dissent. 

At Kirk’s memorial, President Trump stated that while Kirk loved his opponents, Trump does not. He hates them, as remarked during his speech. Kirk’s murder is becoming an impetus to crush disapproval. 

To say that Kirk was killed for exercising freedom of speech would be correct. However, his death has also made glaringly obvious the Trump administration’s intolerance for speech criticizing the current presidential administration, its practices and its mouthpieces. Our government’s response to political violence is wildly inappropriate and unbecoming of a body that is encouraged by the Constitution to uphold individual liberties. 

Continue to protest on campus — protest Cultural Life Programs, protest federal decisions. Write for The Paladin. Talk to your student leaders. When politicians and speakers come to campus, ask questions. Engaging in free speech is, in itself, defending it. 

As students and members of an institution that claims to promote dialogue and discourage self-censorship, we have an obligation to defend free speech, especially when it criticizes the status quo.