One year ago, on Sept. 10, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was killed while speaking at Utah Valley University. The incident occurred as Kirk, 31, was taking a question from a student during a debate in front of approximately 3,000 attendees. The circumstances of his death have prompted reflection on the state of open debate and free speech on college campuses.
Dr. Kent Ingle, president of Southeastern University, argues that the American university system had already begun to retreat from its foundational principles of open discourse long before Kirk's assassination. He noted that Kirk had to provide his own stage, microphone, and security for the event, a detail he found particularly troubling.
Ingle stated that universities have increasingly prioritized avoiding challenging ideas over fostering intellectual friction, which he believes is essential for student development. He pointed to speech codes, bias reporting systems, and specialized departments as examples of this shift. This approach, Ingle contends, has led to graduates who are credentialed but struggle to engage with dissenting viewpoints.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in early 2025 indicated a significant portion of students found shouting down speakers or using violence to stop speech to be acceptable. Ingle acknowledged that while the survey does not explain the murder, it reflects a climate that contributed to it.
Southeastern University, described as unapologetically Christian, hosts speakers such as former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and TPUSA Faith director Lucas Miles, with Ingle asserting that students are not shielded but rather sharpened by engaging with these figures and asking challenging questions. He emphasized the university's aim to cultivate leaders who can articulate their positions effectively in diverse or even hostile environments.
Ingle urged other university presidents to honor Kirk's legacy by adopting and defending robust free expression policies, resisting pressure to disinvite speakers, and requiring students to engage with and argue positions they oppose. He concluded that restoring the campus as a safe space for open dialogue is the responsibility of university leaders, a role that requires actively using the academic spaces for their intended purpose.
