What We Must Teach to Preserve Free Speech
Tolerance and open debate are essential to a free society
WHAT WE MUST TEACH TO PRESERVE FREE SPEECH
Tolerance and open debate are essential to a free society
“Prove Me Wrong.” These were the words stenciled on the tent canopy under which Charlie Kirk was intentionally and heinously murdered. “Prove Me Wrong” was Kirk’s challenge to college students to make and defend their best, good faith arguments, especially on contentious issues that have bitterly divided our families, neighborhoods, and country.
While vigorous debate is the hallmark of a civil society, too many university students and faculty oppose the free exchange of ideas. More than 7,000 people signed petitions demanding Utah Valley University and Utah State disinvite Kirk from speaking on their respective campuses because his presence would work against “fostering an inclusive space for all its students and faculty.”
To their credit, both UVU and Utah State honored Kirk’s invitation and demonstrated an actual commitment to inclusivity and ideological diversity. UVU affirmed their “commitment to free speech, intellectual inquiry, and constructive dialogue” by allowing the event to proceed.
Unfortunately, a young man took UVU’s invitation not as an opportunity to discuss his differences of opinion with Kirk, but rather to fire a high-powered rifle to deliver an assassin’s bullet.
For the moment, I want to focus not on the one killer who resolved his disagreements through violence, but the more than 7,000 who wanted to resolve their disagreements through silencing opponents. It is the latter that predictably and ultimately lead to the former.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) recently surveyed 68,510 students from 257 colleges and universities, and found that “the percentage of students saying it is acceptable to shout down a speaker (71 percent) or block other students from entry to a campus speech (54 percent). . . all increased since last year and are at record highs.” Stunningly, one in three college students said it is OK to use violence to stop a campus speech.
As the founder of a virtues-based, public charter high school in the Bronx, my job is to prepare teenagers for the next stage of young adulthood. The goal is to instill a sense of personal agency, a belief that they can lead self-determined lives with meaning and purpose. It also means immersing them in an environment that values viewpoint diversity and recognizes our common humanity, regardless of race, religion, political affiliation or any other identity marker that divides our nation.
Our school is organized around the four cardinal virtues of Courage, Justice, Temperance, and Wisdom. Cardinal comes from cardo, the Latin word for hinge, meaning “that on which other things depend.” The cardinal virtues are the root character traits upon which all other standards of moral excellence rely.
Each morning, students recite “I Statements” for each virtue. For Justice, our students say—I uphold our common humanity and honor the inherent dignity of each individual. These words spoken out loud, in unison, become a collective commitment for how we live and thrive together as a community.
Through a partnership with High School Law Review, students study constitutional law and learn the value of agreeable disagreement. We have launched the Thomas Sowell Celebrating Wisdom Award where students write essays to engage a range of ideas from thinkers such as Glenn Loury, Shelby Steele, Roland Fryer, and Coleman Hughes.
I call on my fellow school leaders, especially high school principals, to recognize that this intolerance among college students to listen to opposing ideas is a problem that does not originate on campus. It’s more likely a function of seniors graduating from high school unschooled in the ways of civil discourse. According to the Knight Foundation survey on the Future of the First Amendment, only 40 percent of high school students believe that “people should be allowed to say whatever they want, even if it is offensive.” It doesn’t help that according to the 2024 National Assessment For Educational Progress, the average scores for twelfth-grade students in reading hit their lowest level since 1992.
While the authorities apprehended the killer who stripped Kirk’s humanity through murder, it is up to us to address the academic pipeline that created the 7,000 who wanted to strip his humanity through canceling his voice. Regardless of your political views, silencing can never be the answer. The first step in denying someone’s humanity is denying their ability to speak, which undermines our democratic ideals. That is why the First Amendment protects the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.
When Kirk was asked why he visits college campuses specifically to engage those who vehemently disagree with him, he said “I go to have challenging conversations. What is so important to our country is to find our disagreements, respectfully, because when people stop talking, that’s when violence happens.”
At this moment when our political divides run the risk of rupturing even more, let’s prove one thing right: more dialogue, more healthy disagreement, more talk, not less, is the path forward.
Ian V. Rowe is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he leads the FREE Initiative, which cultivates a deeper understanding of how family, religion, education, and entrepreneurship weave together a moral fabric that shapes children.
Ian is founder of Vertex Partnership Academies, a network of character-based International Baccalaureate high schools inaugurated in the Bronx in 2022. He is the chairman of the board of Spence-Chapin, a nonprofit adoption services organization; and the cofounder of the National Summer School Initiative. He concurrently serves as a senior visiting fellow at the Woodson Center and as a writer for the 1776 Unites Campaign. He co-hosts the Invisible Men podcast with Nique Fajors.
Ian’s recent book is Agency: The Four Point Plan (F.R.E.E.) for All Children to Overcome the Victimhood Narrative and Discover Their Pathway to Power (Templeton Press, 2022). His previous article for the Journal of Free Black Thought was “Why My Students Recite the Preamble to the Constitution.” He appeared on the Free Black Thought Podcast in an episode titled “Family Structure Over Everything.” Follow him on X here.
An earlier version of this article previously appeared on AEIdeas.
I would be interested to know how many of the people who signed the petition for him not to be allowed to speak showed up for his presentation.
Thank you