A few words on the Charlie Kirk killing
For those of us who care about viewpoint diversity on campus, Charlie Kirk’s assassination was a punch in the gut. America’s college campuses, and our democracy, are built on the aspiration of settling our political differences with words and persuasion, not violence and coercion. Our college campuses are supposed to be havens for real, substantive discussion with those we disagree with. Whatever you think of Kirk’s politics — even if you think they’re downright dangerous, or that he promoted violence himself — his murder is an affront to that aspiration.
That said, the backlash against those who criticize Kirk’s politics or celebrate his death has also been extremely disturbing. Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened to investigate and prosecute anyone who espouses “hate speech” in the wake of the assassination. Meanwhile, FCC Chair Brendan Carr issued a veiled threat of using the government’s regulatory powers against ABC after Jimmy Kimmel speculated that Kirk’s killer might actually be on team MAGA. Shortly after, ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel from the air. He’s back on now, but the FCC’s threat looms large (especially given that it’s pulled this stunt before).
And these are just the highest-profile examples of the backlash. You can read about a litany more here and here.
It feels like our country is going ever more insane. Free speech and civil discourse are being attacked at every turn, and from actors all across the political spectrum.
As alumni of Macalester, we have an opportunity to push back against this disturbing trend. We can stridently advocate for free speech and civil discourse at our alma mater, which is already doing good work on this front. That’s a relative rarity in today’s higher ed. landscape that we shouldn’t take for granted.
Mac in the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings
This brings me to my second topic for today: Macalester’s poor performance in FIRE’s recently-released 2026 College Free Speech Rankings. Yes, Macalester is doing good work, but it’s got lots more to do.
Mac came in at 228 out of 257. That’s a pretty big downgrade from last year, when it was 184 out of 251.
I found these numbers the most troubling:
77% of students say shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.
32% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.
This is actually a slight improvement from last year, but those numbers should be much lower, preferably 0%. Viewpoint diversity and free speech is not secure on a campus where students believe that shouting or using violence is acceptable to stop a campus speaker they disagree with.
Some other not-so-good findings:
25% of students said they self-censored a couple of times a week or more during conversations with peers on campus.
56% of students said it was difficult to have an open and honest conversation about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
29% of students thought it was “likely” or “very likely” that a student would report another student to the administration for saying something controversial. 31% of students said it was “likely” or “very likely” that a student would report a professor to the administration for saying something controversial. That creates a low-trust environment not very welcoming to dissenting views.
One bright spot is that 60% of students said it was “very” or “extremely clear” that the administration protects free speech on campus. That’s up from 47% last year, and credit is due to President Rivera and her administration in making their commitment to free expression clear. However, that potentially good sign is tempered by the fact that only 35% of students said that it was “very” or “extremely likely” that the administration would defend a controversial speaker’s right express their views. That’s basically the same as it was last year, when it was 34%.
What can Mac do to move the needle?
President Rivera and the administration should put their support for free expression into policy. They can adopt the Chicago Statement, which would more formally commit the school to upholding the principles of free expression. They can adopt institutional neutrality, which is a stated commitment to refrain from making statements on contested political issues of the day. And they can reform their speech policies earning FIRE’s “red” and “yellow light” ratings, which means those policies can be used to punish students over speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment — including legitimate political expression.
They can also continue building Mac’s Dialogue Across Differences programs. It looks like they’re making a difference, but, as I said, there’s more work to be done.
Finally, Mac should collect its own data on the state of free expression on its campus. I know Rivera is skeptical of FIRE’s methodology, but until Mac collects its own data, FIRE’s rankings are the only data we have.
Let’s all do what we can to push for these reforms. These are the kinds of changes we need to restore open inquiry and free expression to campus. And that just might make a difference in turning the tide against rising political violence.
These are terrible but unsurprising ratings. Most of my leftwing peers are very intolerant of anything close to a conservative (I.e. opposing) view. They read only media that supports their opinions. They fall for propaganda and memes. If it rhymes it must be true. We can’t expect teens and young adults to be more sensible than aging boomers!