As I type, authorities still haven’t detained the evil killer of Charlie Kirk. Other than the likelihood that he (women generally aren’t as proficient with firearms) is a leftist lunatic who cannot tolerate the challenge of free speech, and the intellectual ambiguity that may entail, we don’t yet know much about him. But we do know that he perpetrated his evil on a college campus, and we do know that college campuses are cesspools of anti-Americanism.
Charlie was renowned for inviting invigorating debate, taking on all misguided students in hope of providing them a turning point before they irreversibly succumbed to hateful leftism. He was amazing, and by many accounts deserves great credit for Trump’s electoral victory last November. But now we have to confront the instructors who inculcate their charges with hateful and violent rhetoric, and encourage them to quell free speech.
For Charlie’s sake, we need to take the ideological “fight” up a notch, and that includes holding professors accountable if it can be proven they incited their students to violence. After all, a recent Emerson poll found that 41% of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 say the UnitedHealthcare CEO’s killing was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.” That dreadful attitude wasn’t fomented in a vacuum, but in an intellectually vacuous classroom.
There’s a growing trend to hold parents accountable for their children’s behavior. Since many college-age students are short on life experiences, their professors are essentially filling a parental role as they nurture their impressionable little minds. In some clear-cut cases of inciting violence against corporate America, they are, in essence, abusing our youth — in addition to tormenting their victims’ families.
Luigi Mangione (the killer of UHC CEO Thompson) originally faced 11 criminal counts; additionally, his actions may have been “in furtherance of an act of terrorism.” Part of the legal definition of that furtherance is, “an intent to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or a government unit.” Isn’t that what some leftist teachers-cum-social-warriors instigate amongst their captive classroom audiences? What’s their legal culpability when there is a clear and direct link between a professor’s assignments-cum-incitements and a student’s proximal actions?
Consider the UPenn professor who celebrated Thompson’s murder. She is a crazed leftist, often left in charge of developing the minds of young students looking for direction and meaning. For the sake of Charlie, shouldn’t the professor be held liable for fomenting the “furtherance” of anti-American violence? Her contemporaneous social media post (now deleted) helped foment anti-business chaos and much wealth destruction — at the time, UHC stock plummeted. Given the chance, Charlie Kirk may have debated Mangione, perhaps giving him reprieve from leftist intellectual imprisonment.
Then there’s that frightful teacher from Hunter College in New York. Her portfolio was “art,” but somehow she managed to parlay that into shameful social activism by violently dismantling a pro-life display. Surely, that translates into an “intent to intimidate or coerce…” Imagine the consequences if the roles were reversed.
Leftist academicians with highfalutin initials behind their names are one of the great scourges of America as they mold pliable youngsters into anti-American radicals. They may be protected by tenure, but, if proven that they incited a specific act of violence by one of their students, they should also be protected by the legal institutions they disparage. For Charlie’s sake we should fight, fight, fight against the enemy within the ivory towers. But, in respect to his legacy, they should be afforded due process as they are prudently prosecuted for aiding and abetting their pupil’s violence.
Image from Grok.