Submitted by Skyeler Congdon.
President John Marshall’s recent message to students regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University highlighted Kirk’s role as a father and champion of “open and vigorous political debate.” While the value of campus dialogue is undeniable, his remarks expose troubling gaps in institutional attention, ethical consistency, and moral courage.
On the very same day Kirk was killed, a Colorado high school student, motivated by neo-Nazi beliefs, critically injured two peers before taking his own life (New York Times, 2025). This local tragedy, directly relevant to student safety, received no public acknowledgment from CMU leadership. This silence communicates a dangerous message: that some tragedies are worthy of empathy while others are conveniently ignored.
It signals to students that the loss of certain lives, or the violence tied to certain ideologies, doesn’t merit the same visibility. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (2025), white nationalist and far-right extremist incidents are surging nationally, including in Colorado, making selective attention both ethically and practically problematic.
The contrast is not limited to this one omission. When President Marshall framed Kirk’s death as tragic because he was a father, he overlooked a deeper truth: under the immigration policies Kirk championed, tens of thousands of fathers have been deported, permanently separated from their children, and forced into dangerous conditions (Los Angeles Times, 2025).
Where was the same institutional empathy for these families? Selective grief is not merely rhetorical—it signals which lives our leaders believe count, and which do not. This inconsistency erodes trust in leadership and undermines the university’s stated values of human dignity and inclusion.
The danger extends beyond tone. Framing free expression solely as “debate” without recognizing when rhetoric tips into hate speech is not neutrality; it is complicity. Platforms like Turning Point USA, co-founded by Kirk, have emboldened harassment of students and faculty, mainstreamed conspiracy theories and provided cover for extremist ideologies that thrive in intimidation and fear. Treating such platforms as legitimate “debate partners” misleads students into thinking these are merely competing viewpoints, rather than harmful ideologies with tangible consequences. The Jared Taylor event on campus may not have resulted in immediate physical harm, but it represented a missed opportunity for CMU to publicly draw a line against white nationalist rhetoric and model ethical courage.
Universities are civic institutions with both power and responsibility. CMU should confront harmful ideologies consistently, acknowledge threats publicly, and differentiate protected discourse from rhetoric that endangers community members. Its talent, intelligence and resources must be leveraged to address root causes of political and school violence in Colorado. This work cannot be siloed: psychology, sociology, criminal justice, law enforcement, social work, behavioral health, political science, economics and education must collaborate to generate research, policy proposals and community initiatives aimed at preventing violence before it occurs. Multi-stakeholder forums, partnerships with local schools, and campus-based prevention programs are just a few of the tangible ways to take action.
CMU’s stated values—human dignity, respect, inclusion and academic rigor—are not abstract ideals; they demand visible, courageous action. Universities cannot remain neutral when extremist rhetoric and political violence threaten students and faculty. Silence is a tacit endorsement of harm, while proactive, interdisciplinary leadership is a commitment to community safety and ethical integrity.
The stakes are nothing less than the safety of our campus and the moral compass of our democracy. CMU must act consistently, visibly and boldly. Our students deserve leadership that not only preaches debate and dialogue but also upholds justice, protects the vulnerable and demonstrates ethical courage in the face of extremism.
In writing this, I hope to model the very commitment to open, vigorous, and principled discourse that President Marshall emphasizes, demonstrating that accountability and critique are not oppositional to our shared values, but essential to them.
Attention: Letters to the editor are public submissions from readers of the Criterion and are copied verbatim from the submission. If you would like to write a letter to the editor, submissions must fall within a 500 word limit and be sent to [email protected]. Submissions will be published depending on space.