Editor’s Note: Alongside Georgetown University College Republicans, The Georgetown Review co-sponsored the event with Eric Trump and Charlie Kirk on February 25, 2020.
It is an understatement to say that Eric Trump and Charlie Kirk are controversial figures. Eric is the son of the current U.S. president and a strong supporter os his father’s administration. Charlie Kirk is the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a nonprofit with direct links to right-wing extremism. The pair’s arrival on campus garnered attention and led to discussion on the topic I wish to cover today — Free Speech. More specifically, should student organizations use Georgetown as a platform for controversial figures like Trump and Kirk? As a member of The Georgetown Review, I was already in favor of providing them a platform. But after talking to some people before the event, my views on this particular event and free speech as a whole are more tempered. The following are my personal arguments in favor of controversial figures on campus.
It’s important to realize that there is another side to this argument. Georgetown University College Democrats (GUCD) put together a statement on February 24th, the day before the event. The statement connects Charlie Kirk and TPUSA to hate speech and explains the reasoning behind their organization’s boycott of the speakers. I wanted to recognize this statement first and foremost because it provides a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, and it’s just generally important to recognize perspectives different than our own. Also, AJ Williamson and Jordan Westendorf, members of GUCD, released an Op-Ed explaining their organization’s views.
First, I would like to address GUCD’s stance that bringing Charlie Kirk and Eric Trump does not produce substantive discourse. I disagree. As I mentioned earlier, my thoughts on free speech have become more nuanced as I’ve engaged with more people on the issue. I would argue that the very act of bringing a controversial figure to campus is educational, because it’s one thing to talk about free speech in the abstract, but another thing to have to confront the logical conclusion of your ideas coming to your campus.
Inviting someone uncontroversial to campus wouldn’t generate as much discussion on the topic, because there is little dissent. But bringing people like Trump and Kirk, people who push the envelope on the ideas that we are willing to entertain leads to more dissent, which in turn produces discussion. Georgetown University College Republicans (GUCR) have invited many mainstream conservative voices before, such as Governor Larry Hogan of Maryland. Because of their lack of controversy, people don’t disagree with the representation of their views. However, it is when we challenge each other’s viewpoints that we realise what values we hold dear. Relating one’s own values to the surrounding political landscape is the goal of civic education, and talking to the people in line for the event made me realize that true education was happening.
[…] it is when we challenge each other’s viewpoints that we realize what values we hold dear.
Now it would be completely disingenuous of me to explain my positions on this subject without addressing why I am a part of an organization that invited Charlie Kirk to our campus, despite his connections to hate speech. How could I give a platform to people who support hate speech and allow it to spread? Inviting controversial speakers like Trump and Kirk to our campus does not add to their legitimacy. Like it or not, Kirk has found a way to speak to young conservatives in a way no one else has, and I felt that magnetism while watching him speak. His legitimacy doesn’t come from whether or not we interact with him, but from his ability to tap into his base. As long as he can reach his base, it doesn’t matter what platform he uses. I wanted to see how he accomplished his goals, because I believe his viewpoints are fundamentally flawed, yet he manages to package them in a way that empowers his base.
I see importance in the unedited Kirk experience, things you can’t understand from just watching a screen—the way he speaks off the top of his head, the atmosphere he creates, and how he carries a crowd—because in order to oppose an idea, you must go where it is expressed most freely and confront its strengths and weaknesses. When I went into Lohrfink Auditorium, I could finally understand the appeal of Kirk’s ideology. The way he mentioned how he wished to empower those whose voices had been suppressed resonated with me. But the way he threw insults into the crowd and actively promoted conspiracy theories made me deeply uncomfortable. But it’s important to understand viewpoints with which you disagree, because you can then deconstruct them. That deconstruction is the process of assessing what points with which you agree and disagree. Deconstruction is what makes our convictions stronger or changes our understanding of the world. And regardless of whether your mind is changed or not, thinking through our beliefs critically is essential to civic education.
Kelvin Doe (COL ’23) is the Managing Editor for Bipartisanship.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official or personal position of the Editorial Board, Contributors, or Business Staff of The Georgetown Review.
