Reflections on Current Events and Where to Go From Here

“You’ve got the words to change a nation but you’re biting your tongue.

You’ve spent a lifetime stuck in silence, afraid you’ll say something wrong.

If no one ever hears it, how we gonna learn your song?

You’ve got a heart as loud as lions, so why let your voice be tamed?

Maybe we’re a little different, there’s no need to be ashamed.

You’ve got the light to fight the shadows to stop hiding it away.

I wanna sing, I wanna shout, I wanna scream till the words dry out.

So put it in all of the papers, I’m not afraid.

They can read all about it, read all about it…” - Read All About It, Emeli Sandé

Like many of you reading this, I was horrified by the assassination of Charlie Kirk on the Utah Valley University campus on September 10, 2025. I also had the misfortune of seeing the close-up video of the assassination (I STRONGLY DISCOURAGE WATCHING as it’s extremely graphic). It feels particularly poignant as we marked the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

While I hesitate at the comparison, allow me to explain why I say this. For all the viral clips, out-of-context smears, media hit pieces, and hyperbolic vitriol about him, Charlie died doing something at the core of American culture and values, engaging in discussion and debate. The tabling events he and his organization hosted were designed to engage those with whom Charlie fundamentally disagreed, those who mildly disagreed, and those who agreed but wanted to discuss the issues. In an interview, Charlie once said that his goal was to make more discussions happen, particularly on university campuses. Charlie was engaging in something quintessentially American when he was murdered, and so for many (myself included), it feels like a shot to the heart of America as a whole and the principles of free speech and free expression that so many hold dear. In that way, it feels starkly similar to the sentiments following the 9/11 attacks, when the United States was attacked for all it stood for. To be clear, 9/11 was much worse, but the feeling is similar.

I never met Charlie. I found some of what he said abhorrent, some of what he said I just disagreed with, and yes, some things he said I agreed with, and no one should be murdered for their opinions (doesn’t matter if one agrees or disagrees). I know from the longer videos of Charlie’s events that the exchanges and debates were, for the most part, passionate but also peaceful and civil. Exactly what the free exchange of ideas should be. Exactly what a truth-seeker should do.

HxSTEM readers know that I share the concerns about the state of free speech generally and on university campuses. I have also long believed that universities, where we train many, but certainly not all, of the next generation of scientists, engineers, technology specialists, scholars, lawyers, doctors, and more, are of critical importance. The culture of a university, where debate and discussion should be sacrosanct, gives a glimpse into the future. Who will the next generation of scientists be? Will they really be the truth-seekers we in the older generations hope they would be? Will they be scared of difference and desire affirmation because they don’t seek to understand different perspectives (or don’t have the opportunity to try)? Will they, out of that desire to be entirely affirmed and never challenged, seek to silence anyone who thinks remotely different from them? I honestly don’t know.

I pay careful attention to the survey data surrounding universities and college student attitudes. The 2026 College Free Speech Rankings were recently released. There was one set of numbers and trend lines in the survey that scares me in light of current events. According to the survey, 71% of college students believe it’s at least rarely acceptable to shout down a speaker to prevent them speaking (up 9% from 2022), 54% believe it’s at least rarely acceptable to block other students from attending a campus event (up 17% from 2022), and 34% believe it’s at least rarely acceptable to use violence to stop a campus speech (up 14% from 2022). Here are some examples from individual universities in the survey:

1. Claremont McKenna College (Ranked number 1/257 universities, best in the country)

   1. Shouting down speakers - 61% at least rarely acceptable

   2. Blocking other students - 51% at least rarely acceptable

   3. Using Violence - 28% at least rarely acceptable

2. North Carolina State University (Ranked number 10/257, full disclosure - this is my alma mater)

   1. Shouting down speakers - 74% at least rarely acceptable

   2. Blocking other students - 55% at least rarely acceptable

   3. Using Violence - 37% at least rarely acceptable

3. The University of Oklahoma (Ranked 93/257, full disclosure - this is my current institution)

   1. Shouting down speakers - 77% at least rarely acceptable

   2. Blocking other students - 54% at least rarely acceptable

   3. Using Violence - 42% at least rarely acceptable

4. The University of North Texas (Ranked 200/257)

   1. Shouting down speakers - 73% at least rarely acceptable

   2. Blocking other students - 57% at least rarely acceptable

   3. Using Violence - 40% at least rarely acceptable

5. Barnard College (Ranked 257/257, worst in the country)

   1. Shouting down speakers - 78% at least rarely acceptable

   2. Blocking other students - 65% at least rarely acceptable

   3. Using Violence - 33% at least rarely acceptable

These numbers, and the increasing trend lines, are horrifying to me. What has happened that college students appear increasingly okay with using violence to stop someone speaking? Of course, this is absolutely not reflective of all college students. Many students, including the final student to debate with Charlie, are horrified by what happened. But we cannot ignore the numerous students and people generally who are celebrating Charlie’s murder. These people and the survey results above show us the symptoms of a sick and broken culture.

It was particularly difficult for me to see these horrid celebrations of Charlie’s death. This is a story from 9/11/2001 that I have not shared publicly. At the time, I was a sophomore in high school. I heard what happened in my 4th-period world history class. I immediately felt sick because at that time, my sister had just started her freshman year in college in New York. Classes in the afternoon had us sitting around the televisions watching the news coverage. At one point, the principal came over the intercom and told us we were being sent home early to be with family. The sick feeling in my gut that day became some pretty painful knots when my peers in the classroom started cheering that they would be out of school early. I wouldn’t find out until after I got home that my sister was alive and well and would be coming home. It was the same knots to see people celebrate this assassination.

The sick and broken culture that fosters people who would celebrate the death of others for their own selfish reasons (particularly over differences of opinion) or encourage the use of any method (particularly violence) to silence discussion and debate is something that cannot be sustained. Nor should this culture be inculcated in our students, as they are the next generation of scientists, scholars, and more. This sick culture is one of exclusion of diverse perspectives, and without these truly diverse intellects, science and society both will suffer tremendously.

It is not enough to point this out; we have to do something about this culture. I will not pretend to have all the answers, but here are some things I suggest related to universities specifically:

• University administrators and professors should embody respect for divergent viewpoints. Hosting debates between professors who fundamentally disagree, encouraging controversial speakers to come to campus (and protecting them when they do), and setting an example for their students.

• Faculty, students, and staff alike should discourage celebrating the death of, or encouraging harassment of (or violence against) those with whom they disagree. Likewise, demonizing those with whom they disagree with ad-hominem attacks (or ad-Hitlerem as I’ve heard in some corners) should also be strongly discouraged.

• Faculty and staff must instill the proper virtues for a functioning university and society. Namely, that speech is not violence, that disagreement doesn’t equate to hatred or a desire to erase anyone, and that the person you disagree with is still very much human.

• University officials should take complaints of harassment seriously. Investigate complaints thoroughly and punish students, faculty, or staff who engage in harassment of students, faculty, staff, or visiting speakers simply for differences of opinion.

I can only hope this moment in history results in some degree of change. I pray it does, because this current trajectory is not sustainable. Charlie Kirk himself said at one point that he did what he did to prevent violence. As summarized nicely on X -“where discourse ends, violence begins.” This discourse is so critical to society as a whole and to science. As Jonathan Rauch wrote, the reality-based communities of science and society depend on different perspectives to find the truth and act on it accordingly. We check each other’s biases and can reveal things that would otherwise remain hidden, and the bounds of knowledge expand. So please, don’t bite your tongue, don’t let your voice be tamed. Have the courage to speak with those you fundamentally disagree with, to understand each other, to remember we’re all human, and to seek the truth again. The truth is what I want to read about most of all.