Why Didn’t More College Leaders Condemn Charlie Kirk’s Murder?

In 2020, college and university presidents lined up to issue statements about George Floyd’s tragic death, despite the event’s lack of any direct connection to higher education. They were much quieter after Charlie Kirk’s horrific murder last month, even though that incident was a direct assault on the very purpose of their institutions.

Kirk was assassinated as he debated students on a college campus. This heinous attack stoked concerns across American universities about safety and the free exchange of ideas in academia.

Yet only 17 out of 100 leaders of top colleges made public statements about it, we found in a review. In 2020, 94 of those institutions issued leadership-level statements about Floyd.

For years, university presidents have eagerly weighed in on social and political events, from the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the January 6 riots. But when a conservative activist gets murdered on a university campus while engaged in peaceful debate, these same institutional leaders often failed to find the words to condemn his killing or make it clear that initiating violence to shut down free speech and debate is unacceptable.

Condemning attacks on free speech should be a priority. More than a third of college students are unwilling to rule out using violence to stop someone from speaking his mind. These young adults need better guidance.

Unfortunately, after Hamas’s brutal terror attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, many college and university presidents learned a different lesson. They discovered that it was easy to release a statement that jibes with the majority view but harder to say the right thing—even if it’s as straightforward as denouncing murder—when the message is likely to enrage a large portion of faculty, staff, and students.

In fairness, some of the schools that remained silent after Kirk’s murder had adopted policies of institutional neutrality following their bungled responses to October 7. These policies committed them to avoid making official statements on controversies involving current events because such statements tend to politicize universities and undermine their special role as forums for free inquiry and debate.

Our organization, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, has spent years advocating for institutional neutrality policies. So we can accept the judgment of any academic leader who cites such a policy in refraining from commenting on Kirk’s murder.

But 58 of the 100 schools on our list do not practice institutional neutrality. Of those, 49 failed to make a statement about Kirk after having made one about Floyd. Their silence highlights the moral corruption and failures of leadership in higher education.

We maintain that acknowledging the tragedy of Kirk’s murder is not, in itself, a violation of or exception to institutional neutrality. As the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report states, “From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.”

Can there be any doubt that Kirk’s assassination threatens the mission and values of every American university? It raised vital questions about the future of free speech in higher ed. Will institutions cite safety concerns and security costs to deny prominent speakers from coming to campus? Will speakers refuse to come because they fear for their lives? The free exchange of ideas is impossible when some fear violence or death simply for expressing controversial views.

Such a situation has hurt, and will continue to hurt, students and faculty. Students at the Claremont Colleges were reportedly harassed, heckled, and followed by masked individuals when they held a vigil for Kirk. Bowdoin College canceled a vigil after receiving a credible threat. Citing security concerns, New York University tried to cancel an event on October 7 featuring Manhattan Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro.

If recent activities of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) are any indication, campus conservatives cannot rely on faculty members to step up to defend them. The AAUP recently declined to endorse institutional neutrality policies. In the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, it condemned a series of threats made against several historically black colleges and universities and denounced disciplinary actions taken against professors who celebrated Kirk’s murder—before later quietly editing the statement to address the murder itself. It might have taken this latter action only after the organization’s president was caught suggesting that Kirk’s killer was “right wing.”

Some academic leaders did speak up in ways fully consistent with institutional neutrality. University of Wyoming president Ed Seidel, for example, issued a statement that expressed “disgust, outrage and sadness at this apparent politically motivated attack.” Seidel went on to explain, “In the midst of this tragedy, it is important that we reaffirm the right of all to express their views freely, especially on college campuses, as Mr. Kirk did recently at UW.”

Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University and an implacable critic of neutrality, also issued a statement on Kirk’s murder. He wrote: “We must not allow our political passions to get in the way of either moral revulsion at this assassination or basic sympathy for those who are suffering because of it.”

By contrast, Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber—who has also rejected institutional neutrality, saying, “You can’t be neutral about everything”—has chosen not to publish a statement about Kirk comparable to the one he put out after Floyd was killed. His silence speaks volumes.

Other leaders might honestly interpret their neutrality policies as preventing them from issuing statements. But for those presiding over schools without such a policy and who have been outspoken on other occasions, what explains their silence? Should we expect to see institutional neutrality adopted at their schools in the coming weeks? Or do they lack the courage and moral clarity to address the impact of Kirk’s death and categorically reject political violence? Time will tell.

This piece was originally published by City Journal on October 20, 2025.