Silence as a Strategy

When the University of Oklahoma refused to publicly condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk, it did more than fail a moral test. It failed a constitutional one and may have committed a tort.

Under the guise of neutrality, OU and other Oklahoma public universities have created a system of selective silence that endangers their own students. Conservative students, in particular, now face threats, intimidation, and the loss of their right to speak and assemble freely.

In tort law, negligence has four elements: duty, breach, causation, and harm.

The Duty

OU has both an ethical and constitutional duty to maintain a safe and even-handed environment for free expression and free assembly. The standard of care is clear. Universities must apply their rules fairly, protect all speakers and student organizations equally, and equally condemn political violence in practice without regard to ideology.

The Breach

OU failed that duty. When a conservative leader was assassinated, the administration issued no widely distributed public statement, no visible condemnation, and no call for unity or prayer. Instead, a short private message was circulated to a few student leaders.

Compare that to OU’s highly publicized responses to progressive causes. The difference is undeniable and their silence has consequences.

The Causation

On October 7, Turning Point USA was forced to cancel a campus event after receiving credible death threats against the student group and speaker Mary Karp. Both Karp and TPUSA confirmed that they could not guarantee the safety of the speaker or the attending students.

In the days before another TPUSA event featuring Governor Kevin Stitt, all fifty promotional yard signs were stolen or vandalized within hours.

At Oklahoma State University, a student was formally reprimanded and threatened for simply honoring Charlie Kirk in a student-government speech by wearing the hat Kirk had given him, condemning political violence, and calling for more open dialogue and calmer rhetoric.

Meanwhile, left-wing activist groups making far more inflammatory accusations, such as labeling OU regents complicit genocidal war criminals with blood on their hands during pro-Palestinian demonstrations, operate without rebuke or disciplinary action. Left-wing groups are not forced to cancel events, face no comparable threats, and enjoy unquestioned administrative protection.

Across Oklahoma campuses, a chilling effect has taken hold. Speak from the Left and you are celebrated. Speak from the Right and you risk harassment, cancellation, discipline, or violence. Administrators routinely cite safety concerns or liability exposure as justification for canceling conservative events even though those risks exist only because the universities have refused to confront the hostility that created them.

The Harm

The harm is real and measurable. Students have been silenced. Events have been canceled. The marketplace of ideas has narrowed to a single dominant viewpoint.

Conservative students are now deterred from getting involved, fearing violent backlash, online harassment, professional or academic retaliation and after Charlie Kirk assassination at Utah Valley University, much worse. Many choose to remain silent to go unnoticed rather than risk being targeted for their beliefs.

This is not neutrality. It is negligence disguised as policy. It is intentional.

Academia has discovered an easy way to suppress dissent without issuing formal orders. They allow radical activists to intimidate, then the administration hides behind bureaucratic neutrality as cover.

That is not neutrality. It is state-actor complicity.

Public universities are publicly funded and thus are bound by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. When they allow one faction to threaten, vandalize, or silence another, limiting their right to free expression, association, and assembly, they are not bystanders. They are participants.

A Culture of Complicity

This is not passive silence. It is administrative outsourcing of repression and prior restraint. By refusing to condemn violence and threats, OU and its peers have effectively authorized others to enforce ideological conformity.

Administrators know what is happening. They know conservative students are being silenced not by written policy but by tolerated intimidation. They know that every act of silence emboldens the next act of aggression.

Each time a conservative event is canceled, the precedent grows. Each time the university hides behind the language of neutrality, the hostility deepens.

The result is a self-reinforcing system of censorship by proxy. Universities maintain control while pretending to be powerless.

The Constitutional Implications

OU’s conduct is not just a moral failure. It raises serious constitutional concerns. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, public universities have a legal duty to protect free speech, free association, free assembly, and equal treatment. When they abandon that duty, they move from neglect to infringement.

Free Speech and Viewpoint Discrimination

Public universities are state actors. They cannot silence or chill speech because of disagreement with a viewpoint. The Supreme Court made this clear in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995), which held that denying student-activity funds to a publication because of its religious perspective was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. This principle means universities must apply funding, access, and protection equally to all student voices, not only to the ideologically favored ones.

In Healy v. James (1972), the Court reaffirmed that student groups at public colleges enjoy full First Amendment protection and cannot be denied recognition unless the school proves substantial justification. OU’s pattern of recognizing and supporting some voices while ignoring others contradicts that standard of even-handed treatment.

Even facially neutral policies cannot be applied unequally. In Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972), the Court struck down an ordinance that allowed labor picketing but banned all other picketing. That ruling underscores that selective enforcement based on subject matter or viewpoint is constitutionally impermissible, exactly what OU is accused of doing.

The evidence is plain. Conservative and Christian and pro-Israeli speakers and student groups have faced threats, vandalism, and canceled events. Progressive, Leftist, and pro-Palestinian groups face none of the same restrictions. The result is a one-sided marketplace of ideas created not by law but by selective enforcement and administrative inaction.

Freedom of Association and Assembly

The right to assemble and associate freely is also protected. Students have the right to form groups and meet with others who share their beliefs. But when universities tolerate intimidation or threats against those groups, they effectively punish participation and shrink the space for dissent.

In Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984), the Court recognized that freedom of association is a core constitutional right, though it can be limited only to serve compelling interests through narrowly tailored means. That case confirms that associational rights cannot be burdened simply because they are politically unpopular.

In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), the Court upheld an “all-comers” policy at a law school because it was truly viewpoint-neutral and applied evenly to every student group. That decision illustrates that universities may regulate groups only when the same rule applies equally across the ideological spectrum, something OU’s selective silence and enforcement clearly fail to do.

A campus climate that makes joining a conservative group unsafe or futile burdens that right just as much as an official ban would.

Prior Restraint and the Heckler’s Veto

Another principle is that speech cannot be suppressed simply because others threaten to react violently. That is known as the “heckler’s veto,” and courts have rejected it repeatedly, from Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) to Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir. 2015). Both decisions affirm that the government must protect speakers rather than silence them to appease hostile crowds.

The Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Near v. Minnesota (1931) established the general rule that prior restraints, or blocking speech before it occurs, are presumptively unconstitutional. Canceling or postponing events due to predicted unrest fits the same forbidden pattern.

Likewise, Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992) struck down a county ordinance allowing officials to vary permit fees based on anticipated audience reaction. That case makes clear that a government entity cannot shift the cost or burden of safety onto disfavored speakers or use expected hostility as a pretext to suppress them.

When OU cancels or delays or allows threats to force the student groups to cancel events under the banner of safety concerns, it rewards the threateners and punishes the threatened. The university’s job is to protect the speaker, not silence them.

Equal Protection and Fair Enforcement

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Universities cannot apply their own rules differently depending on who is speaking or what they believe. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Supreme Court held that even neutral laws become unconstitutional if enforced unequally against disfavored groups. That principle directly applies when campus rules are used to restrain one political faction but not another.

Similarly, Papish v. Board of Curators (1973) held that a public university violated the First Amendment by expelling a student for distributing an “indecent” newspaper. Papish stands for the idea that universities cannot punish protected expression merely because it offends administrators or peers.

When conservative students face discipline or event cancellations while left-wing activists operate freely, the university is not enforcing policy. It is enforcing ideology.

Due Process and Fair Notice

Public universities owe students basic due process when taking adverse action related to speech or association. In Goss v. Lopez (1975), the Court ruled that even short school suspensions require notice and an opportunity to be heard. That precedent ensures fairness whenever a state institution disciplines students for expressive conduct, a standard Oklahoma public universities risk violating through arbitrary censorship or reprimand.

When students are reprimanded, censored, or have events canceled without clear standards or procedures, their due process rights are at risk.

Civil Rights Liability and State-Created Danger

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, citizens may sue state officials who deprive them of constitutional rights under color of law. Universities fall squarely within this framework.

While DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) held that the state has no general duty to protect individuals from private violence, it also left room for exceptions. Several appellate courts have recognized a “state-created danger” doctrine when government action or deliberate inaction increases a foreseeable risk of harm.

In Kneipp v. Tedder (3d Cir. 1996), the court found officials liable where their conduct left a citizen in greater danger than before. That reasoning supports potential liability when a university knowingly ignores credible threats against identifiable students and groups, thereby making harm more likely.

By refusing to condemn violence or provide adequate protection, OU administrators have allowed a foreseeable danger to grow, but chose to ignore.

The Verdict

OU’s silence is not an oversight. It is a choice.

It has chilled speech, endangered students and guest speakers, and eroded trust in the university’s integrity. It has made Oklahoma’s public campuses less free and less safe. And it has told half the student body that their voices do not matter.

If OU truly believes in justice, equality, and inclusion, it must apply those ideals to everyone, especially when it is politically inconvenient to do so.

Until that happens, the verdict stands.

OCPA: Alumni slam OU’s ‘double standard’ on political causes

https://ocpathink.org/post/independent-journalism/alumni-slam-ous-double-standard-on-political-causes

In recent years, officials at the University of Oklahoma have lent their full-throated support to various political causes, including active embrace of the Black Lives Matter movement (despite its association with widespread national violence) and condemnation of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

But following the recent assassination of Christian apologist and conservative activist Charlie Kirk, OU officials have suddenly declared that university officials will remain “reserved” in order to “avoid alienating” anyone.

The university’s response to Kirk’s assassination and the assault on free speech it represents is drawing criticism from both current students and alumni.

“The administration has consistently found its voice when the narrative aligned with progressive causes,” declared a Sept. 19 letter issued by John Kirchhoefer, a Norman graduate of OU law school, and other alumni. “But for victims of violence when the politics are reversed? Silence.”

Double Standard on Political Violence

Kirchhoefer and other OU alumni sent their letter to University of Oklahoma President Joseph Harroz, Jr., and OU Law School Dean Anna Carpenter.

The alumni who signed the letter said they were “disturbed by the silence from the OU administration in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

“A clear condemnation of politically motivated violence and domestic terrorism, and a call to tone down violent rhetoric, should have been immediate,” Kirchhoefer and other alumni wrote.

Kirk, 31, was assassinated on Sept. 10 at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, where he was hosting an open-air speaking and debate event. Tyler Robinson, 22, has been arrested and charged with Kirk’s murder.

According to reports, Robinson was engaged in a romantic relationship with a man who identifies as a “transgender woman,” and it appears Robinson targeted Kirk because of Kirk’s views on transgenderism and advocacy for laws that bar men from using women’s bathrooms or participating in women’s sports as “transgender women.”

OU alumni and student leaders say the university’s silence exposes an institutional bias against conservatives and undermines its stated commitment to free speech and equal treatment.

Following Kirk’s death, OU issued a brief statement that was, apparently, not distributed widely and was not attributed to any specific OU official. It simply stated, “We are deeply saddened by the tragic and senseless violence that took the life of Charlie Kirk and unequivocally condemn it. We extend our condolences to his family, friends, and all who are grieving this loss. The safety and security of our campus community is our highest priority, and we continuously review and implement measures to protect everyone who attends our events.”

The statement did not address the growing embrace of “assassination culture” and anti-speech violence on the political left. A recent survey found 42 percent of student respondents at the University of Oklahoma said using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases. That was well above the national average.

That survey also found there are roughly 1.84 liberal students for every one conservative student at OU.

OU’s response to Kirk’s murder was also in sharp contrast to the university’s response to the 2020 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis during an arrest.

On May 31, 2020, six days after Floyd’s death, Harroz issued a statement saying, “Ninety-nine years ago today, blood began to flow down Black Wall Street and the Tulsa Race Massacre ensued, marking one of the most tragic events in the history of our state and nation. And now, nearly a century later, we continue to live with the same violence and vitriol.”

Harroz called for “real, systemic change.”

On April 20, 2021, following the conviction of one of the officers involved in Floyd’s arrest and death, Harroz issued another statement declaring that “our Black community and other members of color” know “and have experienced the sting of racism firsthand.”

OU’s Past Political Statements

In their Sept. 19 letter to OU leaders, Kirchhoefer and other alumni noted that OU officials have repeatedly taken very public stances on political issues in recent years.

They noted that Kathleen Guzman, who was then serving as dean of the OU College of Law, signed a letter, along with other law school deans, denouncing the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. That letter declared the Jan. 6 riot to be “an assault on our democracy and the rule of law” and a “betrayal of the core values that undergird our Constitution.”

“A sustained effort will be necessary to repair and preserve our precious democratic institutions,” the letter signed by Guzman declared.

Kirchhoefer and other alumni also noted that Harroz gave a speech at the 2021 OU law convocation condemning political violence. Guzman also released a letter after George Floyd’s death amid the Black Lives Matter movement. OU law promoted a “March for George Floyd” and posted content associated with the Black Lives Matter movement on social media.

“Equal protection requires equal treatment,” Kirchhoefer wrote. “Equal justice becomes a fantasy when the University’s voice is unequal in calling for it.”

Kirchhoefer and other alumni noted that the OU administration had not issued any statement declaring a no-tolerance policy for those who justify political violence or promote domestic terrorism.

“Why even teach Ethics if the message is that they do not matter when political opinions or religious beliefs differ?” Kirchhoefer asked.

Kirchhoefer noted that Kirk’s assassination and similar acts of domestic terrorism could “just as easily” have occurred at “one of the events organized by conservative and Christian groups on OU’s campus.”

“The same rhetoric used against these groups—accusing students and their speakers of being dangerous, hateful White men, supremacists, Nazis, bigots, fascists, or supporters of war criminals—is the rhetoric that laid the groundwork for this assassination,” the Kirchhoefer letter stated.

Kirchhoefer and other alumni also dismissed arguments that OU officials are now trying to stay politically neutral.

“They didn’t even mention Kirk’s name once. They didn’t even send it to the student body. They only sent it to the executives at TPUSA.” —Jason Jenkins, secretary of the Turning Point USA chapter at OU

“Do not hide behind some new bureaucratic policy that can be used as a cover for what will appear to be—and would be right in assuming so—a double standard and bias,” Kirchhoefer wrote.

On Sept. 25, OU College of Law Dean Anna Carpenter responded, writing that “like you, we at OU condemn the murder of Mr. Kirk and offer our deepest condolences to his grieving family and friends.” The letter also included a “condemnation of violence in all cases.”

Carpenter wrote that the university “mobilized to support those affected, working directly with impacted student organizations, affirming our commitment to student safety and well-being, lowering our flags, and ensuring that student groups could hold uninterrupted vigils on campus.”

Carpenter also wrote that officials at the College of Law “have met with students formally and informally” to offer “steadiness and support in these difficult times.”

Carpenter declared that OU “has been, and always will be, committed to open discourse, civility, and free speech,” but declared that university officials are “more reserved regarding commenting publicly on topics of national political interest to avoid alienating any one student, group or organization.”

However, students say OU officials have done relatively little, especially in contrast to OU officials’ actions regarding prior political events.

TPUSA Members Underwhelmed by OU’s Response

Turning Point USA, the group founded by Kirk, has a student chapter at OU.

On Sept. 10, David Surratt, vice president for student affairs and dean of students at OU, sent an email to OU Turning Point USA leadership, stating, “In light of recent events and the impact they may have on your members, I want to extend our concern and support to the Turning Point USA community at OU. We recognize the moments of national loss and uncertainty can weigh heavily on students, especially when they involve leaders or organizations that hold personal meaning.”

The letter noted that Turning Point was one of “more than 575 registered student organizations” at OU.

“Student affairs stands ready to provide assistance and resources during this time, whether through counseling and wellness services, community support programs, or staff guidance,” Surratt continued.

Jason Jenkins, secretary of the Turning Point chapter at the University of Oklahoma, said the group’s members were underwhelmed.

“They didn’t even mention Kirk’s name once,” Jenkins said. “They didn’t even send it to the student body. They only sent it to the executives at TPUSA. That’s all they sent it to. They didn’t condemn violence against political figures at all. So the people who actually needed to read that never got it. It was just sent to a handful of people. It was just so lukewarm, so wishy-washy. All they did was say, ‘Hey, we’re sorry for your loss, and if you’re having trouble, here’s a few counselors that you can talk to and we’re here to help.’”

He also noted the letter was not from OU President Harroz.

A second conservative student, who asked not to be named, said OU officials indicated they would issue a statement condemning violence, but said there have been no signs of any mass-distributed statement.

“It hasn’t been sent out to my school email,” she said.

Instead, the only statement widely distributed at the school emphasized general security measures.

Kirchhoefer urged other alumni and the families of current students to make their voices heard at OU.

“Many voices, even brief ones, will carry more weight than a single statement,” Kirchhoefer said. “That’s the best way to honor Charlie’s legacy is to stand up and speak with your chest that we will no longer be silent in the face of academia’s institutional bias against conservatives and the entrenched double standards that run cover for the extreme left.”

Ray Carter

Director, Center for Independent Journalism

Open Letter to the University of Oklahoma and the University of Oklahoma College of Law regarding their silence in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination

John C. Kirchhoefer

JCK Strategies LLC

jck@jckstrategies.com

(847) 644-2670

September 19, 2025

President Joseph Harroz

The University of Oklahoma

Office of the President

660 Parrington Oval

Room 110

Norman, Oklahoma, 73019

jharroz@ou.edu

Dean Anna Carpenter

The University of Oklahoma College of Law

Office of the Dean

300 West Timberdell Road

Norman, Oklahoma, 73072

anna@ou.edu

President Harroz and Dean Carpenter,

We are a group of OU Law alumni who are deeply disturbed by the silence from the OU administration in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Where is the statement from OU Law and Dean Carpenter? From OU and President Harroz? From you personally, as the leaders responsible for OU Law and for our students? A clear condemnation of politically motivated violence and domestic terrorism, and a call to tone down violent rhetoric, should have been immediate.

Where are the public letters signed by law school deans across the country, like the January 6th joint statement denouncing political violence that Dean Guzman herself signed? Where are the speeches condemning political violence, like the one President Harroz gave at the 2021 OU Law convocation?

Where are the assurances that celebrating or justifying political violence and domestic terrorism will not be tolerated, and that such conduct could lead to expulsion and reports to the bar association? Why even teach Ethics if the message is that they do not matter when political opinions or religious beliefs differ?

Where is the recognition that constant accusations of “extremism” dehumanize fellow students and can fuel this very kind of violence?

We have all seen counter-protests to Charlie Kirk vigils and memorials, mocking his murder and harassing his fans and family online. This is why the University’s silence is important: it has allowed this behavior to fester.

When the right sees this level of hatred and bloodlust go unpunished or go without condemnation, it emboldens depraved immorality, and hateful nihilists will go further and further. It also stokes the anger we all feel at this injustice and at having our noses rubbed in it—anger which only invites reprisals.

This is why we are writing this letter. We are so desperately trying to prevent further violence, which silence will only encourage.

Do not hide behind some new bureaucratic policy that can be used as a cover for what will appear to be—and would be right in assuming so—a double standard and bias.

The record is clear. OU and OU Law have not hesitated to issue sweeping public statements in the past. Dean Guzman released a letter after George Floyd’s death. OU Law promoted a “March for George Floyd,” posted a blackout square for #BlackoutTuesday, and published numerous statements celebrating “unity in diversity” and quoting Martin Luther King Jr. about silence being violence when condemning J6. The administration has consistently found its voice when the narrative aligned with progressive causes.

But for Charlie Kirk? For victims of violence when the politics are reversed? Silence. There was also no OU or OU Law post or statement when President Trump was shot and nearly assassinated in Butler, Pennsylvania, or when Representative Steve Scalise was shot at the Republican baseball game. That silence is part of the same pattern. And that silence looks like tacit approval or, at best, cowardice. And even if these omissions stem from an oversight or a good-faith adherence to policy, the appearance of the application being so one-sided is terrible optics and will not matter to the community that clearly hears your deafening silence.

We know that far left-wing members of our community have openly celebrated, or at least spoken glibly about, this national tragedy on social media. And we also know those same voices would erupt with outrage if OU dared to condemn it. That, we fear, is why nothing has been said.

But neutrality in the face of political violence is not neutrality—it is complicity. By OU’s own stated standard, “silence is violence.” This silence is not defensible.

The law school building itself bears the engraving: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Injustices against conservatives, Christians, or White men are no less real. Equal protection requires equal treatment. Equal justice becomes a fantasy when the University’s voice is unequal in calling for it.

For an administration that speaks constantly of equity, this selective silence suggests either a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept or a deliberate double standard, applied as a thumb on the scale against those disfavored because of their politics, identities, or beliefs.

We affirm that OU Law should stand for honor, intellect, fellowship, and respect across ideological differences. That principle is not situational. It reflects our consistent belief that civil discourse and mutual respect must prevail, even in times of deep political division. We stand by that today. And we now call on OU Law to be consistent as well: to condemn political violence regardless of the target, and to apply the same standards of justice and compassion equally to all.

If OU does not issue a clear condemnation of this political violence and domestic terrorism, it will stand as proof of complacency and hypocrisy regarding political, racial, and religious violence. This is the moment to bring our community together, to call for prayer for Charlie’s family and for the health of this nation. Leadership requires clarity. That is the minimum standard of decency.

This could just as easily have been one of the events organized by conservative and Christian groups on OU’s campus. The same rhetoric used against these groups—accusing students and their speakers of being dangerous, hateful White men, supremacists, Nazis, bigots, fascists, or supporters of war criminals—is the rhetoric that laid the groundwork for this assassination.

This sort of silence from our University in the face of left-wing political violence has gone on for too long, and so we now stand and speak. OU and OU Law must speak clearly and unequivocally. Student group statements, however well-intentioned, do not carry the authority or weight of institutional power.

We extend our prayers for the soul of Charlie Kirk and offer our deepest condolences to his wife, children, parents, and to his millions of supporters, including those who witnessed his horrific execution at Utah Valley University. This moment demands not silence, but unity. We must come together as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Nothing less.

Would OU and OU Law have hidden behind policy had 9/11 or the OKC Bombing happened today? Would they refuse to take action if swaths of the university community made light of it, said it was deserved, or harassed its mourners?

This is terrorism just the same.

Sincerely,

John C. Kirchhoefer

PRESS

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ou-law-students-raise-11-135000297.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFiqh00AoILoIG_8Yv5op_IpcL0iUINL6jDMbzzMLUJckHxNmPdWfiCv1m2qdEf4ctwaWstAJdN5EXakHFo4Aj2H7czeFneodm6aBSe6UxDWiSHxFOI2CH04_vufiMCANeQHZcMwZINQ5qZ9MsPCLKAuXRjTN074Dp8ybn56Yvjl

OU Law Students raise $11,00 for Sulphur victims

May 18—University of Oklahoma Law students raised $11,000 worth of supplies to give to tornado victims in Sulphur.

John Kirchhoefer, an OU Law student, said the project required teamwork from different organizations to make it happen.

On April 28, an EF3 tornado ripped through downtown Sulphur with winds around 165 miles per hour, taking down homes, buildings and other infrastructure.

The city, which lies within the Tishomingo District of the Chickasaw Nation, had cautioned well-intended Good Samaritans from helping out immediately following the storm, which is why OU Law approached the nation to inquire on how to best serve those affected.

"I have spoken with Gov. Bill Anoatubby and the Chickasaw Nation," Kirchoefer said. "We are organizing our efforts at the law school with the OU Law administration, the alumni network, and student groups like NALSA — Native American Law Student Association — and the Federalist Society, and the Christian Legal Society, as well as the student government."

He said that last week, Chickasaw Nation commissioned a van to take the supplies to Sulphur, which included clothes, shoes, canned food, baby food and supplies, personal care products and pet food and supplies.

The students are also coordinating with Osage Nation to support victims from the May 6 tornado in Bartlesville.

"After Sulfur got hit, we law students were upset about that. I know some people from there, and we were looking for something to do. People were talking about driving out in big groups," he said.

Kirchhoefer, who came from Wisconsin and Chicago, Illinois, said he has been impressed with the Oklahoma Standard for helping those in need.

"It was really just a powerful showing of Okies supporting Okies," Kirchhoefer said. "I have become familiar with the Oklahoma Standard, as they call it."

He said students had filled the Pit, or student lounge of the Law School with boxes and buckets of supplies, which impressed him.

Kathleen Guzman, dean of the OU School of Law, said this kind of reaction is completely within the norm of what she would have expected from her students.

"The work that these law students and organizations have undertaken has been remarkable and yet unsurprising, both, I am in particular awe with how they pitched in amidst the end of the semester, finals, and graduation," Guzman said. "These students exemplify what it means to couple intent with action and serve with love."

She said that the action of these students held particular meaning because they were undergoing the natural rigors of end-of-semester finals.

Kirchhoefer said Chickasaw Nation was concerned that it would receive an abundance of support initially to the point where it could not process the assistance, followed by a lull when need was most needed.

"These students have taken lead and direction from the affected communities assisting where and how most needed and have revealed a willingness to be there next week and the ones after that, too, to continue the longest term needs that might arrive from these tragedies," Guzman said.

The OU Law School also donated clothing from its Career Closet, a program that has been phased out which provided professional clothing to law students who needed it.

"It was an entire closet full of professional clothing that the law school has collected over the course of the last few years," Kirchhoefer said. "They've hired more staff at the law school and they needed the space for offices, so they were cleaning that out."

Brian King covers education and politics for The Transcript.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-speaker-paul-ryan-laments-035900609.html

Former Speaker Paul Ryan laments current political landscape, asks for more civility

Mar. 27—Former Speaker of the House and 2012 Vice President Nominee Paul Ryan told Norman residents that the U.S. needs more civility in politics as the keynote speaker for the University of Oklahoma's Presidential Speakers Series.

Ryan told The Transcript that Oklahoma holds a special place in his heart since he married his wife, Janna, who is from Madill.

"I come to Oklahoma a lot because my wife is from Madill and their family ranch is there. I come to Oklahoma every year to hunt and fish in Madill, and I've been going to OU games for the last 20 years," Ryan said.

A few years ago, he attended the Bedlam football game with OU President Joseph Harroz Jr. and his wife Ashley Harroz, where he was extended an invitation to speak at OU

Ryan served Wisconsin House District No. 1 from 1999-2019 and as House Speaker from 2015-2019.

"I have a lot of roots to OU through marriage," Ryan said. "We have bird dogs, and I naturally wanted to name them Bucky and Badger, but we ended up calling them Boomer and Sooner. It just tells who makes the decision in our family."

He said his biggest concern for young people is that they are witnessing an unprecedented tone as far as political dialogue.

"I think it's really important that young people, particularly college students, get a sense that politics and political discussion is not just about anger and personality destruction," Ryan said. "There are bigger issues to talk about, and there are civil discussions to be had.

Ryan has previously criticized members of both parties for implementing divisive rhetoric, including former president Donald Trump.

"I think younger Americans get fed this content 24/7 via social media algorithms that often play on the emotions of anger and fear, and they push people further into illogical corners that dumbs down policy and ratchets up partisanship," Ryan said.

He said he would like to see people look up to mentors and leaders who look for middle ground, and that many members of Congress exemplify moderation required to push positive policy and bring people together.

He said other members of Congress have fallen short by not bringing people together.

"With your thumbs on social media, and even on cable, you can become a household name quickly if you just shock and awe. Marjorie Taylor Greene is a perfect example. She hasn't passed a single piece of legislation that I know of," Ryan said.

Harroz told attendees that it is important to heed Ryan's advice about listening to others.

"We have an obligation. We need to make sure we have citizen leaders who can listen and engage in civil discourse that advances us forward," Harroz said. "Discounting individuals as not worthy of being heard based on party ... Those are the seeds of the destruction of our democracy."

John Kirchhoefer, an OU law student from Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, attended the event and had the chance to visit with Ryan prior to the lecture. He previously worked in Ryan's office.

"I got my start in politics, working for Speaker Ryan, in the First District," Kirchhoefer said. "He's been consistent in his views and his ideology, and his views don't sway within the political landscape, and I appreciate that."

He said he was touched by Ryan's message about listening to those who you may not agree with.

"Paul always says, you have one mouth and two ears, and you should use them in that proportion," Kirchhoefer said. "I agree with that, and I think it's about respect and seeing dignity and appreciating people who come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives."

Quinn Weimer, a first-year law student at OU, said it is important for leaders to meet with students to impart their knowledge and tell about their experiences.

"It means a lot that the former Speaker of the House has come to speak to us," Weimer said. "It was nice to hear from someone who was involved in Congress for so long and to hear it and to learn about the problems that are facing us and how he sees the legislature moving in the future."

Ryan currently serves on the faculty of the University of Notre Dame in political science and economics, as well as the board of Shine Medical Technologies.

Brian King covers education and politics for The Transcript.

https://law.ou.edu/about/news/federalist-society-and-acs-gift-chess-set-ou-law

Federalist Society and ACS Gift Chess Set to OU Law

The University of Oklahoma College of Law was the recipient of a chess board donated by the school's chapters of the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society. While the two groups frequently take opposing sides on issues, they recognize the necessity of robust dialogue and intellectual growth.

The OU chapter of the Federalist Society issued the following statement:

As the president of the Federalist Society at OU Law, I, John C. Kirchhoefer, am delighted to express our heartfelt appreciation for the cooperative effort that has led to the gift of a chess set to the University of Oklahoma College of Law, a gesture made in collaboration with our colleagues from the American Constitution Society. This gift stands as a testament to the values of honor, intellect, and fellowship—a set of principles that both organizations hold dear, despite our ideological differences.

The Federalist Society at OU Law has dedicated itself to fostering a deep appreciation for the rigorous debate and discussion that is essential to the intellectual growth of our members and the legal community at large. Our commitment to these principles has been evident in the transformative work we have accomplished at OU Law.

We have always stood for the promotion of an originalist and textualist approach to legal interpretation, advocating for the principles of limited government and the rule of law. Yet, our pursuit of these ideals has never precluded our respect for, and engagement with, those who hold contrasting views. It is in this spirit that we have worked alongside the American Constitution Society to offer this chess set.

The game of chess is emblematic of the strategic thinking, patience, and the respect for one's opponent that are characteristic of both great legal minds and a healthy democracy. By presenting this chess set, we honor the intellectual contest and the shared pursuit of justice and equality that defines the legal profession.

In a time when political and ideological divides can be stark, this gift symbolizes our belief that civil discourse and mutual respect must prevail. We recognize that while we may not always agree with the American Constitution Society on every issue, we are united in our dedication to the virtues of robust discourse, cooperative collaboration, and our pursuit of truth.

Through this gesture, we aim to inspire future generations of legal scholars and practitioners at OU Law to engage in thoughtful debate and to appreciate the rich diversity of thought that contributes to the strength and vibrancy of our legal system. We extend this gift in the hope that it will serve as a lasting emblem of our shared commitment to these noble pursuits.