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