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.