(See? I spelled “Charlie” right this time!)
Utah Valley University is where conservative activist Charley Kirk was murdered. Reasonably, the school has proposed erecting a statue in honor of Kirk, who was widely admired for his character and legacy, the student group Turning Point USA, a spearhead of the conservative and MAGA movements.
The proposal has sparked furious controversy on the campus, however. UVU Students for a Democratic Society, a progressive group, argues that Kirk is not worthy of such an honor, that students oppose a statue that will make them feel “unsafe” (as in “represents viewpoints that they disagree with.” I know, I know…) and that they don’t want “outsiders” coming on the campus to gawk at a statue.
“We’re out here because we want to protest any sort of Charlie Kirk memorial,” a student protester told reporters at a recent rally. “We don’t want his likeness on campus; we don’t want his likeness sort of immortalized.” Signs at the group’s rally had legends like “No Kirk on Campus” and “Memorial For Unity Not Hate.”
There are dueling petitions pushing for and against a statue to Kirk, with the opposition threatening to tear down a Kirk memorial if one appears. Considering how the Mad Left went on a statue-toppling rampage not long ago, this does not seem like an idle threat—or, if you like, an idol threat.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is it respectful and responsible for a school to erect a statue that inspires such strong divisions on campus?
I regard this as a tough ethics call. Even if the protesters represent a vocal minority, even if their hatred for Kirk is based on misunderstandings or extremism, even if not erecting a Kirk statue will constitute a successful heckler’s veto, I question whether insisting on a statue (that is certain to be defaced, vandalized or destroyed) of a political figure in the current polarized environment on campuses and elsewhere is simply fanning flames that need to be extinguished.
____________
Pointer: College Fix
Ethics Alarms 
“I regard this as a tough ethics call. Even if the protesters represent a vocal minority, even if their hatred for Kirk is based on misunderstandings or extremism, even if not erecting a Kirk statue will constitute a successful heckler’s veto, I question whether insisting on a statue (that is certain to be defaced, vandalized or destroyed) of a political figure in the current polarized environment on campuses and elsewhere is simply fanning flames that need to be extinguished.”
Would anyone ever be worthy to have a statue in this environment then?
I know it avoids the question, but if Charlie was the Christian he appears to be, doubt he would even want it in the first place. Maybe something for the proponents to consider.
But that allows us to use the rationalization “He would have wanted it that way” or, rather, the inverse “He wouldn’t have wanted it”. We don’t know what Charlie Kirk would have wanted or not wanted (besides, perhaps, not being murdered).
Would anyone ever be worthy to have a statue in this environment then?
Worthy? Sure. Worth the immediate hassle? Doubtful.
Yeah, this is a tough call. If UVU would not have put up a statue in the first place, the Left would argue that it choosing not to do so now constitutes a win on their part. Conservatives will argue that UVU caved to left-wing threats of violence. To be frank, any decision UVU makes will cause one side to proclaim it’s won and the other side to cast aspersions on the school’s motives.
This is a no-win situation.
I suppose UVU could put up a plaque decrying political violence but, I suspect, the unhinged campus progressives will deface that, too.
perhaps the flames of fire need to be fanned in order to oppose the virulence of these leftists. I say erect the statue and impose the law,fully, on those who choose to deface it or topple it.
I’m not sure whose decision this is, but it is always ethical for the decision maker to make an informed decision, one way or the other.
With that said, if the decision maker decides in favor of erecting a monument / memorial of some sort, there is an ethics duty to stand up and confront those who would deface and disgrace themselves. In fact, the statue itself would provide a litmus test for those who would join the student body or enter the campus: Can you tolerate things that make you uncomfortable? “Tolerance” is what I hear preached over and over. It goes both ways.
I propose a pare of statues to provoke booths sides’ uncomfortable feelings: Charlie Kirk with a bible preaching facing a transwoman preaching.
A political assassination is exactly the definition of terrorism.
People who express propagandized viewpoints and participate in protests aligned with the assassination ought to be treated exactly what they are: radicalized terrorists.
Perhaps Donald Trump should put a statue of Charlie Kirk on the Mall in Washington D.C. It makes a stronger statement, and protesters will not deface it or tear it down.
Wanna bet?
Trump is bold enough to do it, and have armed guards to protect the statue.
Why does a society put up statues? Reason one is to honor and commemorate important people who contributed significantly to a society. Reason two is to teach society about important virtues and values embodied by the person honored by the statue. That is why there is a statue of Martin Luther King at the Mall, not only because he was a great man, but also as a testimony to what he stood for, namely civil rights for all Americans regardless of race.
Charlie Kirk is a martyr too important values, namely polite dialogue and free speech. A memorial for Charlie Kirk is also a testimony for the ideals he stood for, and a statue at a prominent national location would be a visible lesson to the nation that freedom is not free, but worth fighting for, and that the nation is willing to fight for those ideals.
Locating a statue at UVU is an example of thinking too small.
Once the statue is at the Mall it will be hard to remove by politicians and vandals without incurring shame (politicians) or meeting armed enforcement (vandals).
The current president just knocked down a 125 year old wing of the White House. A future Democratic president could easily disappear the statue before anyone noticed.
I wouldn’t put Charlie Kirk on the same influential level as MLK. At best it’s too soon to tell, but MLK ended up being a major shifter of law and culture. Kirk was more on the level of Rush Limbaugh.
Does it tweak those with the self-imposed mental illness of progressivism?
Come on, don’t undersell it.
I agree with DeaconDan and Tim on this one. Caving to the protests will embolden the Left and its minions. Kent State University erected a monument/memorial to the students killed on May 4, 1970. Different case, I know, but that event is seared into the unversity’s history and should be remembered. I suspect Jackson State did the same thing to remember those killed a few weeks after Kent State.
Does Kirk deserve a statue? I am not sure – time will tell if he has a lasting impact on culture and society. But, his murder is an important statement about political rhetoric and free speech. Agree or disagree with him all you want but he did not deserve to be killed for expressing his opinions. What the Left does not seem to grasp is that, if Kirk’s murder is justified and justifiable, then it will not take much to convince someone against the Left to do same thing to current leaders on that side of the political divide, simply for expressing opinions that go against the grain of US history and policy. Disagree with Mamdani? Well, he should be killed. Disagree with Sanders? Same.
The fuse has been lit. Kirk’s stattue might, in some small way, put it out.
jvb
Maybe a statue is a bit over the top. Perhaps a plinth erected where he fell memorializing the event with an informational plaque. As I well remember, there’s a plaque (see below) memorializing the unsuccessful assassination attempt on FDR in Bayfront Park in Miami before he was inaugurated. It’s a very creepy site given what a different world we’d live in if the attempt had succeeded.
With the right PR campaign I bet even MLK could be tarred as an extremist with misogynistic and racist views.
Perhaps that should be the lesson that taught to those who merely mimic talking points.
With that said, I see no reason for a statue of either on the campus. The administration should be focused on making those who preach tolerance practice what they preach by bringing more oppositional points of view to campus and holding those who seek to cause havoc to prevent the exchange of ideas accountable by making them examples of them.
I’m reading “Martin Luther King, Jr.: The FBI File” by Michael Friedly and David Gallen. There was certainly a campaign to tar him as a Communist.
Anyone touching on the realm of politics from an aggressively Christian perspective risks being branded a communist.We never found out where King would have focused his energies once his initial civil rights mission was accomplished.
The left hijacked religion. Where we used to have “Faith, Hope and Charity,” churches advocate “Social Justice.” Charity used to be optional and direct from the giver to the recipient. It’s now obligatory and goes through the government. The Church used to be fine with the separation of church and state. For progressive Christians, the state is the church, and politics are their religion.
I think a key distinction needs to be drawn here. Any edifice erected on the site needs to be there to mark the location of the event that took place there and not to celebrate the person who was inextricably a central part of it.
The focus of the monument needs to be (1) this is the place where a historical event happened, and (2) this event is historically important because of the connection to the distinction between free and open debate; and assassination of one’s political opponents.
With that in mind, I think any sort of memorial is simply too soon. No one in the short term is going to forget what happened, but we also need a little more time to find out what the lasting ramifications of this event actually are. Did this event mark the beginning in a shift of rhetoric and a general denunciation of demonizing people for their politics (MY GOD I HOPE SO), or did this mark the first of a series of politically-motivated murders that lead to more violence and tragedy? We don’t really know yet.
I think something like five years would be about right for putting up any monument. This would have the secondary effect of having the vast majority of students who were there taking classes at the time to have graduated and no longer be a part of the process.
And I reiterate: the monument needs to be a historical marker for the event and not a celebration of the man. TPUSA can put up a statue in front of their HQ celebrating the man.
–Dwayne
P.S. Jack: In the very first paragraph, “Charley” — which I must admit is doubly-amusing since it so immediately follows “See? I spelled “Charlie” right this time!” . . . .
Jack wrote:
Is it respectful and responsible for a school to erect a statue that inspires such strong divisions on campus?
First of all, the premise of the question is, in my opinion, flawed. It is in fact an appeal to consequentialism.
Now, I do appreciate that the potential consequences are important, and must be considered. If I were to erect a statue of Robert E. Lee on my lawn, that act would have consequences in the neighborhood in which I live, even though I have a perfect right to do so.
So the ethics quiz, in my view, should be this:
Is it irresponsible for a school to raise a controversial statue?
At first glance, it may seem the same, but it isn’t. the “… such strong divisions on campus” assumes facts not necessarily in evidence. There are certainly strong feelings both ways about Kirk, but that is true of almost everything public these days. To coin a phrase, everything is political.
So the statue would provoke strong opinions both ways. So? Isn’t that the very foundation of an educational institution, to force young people to face all sides of an issue? Even if it currently isn’t it should be.
No, what we are talking about, the “consequences” to the consequentialism I noted above, is the radical left students acting in violent and illegal ways over something they disagree with. So the school should eschew the ethical virtue of bravery to protect the tender feelings of left-leaning students, and to prevent them from doing something they shouldn’t be doing anyway and which should get them expelled from the university if they do?
To me, it’s not a difficult call. If the university wants that statue to honor Kirk, and there are certainly good reasons for it, it should erect it and tell everyone that in order to attend this university, they must display the maturity and decorum to leave it alone, and confine their disagreement to legal speech. The end. Failure to comply will have permanent consequences.
This is a straight-up example of a heckler’s veto, and we need to start standing up to that. If this were a statue of Greta Thunberg, nobody would be saying boo. Enough is enough.
Perhaps it’s all simply a matter of what the statue is. Make the statue of Kirk sitting at his table, across from the man who shot him. Maybe pointing a rifle at him. That way, the right can honor their fallen, and the left can gloat about their hero being memorialized across from his fallen foe. Everyone wins.