>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
“Not because of a lack of bravery, but because of logistics,” she added. “No more outdoor events, no more events without very serious security. And that costs big money that most orgs don’t have, and universities are only too happy to say they can’t manage.”
The “Assassin’s Veto”
Stepman called the new tactic what it really is – the “Assassin’s Veto.”
“Already they were using ‘security’ concerns to punish right-wing orgs and prevent them from hosting speakers,” she explained. “Now there’s a real reason.”
This is exactly what administrators have wanted for years. Before Kirk’s death, schools used flimsy excuses like “scheduling conflicts” or “construction issues” to keep conservative speakers off campus. Now they can hide behind the claim of safety.
The Bureaucratic Two-Step
Take the University of Florida. Officials there insisted they support free expression – while refusing to disclose whether conservative students could even count on adequate security.
“The University of Florida has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to free speech and civil discourse,” said Cynthia Roldán Hernández, their public affairs director.
Translation? They’ll say all the right words, but make it impossible for conservative groups to host events.
The University of Oregon followed the same playbook.
“Our highest priority is the safety of our campus community,” said Angela Seydel, their director of Issues Management. “While we do not share specific security strategies, our approach involves close coordination with campus partners.”
In practice, that “coordination” means creating endless hoops for right-leaning groups to jump through, while quietly discouraging them with security costs they can’t afford.
A Double Standard That Speaks Volumes
Universities never took this approach with leftist causes. Black Lives Matter rallies that devolved into riots? Approved. Antifa mobs that left people bloodied? No problem. Speakers who openly bash America? Always welcome.
But now that a conservative leader has been assassinated, administrators have suddenly discovered deep concern for safety.
Schools like UCLA are even rolling out new “approval processes,” “safety assessments,” and restrictions on amplified sound – rules that will only be applied to conservatives.
Will Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez face these hurdles if she’s invited to campus to slam capitalism? Will progressive activists face the same standards when pushing radical gender ideology? Everyone knows the answer: absolutely not.
Silencing the Next Generation
Conservative students are already taking notice. The Boston University College Republicans warned they expect to be targeted next – and they have every reason to be worried.
Charlie Kirk was one of the most effective messengers reaching young people. His Turning Point USA events filled auditoriums and energized students to push back against campus indoctrination.
That is exactly why he was targeted – and why administrators are using his death to lock the doors on anyone who dares follow in his footsteps.
The Endgame
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about safety. It’s about finishing the purge of conservative speech from higher education.
Kirk’s entire mission was to defend free expression, even on campuses that hated him for it. Now, schools are using his assassination as the very justification to shut down what he stood for.
The “Assassin’s Veto” is not just a tragic side effect of political violence – it’s the Left’s new weapon. And they’re wielding it to make sure no conservative student ever gets the same platform Charlie Kirk once had.
