On March 14, Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) visited UC Davis on behalf of the organization's branch on campus. I went to the event with some friends to watch the crowd protest and to be a part of something contentious at Davis. As we watched the crowd of protestors outside the U Center, an apolitical friend of mine commented, "This is scary."

"What is?" I asked as we watched a group of police in riot gear rush toward the back of the U Center, where the protest had moved. My friend responded that the anger emanating from the crowd of protesters scared them because, while they understood why people were protesting Charlie Kirk, they were terrified of the anger radiating from the crowd. 

My friend was simultaneously afraid of the fascists inside the building -- and those who were outside. 

Who Is Charlie Kirk?

If you've visited the UC Davis subreddit anytime in the months leading up to March 14, you'd know that Charlie Kirk and TPUSA received a firestorm of flak from angered Aggies. These students threw an array of accusations at Kirk and his organization, ranging from his calls  for genocide to labeling him and his organization as either supporting or being, fascist. While the latter claim has gained some traction throughout the state and is believed, by this author, to be true, the latter, along with a vast majority of the other information about Kirk and his beliefs, are wildly exaggerated. 

TPUSA actively calls for policies that restrict and infringe upon the rights of members of the LGBTQI+ community, including the ability of transgender people to participate in sports and arguing young transfolk cannot seek gender reassignment medication or operations. While each and every one of these ideas is abhorrent and disgusting, the quote that has been thrown around the most was propagated by UC Davis English Professor Joshua Clover in his Guest Opinion article in the California Aggie. 

In his article, Clover argues "Kirk recently insisted about trans people that 'someone should have just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s;' he means lynching." Where Clover got this idea, however, is beyond me. According to the Tuskegee Institute, only eight people were lynched in the US during the 1950s. In a more full rendition of the quote, Kirk also includes the 1960s; a period in which only 5 other people were lynched (for a total of 13 people lynched in the US over a 20-year period). In fact, while writing this, I couldn't find any proof that any transgender individuals were lynched or publicly killed during this entire period. This is a far cry from the "genocide" Clover claims members of the TPUSA support.

While much of the other claims Clover levies against TPUSA are more verifiable, his entire argument reeks of bias, and its position is significantly weakened by this outrageous lie. This lie was perpetuated by individuals blindly, weakening the argument against Kirk's visit to UC Davis. And, while (justifiably) criticizing Kirk seems to be relatively popular among the UC Davis student body, the actions of the protestors before, during, and after the event were almost as repugnant as Kirk's perspectives.

A Lack of Conversation

While observing the protests alongside the bike path by Hutchinson Field, a woman on a bicycle approached me and we had a brief exchange. She asked what was going on and who Charlie Kirk was. I, admittedly, was not the right person to ask - I wasn't entirely sure at that point in time who Kirk was and I didn't feel comfortable answering her by condemning many of his views and perspectives. Instead, I told her that students were protesting an Alt-Right speaker named Charlie Kirk and that if she wanted a more detailed summary of his transgressions, she should ask one of the people in the crowd protesting him. She declined stating she would not be comfortable speaking to anyone in that crowd. She said they seemed intimidating and scary.

The goal of protesting is to change minds. It is to convince people that something is incorrect and wrong. It attempts to promote "good" ideas and policies. However, the protests against Charlie Kirk were unlikely to change any minds. If anything, those not participating distanced themselves from the protestors - and for good reason.

In the virtual sphere, those opposed to Kirk attacked any semblance of support for him or questioning of what he did. Scrolling through the UC Davis subreddit, numerous posts about the event have hidden comments, downvoted to the point of oblivion. While many of these comments are conservative talking points that lack as much logic or backing as Clover's belief that Kirk supports lynching transgender people, some are not. Hidden among these downvoted comments are occasionally genuine questions about what Kirk has done that's so evil. Each of these comments presented an opportunity for someone's mind to be changed. Instead of receiving answers or opening a dialogue, these comments were also relentlessly downvoted as anyone "not smart enough" to inherently know Kirk's wrongdoing was lumped in with their more conservative counterparts. 

I would argue this hostility to any form of questioning the popular opinion led to many others ghosting the topic altogether, hesitant to ask any questions they might have. This lack of dialogue and discussion segregated those that "know why Kirk is bad" from those who "want to know why Kirk is bad," with the latter group holding onto their questions or ideas, afraid to speak up under the threat of public opinion. 

This fear was glaringly apparent during the physical protests as well. There was a clear demarcation between those participating in the protests, and those watching from afar, unable or scared to join or learn. These fears were only exacerbated by the rampant pepper spraying, laser pointing, and physical assault targeting those present but not supporting the protests, including on-site reporters. Violence was also exhibited against the Credit Union building, with protestors smashing windows and spray painting the structure.

Gary May somewhat incited and tacitly supported this violence in a statement about the event, saying:

UC policy permits denial of request if the speaker 'will present a clear and present danger' to the campus and counsel notes the policy explicitly states the campus carries a "heavy burden" in justifying such a denial under these circumstances. Our counsel also notes that there is a similarly heavy burden for criminal prosecution for incitement of violence. In short, while I abhor the inflammatory speech of this speaker, UC policy permits the student organization to invite the speaker. Please be assured that we are monitoring the event closely to determine if a threat or incitement develops that meets that threshold or violates other campus policies.

"UC Davis Chancellor Gary S. May Comments on March 14 Student-led Event," Gary May, YouTube

Of note is May's comment that UC Davis would be "monitoring the event closely to determine if a threat or incitement develops," creating an incentive for violence among those protesting the event by clearly stating that, if violence is incited by anyone as a result of the event, it will be canceled. Furthermore, May tacitly approves such violence, confirming that "there is a…heavy burden for criminal prosecution for incitement of violence," which, when paired with May’s personal opposition to the event, can easily be interpreted as inferring that those who protested accordingly would most likely not be charged. This seems to be the case as, after breaking windows, assaulting a reporter, and numerous other violent acts, only two people were arrested, for spray painting a wall, at that - not a violent act.

These ideas are further supported by the previous cancellation in October of a different TPUSA speaker event featuring Stephen Davis. This event, which was canceled over "safety concerns," served as an example to those seeking to bar Kirk from speaking on campus and was acted upon by an infuriated crowd.

The hostility that emanated from the protestors on March 14 was dangerous. Not, primarily, because of the aforementioned physical violence, but because that violence dissuaded those on the fence or unaware of Kirk's transgressions from approaching them. It prevented those who wanted to voice their opinions from voicing them, instead intending to merely block someone from speaking. It prevented media outlets from reporting on it and labeling Kirk as a fascist member of the alt-right. It prevented a dialogue from arising in which Kirk could be painted as the menace he is, diverging from the intended purpose of protests. Instead, it painted those protesting Kirk's facism as, well, fascist. 

A Discussion on Fascism

As many politically engaged college students probably know, fascism is a political philosophy which, according to Merriam-Webster, “stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Fascism in today's political climate centers around two core tenets of achieving an authoritarian government: the forcible suppression of opposition and an emphasis on nationalism or racism. While the protests against Kirk certainly didn’t promote a racially motivated agenda, they certainly were extremely oppressive, attempting to silence a speaker they disagreed with. The protestors propensity for violence in an attempt, as previously explained above, to shut down the event and prevent Kirk from speaking, clearly aligns with one of modern fascism's two core ideological tenets. 

On March 17, three days after the event, UC Davis released a press release titled “Checking In With Chancellor May: You Belong Here” in which the university discusses the TPUSA event and praises “how our community came together to talk with and support one another.” This verbiage, which blatantly disregards the appalling amount of violence that occurred on campus, further claims the university is committed to “nonviolent exchange and the highest standards of conduct and decency toward all.” As proven above, this was far from the case.

Instead, the message the university is sending by talking about “resisting bigotry” is that they will allow and cover for violent means of suppressing certain groups while ensuring the safety of groups they garner support from. This is far from promoting a safe and open community dedicated to growth through conversation and support. If Davis were truly committed to these stated ideals, the university, as well as other on-campus publications, would have spent more time covering the dangers of establishing a social norm where one side is allowed, if not actively encouraged to use violence while the other is actively oppressed – regardless of how bigoted the language one side might use.

Furthermore, while the TPUSA event was allowed to go forward, May stated “I looked for every loophole we could possibly find to prevent” Kirk from speaking. Statements like these, where people in power are actively attempting to shut down ideological discourse they disagree with are claims people justifiably lob at conservatives. So why, then, is our student population not lobbing these accusations at May, who actively said he went as far as he could to prevent this event from happening?

Attempts to politically or violently prevent someone from speaking is one of the core tenets of fascism and were clearly on display on Tuesday as both campus administration and student protestors endeavored to shut down TPUSA’s event. While claiming Kirk was a fascist, these protesters were acting just as bad. Just because you claim someone’s a fascist does not mean you cannot be one too.

Those in the Middle

While there are many students who have perched themselves on one end or the other of the radical divide over Charlie Kirk, it seems like many Aggies have more moderate or tamed feelings about the topic. These emotions, or lack thereof, about the event stem from a lack of accurate information on the topic and a dearth of dialogue about it. However, while many members of TPUSA seem to be open (albeit somewhat arrogantly) to a calm conversation about Kirk's beliefs and ideas, those on the opposite end seem to be unable to recognize such platitudes. This has left a large number of Aggies who would most likely be sympathetic to their cause isolated and distant.

By opening a dialogue, however dangerous, as Kirk did on March 14, he is welcoming students who disagree with him to confront him, argue with him, and have a conversation in a space where they are physically safe. Those protesting against Kirk did not provide a similar environment, potentially pushing those who sought more information into Kirk's arms and vindicating his claims that those opposing him were against free speech and open dialogues. This is potentially why there were 500 people inside listening to Kirk speak and only around 100 people protesting outside.

Those seeking to protest alt-right speakers such as Kirk in the future should heed this warning and create more inclusive, open spaces where they can engage with and convince the middle majority. This will increase their chances of convincing many that their perspectives are morally right instead of creating hostile environments that actively exclude or other those not protesting with them through phrases such as "Whose campus? Our campus." These ideas would create a more open and friendly campus, in which good ideas can flourish and radical ideas, like those presented by Kirk, are truly opposed unanimously.

Edited by Abigail Loomis and Andy Essa