The quality of education, at all levels in society, has been declining for several generations.  One of the most obvious examples has been in the universities, which have become the intellectual home for growing intolerance in society.  Universities, particularly in their philosophy and humanities departments, which includes law, have abandoned the ideal that scholarship ought to be based on objective truth derived from free inquiry and open debate.  Instead, universities have become indoctrination centres, embracing the lies of moral relativism, believing that traditional values are senseless and worthless. This lies at the heart of the Leftist/Progressive agenda, and at the heart of the assassination on September 10, 2025, of well-known U.S. Christian conservative podcaster and activist, Charlie Kirk.  It was a devastating shock to decent and civil Canadians regardless of their political allegiances.  Unfortunately, a disturbing number of our fellow Canadians failed to acknowledge the tragedy with any sense of decorum or civility.  Instead, some seemed to have relished Mr. Kirk’s murder, justifying and legitimizing the political violence.

Charlie Kirk was an important figure at this time in our history.  He saw the deep harm that was occurring in universities and made it his mission to reach out to students where they were – on their university campuses.  He calmly and successfully presented arguments to the students, based on reason, and with civility.  At the time of his assassination, his organization, Turning Point USA, had 900 university chapters and 1200 high school chapters.  Nine days after his assassination, his organization had received over 62,000 student signups to join an existing chapter, or to start a new one.  If Turning Point USA was a force when Charle Kirk was alive, his death has created a staggering force of conservative supporters who will likely eventually overcome the harmful unobstructed indoctrination that is currently preached on campuses.

Universities today have rejected the Judeo-Christian culture which enshrines respect for human life and dignity, and have substituted the pseudo-scientific materialism of Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories of social evolution, human interaction and indeed, human nature itself.  Simply put, universities are determining what constitutes a “just society” through the lens of Marx and his crude social classification of the “oppressed” and the “oppressors”.  Neo-Marxists have furthered this classification of society to include those based on identities such as gender, race, sexuality and environmental beliefs.  The latter are all rooted in Marx’s chief categories of capital and labour.  By doing so, universities are aiding and abetting the radical platform of the progressive elitists’ transformative agenda which seeks to upend society and social norms.  These progressive elitists want a censorship regime characteristic of fascist States or dictatorships which have absolute control, assisted by their allies in mainstream media, and the arts and cultural worlds.  They are attempting to shape perceptions that are not in accordance with the traditional understanding of human nature and civilized society.  It appears that a fear of erosion of their control over society by the likes of Charlie Kirk, was a factor in their vicious reaction to his death, believing that killing Charlie Kirk was justified, legitimizing political violence to silence their opposition.  To some individuals on the left, Charlie Kirk’s death was a catharsis, a symbolic triumph over a man whose ideas they oppose.

This reaction says not only a great deal about the Left, but also a great deal about our increasingly fragmented and dystopian culture.  One of the leading characteristics of the current culture is the increasing failure to show empathy for others.  Far too many professors are willing to simply prioritize ideology over introspection and critical thought.  The vile reaction of some left-wing individuals to Mr. Kirk’s death was blatantly celebratory, a rejection of western Civilization’s value of respect for the dignity of every human being.  Such widespread rejection, and endorsement of violence as an answer to political differences is a cause of alarm for every decent person, of all political views.  To accept the premise that violence is the answer is repugnant to the very notion of a “free and democratic society.”  It signifies a profound breach in the social contract of liberal democracy, and threatens all of us for thinking and expressing our thoughts in the public square unless they have been adapted to accommodate the progressive, woke ideology.

Progress Report on Canadian Universities

Two years ago, Canadian university professors facilitated faculty and campus organizations to cheer on the Hamas terrorists who, on October 7, attacked Israel.  University of Calgary associate professor, Tawab Hlimi, stated enthusiastically on his X account “Hamas has the right to exist”.  A professor at McMaster University posted a jubilant message on social media, “Palestine is rising, long live the resistance.”  A professor of Indigenous politics at the University of Toronto, Professor Uahikea Maile, issued on October 7, 2023, a statement calling for more acts of anti-colonial resistance.  A professor of public policy at McGill University in Montreal, William Roberts, called for Canada to sell military aid to Hamas and Hezbollah, stating “We need to begin supporting an army of Palestinian and Lebanese forces that can resist Israel.”

During the summer of 2024, campuses across Canada were the scenes of alleged “student” encampments, which were supported by university professors and only a few students.  These encampments lasted for several months because university administrators were intimidated by the activists.  They finally took legal action against the encampments which were eventually shut down.

Accordingly, when the news of Charlie Kirk became known, it was not surprising that a number of university professors felt emboldened to speak out and support the assassination.  They did so because they knew it was safe to do so, knowing that there would be no consequences for offering support of political violence aimed at a conservative Christian.  The following are examples of such comments:

  • University of Toronto professor of political science and religion, Ruth Marshall, uploaded a post citing the shooting of Charlie Kirk as, “honestly too good for so many of you fascist c—ts.” In a previous post Ms. Marshall referred to a Jewish children’s summer camp as “fascist indoctrination”.
  • University of Victoria professor, Melia Bose, stated in response to Mr. Kirk’s death “GOOD RIDDANCE. The woke radical left finally sent someone with good aim.”
  • University of Calgary associate professor, Tawab Hlimi, wrote a series of tweets on his X account, including, “Bullseye,” and “Charlie Kirk no longer exists” with an emoji of a laughing face. Not surprisingly, Hlimi has a history of posting hateful comments against those he deemed to be the “far-right”.
  • University of Alberta law professor, transgender Florence Ashley, who authored the book, Gender/F**king: The Pleasures and Politics of Living in a Gendered Body, labelled Charlie Kirk a “Nazi”, stating in a post commenting on an opinion piece in the New York Times by Ezra Klein entitled “Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way”—“You do not, in fact, ever have to hand it to the Nazis. I utterly do not care for any ‘virtues’ that someone may perceive in them.” In the wake of this post, Ashley received alleged threats, and responded “Why do I feel like they’ll somehow find a way to blame Charlie Kirk’s shooting on trans people?” (The accused shooter of Charlie Kirk is a homosexual living with a transgender lover.)

Such despicable behaviour has not been reserved to university faculties as witnessed by Manitoba’s NDP Minister of Families, Nahanni Fontaine, who re-posted on her Instagram account a post which labelled Charlie Kirk “a racist, xenophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, sexist, white nationalist mouthpiece who made millions of dollars inciting hatred in this country.”  The post continued “I extend absolutely no empathy for people like that.”  Subsequently, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew asked Fontaine for an apology, resulting in Fontaine offering a pro-forma apology.  By then, however, the damage was done.  Fontaine should have resigned or been fired.  This is not the first of Fontaine’s behaviours that have called into question her integrity and poor judgement, which clearly makes her unsuitable for a cabinet position.  She is similar to university professors who are unsuitable to teach students because of their ideological extremism.

Where’s the Accountability?

Politicians, like Fontaine, make the statements they do, similar to those pervasive in universities, because they know they will not be held accountable, they will not lose their jobs, their pensions or their privileges.  These days, a politician’s apology is about as sincere as a politician’s promise.

Similarly, universities seem unable to deliver appropriate consequences for statements that are indefensible in any academic community.  For example, the University of Toronto managed to merely suspend Marshall from teaching activities.  No word as to whether the suspension is “without pay”.  The University of Victoria has refused to say whether Bose will face disciplinary action.  The best the University of Calgary can do in the wake of Hlimi’s comments is to say that it “is aware of the concerns being raised and looking into it in accordance with our policies and procedures.”  At the University of Alberta, Ashley’s post resulted in widespread criticism, to which the University’s response was whitewash: “Due to privacy and safety considerations, we cannot confirm the identity of the faculty member involved. The individual has been placed on non-disciplinary leave; a temporary administrative step taken to allow a thorough review while supporting community safety.”

These professors’ posts are examples of hate and anti-intellectual rants offering ample proof that they have no place in university faculties—faculties that are largely supported by taxpayer dollars.  These professors and their posts are not advancing debate or discussion on matters in the public interest as Charlie Kirk did in such an effective manner.  Rather, they betray a mindset that is centred on indoctrination and censorship, the complete antithesis of open inquiry and free debate, the very core of a university’s existence.  It is a mindset that rejects the possibility of discussion and open debate and instead demands absolute conformity to the leftist orthodoxy of the day, regardless of the subject matter, whether it is Israel and the Middle East conflict, Residential Schools, Climate Change, or the significance of the family to society.

Universities are supposed to foster critical thought and respectful debate based on reason which is conducive to a safe learning environment and intellectual flourishing.  Instead, they have become indoctrination centres where intimidating Jewish and conservative students as well as fellow faculty members, results in a decidedly unsafe environment – intellectually, emotionally and physically.  Charlie Kirk’s assassination was a consequence of the profound inadequacies of universities.

Universities Must Change and So Must We

At the end of the day, universities and their faculties mirror the societies in which they are found.  As such, just as there are good and bad people in society, so too are there good and bad universities and professors.  Just as society cannot survive if the bad people hold sway over the good, the same is true for universities.  The challenge in both cases is to have the discernment and moral courage to call out evil for what it is: bad people doing bad things.

In a world awash in moral relativism, it is increasingly difficult to make that judgement because too many people have forgotten the difference between good and evil, that not all opinions are of the same value.  Open debate and freedom of speech are important ways to discern the difference.

While an open and free debate on what constitutes good and evil is welcome in civil society, it has become abundantly clear that many within our university communities who like to be called “Professor” are nothing more than political activists who are absolutely failing in their duties and responsibilities as scholars and teachers.  Their objective is to indoctrinate students and intimidate those who do not agree with them.  Because of this failure, these professors should not have access to students.  They should be permitted to rant and rave about their ideological beliefs in other places.  Perhaps this would be at the CBC where they would likely do no harm because no one watches it.

Students attending universities should be exposed to knowledge, to learn the skills of critical analysis, to debate in reasonable discussions based on facts not ideology, as was demonstrated by Charlie Kirk’s popular presentations.  This is currently being denied them.  These obnoxious professors should be cleaned out of the universities.  They should not be provided with a platform, paid for by the taxpayer, to preach their hate.  These professors are clearly inadequate emotionally since they are overwhelmed by ideology and are unable to express or be open to different views.  It is obvious that such professors cannot tolerate opposing views, and therefore, in the spirit of the pursuit of knowledge, should be removed.

If university administrations are not willing to set their houses in order, then perhaps it is time for an in-depth funding review to determine how best to allocate limited taxpayers’ dollars to ensure that universities are centres of learning and not institutions of indoctrination and hate.