He was in his thirties, wasn’t a public official, and never sought public office.

His faith was solid, and he loved his country.

He spoke passionately of his faith and of making his country a better place.

Many supported his cause.

Others didn’t, and he knew the danger that presented.

Nevertheless, he was unflappable.

He pressed on. Over time, he won more and more converts to the cause, and became more and more popular among his followers.

We’ll never know what he would have accomplished in later years, because one detractor assassinated him with one shot.

♦♦♦

His death left a nation and a world mourning.

There followed many calls for such violence to stop and for all to turn the temperature down.

To be kind to and respect one another.

To navigate differences of opinion–particularly political, and more broadly, philosophical opinion–not with violence but with conversation.

Even if 99-point-whatever percent of us would never even think of killing another person over differences of opinion–certainly not political, or more broadly, philosophical opinion–that would still leave zero-point-whatever percent.

♦♦♦

The direct responsibility for his death lies with the person who pulled the trigger.

The indirect responsibility for his death lies with those who in whatever way perpetrated the hate against him.

In 1968, he was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

In 2025, he was Charles James Kirk.

The King and Kirk assassinations are parallel in ways beyond their last names’ having four letters and beginning with the same letter.

Both were, among other things, efforts by those disrespecting–nay, trampling–the rule of law.

♦♦♦

It’s worth recalling that intolerance, including campus-based intolerance, extends far beyond assassinations and other physical violence.

Other forms of intolerance, though less horrific, are more prevalent.

Calls for turning the temperature down need to call for more than stopping physical violence.

♦♦♦

For today, let’s confine consideration of other intolerance to campus-based intolerance.

As for campus-based intolerance in particular: No matter how frequently or how loudly people assert that responsibility for campus-based intolerance falls equally across the political–and more broadly–philosophical spectrum, such assertions are blatantly, demonstrably false.

Propagating such falsehoods frequently or loudly doesn’t make them true.

Consider what happened when Federalist Society chapters invited, to their law schools, one person on the Federalist Society’s speakers list.

One of these could have been a mistake or a coincidence. Taken together, they raise questions:

�–� At Nova Southeastern, after the chapter had scheduled its event, the law school scheduled a fire drill–yes, a fire drill–at the time of the event. So the chapter postponed the event by one hour. Then the law school cancelled the fire drill and scheduled the next semester’s class registration–which also affected all students–at the new time. Many students who planned to attend either came in late or did not come at all.

�–� At Idaho, after the chapter had scheduled its event at the Moscow, Idaho, campus, the law school scheduled an event, at the same time as the chapter’s event, at the law school’s Boise, Idaho, campus, to honor Justice Clarence Thomas’s chief 1991 accuser. This robbed the chapter’s event of all faculty and some student audience members. If the chapter had known this in time, the chapter could have rescheduled the event. But the chapter did not.

�–� At Texas Tech, after the chapter had scheduled its event, the law school scheduled a mid-semester 1L–or first-year-law-student–orientation at the time of the event. As a result, the first-year students–a full one-third of the prospective audience–were unavailable.

�–� At Mitchell Hamline, the chapter originally scheduled its event during a week when all students, including those who take part in distance learning, would be at the law school. But the law school then scheduled an event at the same time as the chapter’s, so the chapter rescheduled its event for another week. That not only resulted in increased costs to the Federalist Society but also deprived the chapter of many potential audience members, because Mitchell Hamline has many distance-learning students.

Is what happened at these four law schools comparable to the assassination of King or Kirk? Of course not. Not at all.

Nevertheless, it’s emblematic of what has happened on many campuses–week after week, semester after semester, year after year–for decades.

And no, it doesn’t come equally from all sides of the political–or more broadly, philosophical–spectrum. That’s not even a close call. Not at all.

You, faithful reader of this column, need no reminder of which side is the overwhelming source of on-campus intolerance.

♦♦♦

Dr. Randy Elf was the Federalist Society speaker at each of the four law-school events.

COPYRIGHT © 2025 BY RANDY ELF