Safeguarding Student Voices

The nation’s political conversations feel louder and more polarized than ever. On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and the founder of political organization Turning Point USA, was shot and killed while hosting a campus debate at Utah Valley University, turning what was supposed to be a political debate into a national tragedy. With clips, commentary, and calls to take a side circulating on platforms like TikTok and Instagram within minutes of his assasination, political discourse moved into Stuyvesant’s group chats, classrooms, and hallways. In our environment, where opinions that differ from the perceived norm can spark immense backlash, students with different views hold back, fearing they will end up on the “wrong” side. As a school community, we should push back against this trend and create space for genuine political conversations that do not punish honest disagreement.  

Schools are traditionally seen as places of security and intellectual growth, yet the fact that the Kirk incident occurred at a university has forced many students to reconsider how safe it really is to voice their beliefs in an educational environment. Unlike social media platforms, where anonymity can sometimes shield individuals, schools operate in far more visible and intimate contexts. A student’s words in a classroom discussion or a club meeting are often tied directly to their identity and relationships within the community. What should be a setting for curiosity and a marketplace of ideas has, for some, become a place of hesitation and self-censorship.

Student journalism plays an especially important role in upholding the principles of democracy in schools, including free speech, but in today’s polarized political climate, such freedoms are being challenged. Young reporters remain under constant pressure from institutions and ideological divisions, often leading to self-censorship for fear of retaliation from the other side. Such constraints undermine the core idea of journalism, which is to question authority and inform the public without the threat of suppression or violence.

America’s culture of violence extends to school environments. In 2025, there have already been an estimated 184 school shootings. One of these occurred the same day Charlie Kirk was assassinated when a 16-year-old student opened fire at Colorado's Evergreen High School, critically wounding two students. A day later, a false shooting report led to gunfire in the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland, injuring a midshipman. These school shootings do not get nearly as much attention as a national figure like Kirk or as much attention as they deserve, but their effects are undeniable. The presence of high-profile shootings has brought national focus to the horrific consequences of gun violence, especially as it relates to school safety and politically influenced attacks. While students and educators have become increasingly engaged in activism around the issue of gun violence, the correlation between speaking about political stances with violence ultimately stimulates fear in students.

Far too often, students feel as though free speech comes with a cost, and end up avoiding controversial topics and concealing their own opinions to go along with the majority. When students feel silenced even in a place meant to foster new ideas, it builds resentment and hinders true, open discussion, without which students lose the ability to engage in constructive dialogue and empathize with other perspectives. Upholding free speech while ensuring that it doesn’t develop into hate is a challenging task faced by many schools, but it is one that is important to the development of a generation who can listen to each other and express their opinions while maintaining an inclusive learning environment.

The assassination of Kirk, alongside restrictions placed on broadcasting services, raised pressing concerns about the state of free speech. In this charged climate, Jimmy Kimmel, a comedian and host of ABC’s late-night program Jimmy Kimmel Live!, was taken off the air after a segment discussing the assassination and the suspected shooter of Charlie Kirk, a move many regarded as political censorship. The suspension ignited debate over whether corporate media was bowing to pressure to silence satire and dissent. He returned on September 23, 2025, with a monologue that addressed the backlash and defended political satire and free expression.

When given tangible proof that every voice can make a difference, it becomes even more essential that we know how to wield our voices in a responsible way. Social studies teachers can take the initiative to hold Harkness discussions afterschool aimed at responsible and open dialogue. As students, this means making sure to learn about current affairs from reputable sources, becoming comfortable with articulating and sharing our own thoughts, and seeking true conversation and action, rather than pouring gasoline onto the firestorm of pointless discourse. By doing this, we can continue to facilitate safe and productive political conversations and create positive change. We must be able to avoid hostility, both online and in-person, while also creating an environment that encourages the use of free speech to ask questions and express individual opinions.

Free speech is not just an abstract idea written about in an old document; it’s the foundation of a healthy society and democracy that is open to new ideas and willing to hear different opinions, even when such opinions may make listeners feel uncomfortable. In school environments, disagreement should be treated as an opportunity for growth and exposure to new perspectives, rather than a conflict.