Charlie Kirk and Hasan Piker Debate Free Speech, Safe Spaces, and Conservative Censorship on Campus

Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.

Up Next

Charlie Kirk on President Trump's Executive Order Protecting Free Speech on College Campuses

Charlie Kirk on President Trump's Executive Order Protecting Free Speech on College Campuses

6:38

Charlie Kirk Built the World's Largest Conservative Youth Organization from a Card Table and Conviction

Charlie Kirk Built the World's Largest Conservative Youth Organization from a Card Table and Conviction

1:35:50

Charlie Kirk Dismantles CRT, Marxism, and Modern Leftist Ideology in Fiery Campus Debate

Charlie Kirk Dismantles CRT, Marxism, and Modern Leftist Ideology in Fiery Campus Debate

58:06

Charlie Kirk and Hasan Piker Debate Free Speech, Safe Spaces, and Conservative Censorship on Campus

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, faced off against Hasan Piker from The Young Turks at Politicon in a heated debate about free speech on college campuses. Kirk argued that conservative speakers face disproportionate censorship and disinvitation, citing over 500 documented cases, while Piker challenged whether conservative ideas are simply unpopular rather than suppressed. The discussion covered safe spaces, the liberal bias in academia with professors registered Democrat over Republican at a 12-to-1 ratio, violent protests against speakers like Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter, and whether students have the right to block speakers they find offensive. Both debaters agreed that wealthy donors and corporations have too much influence in politics, though they disagreed entirely on solutions. The conversation revealed deep divisions on what free speech means in practice, with Kirk advocating for hearing disagreeable ideas without retreating to safe spaces, and Piker defending student

August 7, 2017

The State of Free Speech on Campus

At Politicon, Charlie Kirk opened by declaring that censorship is absolutely blocking free speech on campus, with conservatives, Libertarians, and Trump supporters disproportionately targeted. Kirk explained that colleges have become places where administrators want everyone to look different but think the same, with a disproportionate number of people at the top blocking speakers and advancing a far-left agenda. Turning Point USA now fights not just for ideas like free markets and smaller government, but for the fundamental right to free speech itself.

Kirk posed a central question throughout the debate: why is it always leftist activists rioting, protesting, storming stages, and pulling fire alarms, while conservatives sit quietly and listen to ideas they disagree with? Hasan Piker countered by referencing peaceful protests, including those against Robert E. Lee monuments, and argued that college campuses represent a microcosm of America where youth should hear diverse opinions.

Defining and Debating Safe Spaces

The discussion quickly turned to safe spaces, with Kirk criticizing what he sees as overly sensitive students demanding protection from disagreeable ideas. Piker challenged Kirk's characterization, asking whether conservatives themselves seek safe spaces while claiming to be victims. Kirk clarified that he seeks the ability to speak freely, not victim status, pointing to Ben Shapiro's disinvitation from DePaul University as an example of hundreds of documented cases each semester where conservative speakers are blocked.

Piker argued that safe spaces serve legitimate purposes for people who have experienced racism, sexism, bigotry, or intolerance, comparing them to AA meetings where you wouldn't want someone bringing alcohol. Kirk responded that some safe spaces discriminate by excluding white people, which exists on over 200 college campuses. The two debated whether such spaces create division or provide necessary support, with Kirk ultimately stating he thinks safe spaces are wrong for campus culture but not calling for their abolition—rather, he believes people should mock them and fight back against the culture they create.

The Liberal Bias in Academia

Kirk addressed what he considers an undeniable liberal bias in academia, citing an independent study showing professors are registered Democrat over Republican at a 12-to-1 ratio. He explained that conservatives are more likely to pursue wealth in the private sector, while liberals tend to enter academia. Piker sarcastically suggested this might be because conservatives can't get jobs at Goldman Sachs, leading to a tense exchange about conservative donors endowing professorships and naming buildings on campus.

Kirk argued that when a country is split roughly 40-40 with 20 percent in the middle, but academia tilts 90-10 to the left, something is fundamentally wrong. He called for intellectual diversity and equal representation so students hear both sides of arguments, especially in business and finance schools. Piker questioned why conservative mega-donors who contribute to university endowments don't push back against this supposed liberal dominance if it's such a problem.

The debate touched on curriculum, with Kirk claiming the Communist Manifesto is the most-read book in college today according to studies on higher education. Kirk argued it's more than possible to attend Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Stanford without hearing one positive thing about conservative ideas for more than 10 minutes in four years.

Speaker Disinvitations and Campus Protests

Kirk repeatedly returned to examples of conservative speakers being blocked, shouted down, or disinvited from campuses. He mentioned Ben Shapiro at DePaul University, where The Young Turks ran a segment condemning the disinvitation, and numerous other instances at schools like Santa Clara University, St. Thomas University, Rutgers University, and UT Austin. Kirk argued that administrators cave to small groups of protesting students—sometimes just 100 people—because they fear negative publicity and smashed windows on the nightly news.

Piker countered that if speakers like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos are unpopular, perhaps that's simply the free market of ideas at work. He argued that some speakers deliberately target and alienate specific subsets of society with extremist rhetoric, and students have every right to protest when campuses waste money protecting controversial figures. Piker also noted that Shapiro himself admitted Berkeley welcomed him with open arms to a diverse crowd, contradicting the narrative of widespread suppression.

The discussion became particularly heated around whether protests constitute legitimate free speech or censorship. Kirk distinguished between peaceful protest and what he characterized as riots—storming stages, pulling fire alarms, and throwing objects. Piker defended students' right to protest peacefully, citing examples like Colin Kaepernick taking a knee, and argued that conservatives seem to oppose all forms of protest regardless of how they're conducted.

Mike Pence at Notre Dame and the Boundaries of Protest

Kirk brought up an incident where 30 people stood up and protested during Vice President Mike Pence's graduation ceremony at Notre Dame, interrupting the event for 20 minutes. Kirk argued this represented intolerance, as students couldn't even allow the former governor of Indiana and a Catholic to speak at a Catholic university's graduation. Piker responded by highlighting Pence's advocacy for gay conversion therapy, arguing students had every right to exercise free speech by protesting someone who supported such harmful policies.

This exchange exemplified the core tension in the debate: Kirk sees these actions as shutting down speech and creating intolerant environments, while Piker views them as legitimate exercises of free speech and protest against harmful ideologies.

Free Speech Zones and Constitutional Rights

Kirk shifted focus to free speech zones—designated areas on campus where students can speak freely but face arrest for activism elsewhere. He shared his experience at Grand Valley State University where Turning Point USA activists were threatened with arrest for handing out constitutions on Constitution Day. Kirk explained they sued the state of Michigan and won, vindicating their position.

Piker noted that the constitutions being distributed included information on how to donate to Turning Point USA, suggesting the restriction wasn't purely about free speech but about solicitation policies. Kirk corrected that they were actually Heritage Foundation constitutions, not Turning Point materials, though Piker joked the two organizations seem so similar the lines get blurry.

Turning Point USA's Mission and Growth

Kirk defended Turning Point USA against accusations of indoctrination, explaining the organization operates on 1,200 college and high school campuses and recently hosted 1,000 young women at their Young Women's Leadership Summit. He described it as a grassroots student movement with over 7,000 donors across the country, with an average contribution of $52—lower than Bernie Sanders' $73 average, which Kirk noted with pride.

Piker challenged this characterization, arguing that Turning Point USA attempts to game the system by funneling money from wealthy donors to ensure conservatives are disproportionately represented on campuses where progressive ideas naturally dominate. Kirk responded that as a free market capitalist, he sees a problem in the marketplace of ideas and provides a competitive solution—he's not trying to regulate ideas but rather ensure students hear perspectives they're not getting in lecture halls.

Kirk asked why, if Turning Point USA's ideas are so terrible, the organization is growing by leaps and bounds with chapters starting across the country and record attendance at their events. Piker suggested that despite these efforts, it remains difficult to elect conservative student body leaders on largely progressive campuses, indicating the limits of this strategy.

Government Size, Healthcare, and the VA

The debate expanded to broader ideological differences, with both agreeing that wealthy donors and corporations have corrupted both political parties. However, their solutions diverged sharply. Kirk asked why, if you don't trust government, you would want to make it bigger. Piker argued for holding administrators accountable while expanding programs like socialized medicine.

Kirk repeatedly cited the VA as evidence that government-run healthcare fails, noting that 60 percent of VA funding goes to administrative overhead rather than helping veterans, compared to less than 5 percent at charitable hospitals. Piker countered that the VA is underfunded, particularly due to expensive wars. Kirk insisted the VA represents the perfect example of socialized medicine gone wrong and argued that free enterprise fixes these problems more efficiently than expanding government.

Campaign Finance and Corporate Influence

In closing, both debaters found common ground on campaign finance reform being necessary, though they disagreed on solutions. Kirk argued that donors and corporations are too powerful because government is too big—if government had limits, special interests couldn't buy agencies and bribe politicians for benefits. He noted that the first person to abolish presidential campaign limits since Richard Nixon was Barack Obama.

Piker wanted stronger limits on money in politics, arguing that when Republican senators' first thought is whether they'll lose campaign donations by voting a certain way, something is fundamentally wrong. Kirk agreed transparency is important and supported 24-hour reporting requirements, but opposed limits on campaign contributions as restrictions on free speech.

Finding Respect Across Divides

Despite the heated exchanges, both participants ended by acknowledging each other's intelligence and commitment to their beliefs. Kirk praised Piker as genuinely intelligent and skilled at building an audience, addressing issues that matter even though they agree only about 2 percent of the time. He appreciated The Young Turks' comments defending free speech.

Piker called Kirk well-spoken and acknowledged he's doing something he believes is important. Piker affirmed that conservatives should feel free to express their opinions everywhere, not just on college campuses, though he maintained they disagree on ideological positions and what he characterized as false equivalencies. Both expressed appreciation for the opportunity to have an open and honest discussion at Politicon.

Video Transcript

Link copied to clipboard!