The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Over the course of history, we have seen the right to speech lead to catastrophic harm. Charismatic political speakers and leaders have persuaded entire nations to justify the heinous treatment of minority groups simply by weaponizing the unjust bias and fear of the majority.

American citizens are currently plagued with the same reality. But instead of recognizing history actively repeating itself, our state government passed a resolution honoring a man who directly contributed to the divide in this country. I find this decision not only disappointing, but extremely dangerous to the American people.

Oct. 14 will officially be recognized as “Charlie Kirk Free Speech Day” in Kansas after the state’s GOP-led Senate and the House passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 1615.

SCR 1615 was proposed by a total of 31 Kansas Republican senators in early December. It sets aside a day to honor Kirk’s life and legacy, as well as reaffirm the need for free speech to residents of Kansas.

Kirk was a right-wing political activist and media personality, known for co-founding  Turning Point USA, an organization that advocates for conservative politics in high school and higher education settings. Kirk’s work for TPUSA included holding political discussions on university and college campuses across America. His main talking points included faith, the traditional family unit and the American people’s freedoms, specifically freedom of speech (under the First Amendment) and the right to bear arms (the Second Amendment).

In September of last year, he was shot at Utah Valley University while hosting one of his TPUSA events, in which he invited people on campus to ask questions or debate him. Kirk died after being rushed to a nearby hospital. The nature of his death resulted in an eruption of discourse related to First Amendment rights. Like most issues in this country, it quickly became a battle of political parties.

Those on the left called Kirk’s rhetoric hateful. They addressed the way he chose to approach his political discussions on campuses. They discussed his relationship with President Donald Trump, as well as his personal influence on the MAGA movement.

Those on the right blamed left-wing ideology for his death, saying it was an act of political violence. They discussed his positive influence on family and faith and his unwavering support for the president and his policies. To honor Kirk’s legacy, Trump awarded him posthumously with the  Medal of Freedom.

But the Medal of Freedom wasn’t enough for Kansas Republicans. They rallied behind Kirk’s memory, seeking a day to honor him.

In our current political climate, I am not surprised that we have a day honoring a man like Kirk; I am just disappointed. The way he died was horrific for all those who were present. I have empathy for anyone who attended that event or anyone who has ever been affected by gun violence. But I can’t help questioning what we are celebrating with this day of remembrance.

Megan Steele is a Kansas Representative who voted for SCR 1615.

“Charlie’s story ended far too soon, but his movement and his passion for truth, faith, family and liberty does not stop here,” Steele said on the House floor.

If you know anything about Kirk, his concepts of truth, faith, family and liberty were not inclusive. They only exist for a certain type of person.

His passion for faith was exclusive to Christianity. His passion for family was only for the traditional family unit — the man as the breadwinner and the woman as the homemaker, caring for the children. His passion for liberty and truth was entirely subjective.

His ideology was built on racism, sexism, transphobia and homophobia. If you aren’t a cisgender white male, he had a predetermined idea of who you were and what you should or shouldn’t be allowed to do.

Kirk has a history of racist rhetoric. In 2020, he said that George Floyd was a “scumbag.” Floyd was a black man who was murdered by Minneapolis police officers.

In 2023, Kirk was discussing crime on his podcast and said, “prowling blacks go around for fun to target white people.”

When discussing why he opposed affirmative action and DEI, Kirk said, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”

Kirk’s relationship with sexism was almost covert because it was masked by religious ideology. His idea of family was pretty simple: a man and woman get married and have children. The man is the head of the household, and the woman is meant to be submissive to him and care for the children. He sold this idea by encouraging women to find husbands with enough money to let them stay at home because that was their God-given calling.

In 2024, Kirk was featured on a Jubilee video in a segment that was called “1 Conservative vs. 25 Liberal College Students.”  During one of the debates, an individuals asked him if he had a daughter who was raped as a 10-year-old, would he want her to have her rapist’s baby. Without missing a beat, he said that yes, the baby would be born. He then continued to argue, completely ignoring the counterpoints that discussed the livelihood of the victim who endured the assault.

His ideology concerning LGBTQIA+ individuals was also based on his religious ideology and cherry-picked verses of scripture. In an episode from his podcast, Kirk stated, “There’s a direct connection to inflation and the trans issue,” which is absolutely preposterous. However, it quite literally sparked debates on whether there was an actual correlation between transgender people existing and inflation.

I have a difficult time understanding how we commemorate the memory of a man who had such a vile and insensitive worldview. I don’t agree with the idea of celebrating a man who continuously targeted minority groups and subjected them to hate. I think it is irresponsible to canonize an individual who weaponized religion to advance a political agenda.

Like Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette D. Clarke stated, “It is, unfortunately, an attempt to legitimize Kirk’s worldview — a worldview that includes ideas many Americans find racist, harmful, and fundamentally un-American.”