Editor’s Note: a guest post by Louis Cohn, a student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and president of the Turning Point USA chapter on that campus.

Last Monday, September 22^nd, the UL-Lafayette Student Government Association considered my resolution “to condemn political violence and its glorification” in light of the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk. In the days and hours following the assassination, numerous UL students celebrated the violence on their public social media accounts. As the University College President of this current student government administration, I sought to use my power to condemn this reprehensible behavior and reiterate our commitment to free speech and lawful freedom of expression. Furthermore, as president of UL’s Turning Point USA Chapter, I considered it my duty to pursue this to the furthest extent possible. Unfortunately, my resolution ultimately failed and for bad reasons.

The presentation of my resolution began with a notice from our Chair that its specific language could be modified if it passed. Seeing that I would get pushback because of my explicit reference to “the assassination of Charlie Kirk”, I stressed to my fellow senators and college presidents that we should consider the essence of my resolution instead of splitting hairs over the wording used.

Almost immediately, nearly everyone present began to voice their opposition to my resolution. The detractors alleged that this was “unnecessary” because “it doesn’t directly affect the campus”. This charge was ridiculous because the political climate affects every campus in the country, and we have seen numerous instances of UL students publicly celebrating the assassination. They also alleged that it was “redundant” because “we already are committed to free speech and lawful freedom of expression”. This was also ridiculous because just because we say we are committed to certain principles in our founding documents doesn’t mean we can’t reiterate them in times of trouble like the present. The most ridiculous charge was that my resolution was “political” and that “SGA needs to remain neutral”. If taking a stance against political violence and the celebration of it is considered a “political” stance, then we are truly at a loss in modern America. Free speech and lawful freedom of expression should be non-negotiable and some of the basic things all Americans can agree on. Also, if passing a resolution against political violence and its glorification is “political”, then by the same token failing said resolution is “political”. Is this the “political” statement our student government wants to make?

The idea that our student government has remained perfectly “neutral” on political matters is blatantly wrong. I entered UL’s student government as a University College Senator in the fall of 2024. During that semester, we hosted Chloe Cole for a talk about “The Dangers of Transgender Ideology”. When we announced the talk, a massive protest was held the following Monday to try to pressure the University into cancelling or postponing our talk. This carried into the student government meeting that evening. At that time, nearly everyone was oblivious to the fact that I was also president of Turning Point at UL, so I got to watch my fellow senators and college presidents plead with the Dean of Students to try to cancel our event for “hate speech” without any shame. Their attempts at cancelling us were futile. The Dean of Students reminded them that there was something called the First Amendment that had to be followed. A few of the faces that tried to cancel our talk then were some of the same faces that opposed my resolution last Monday.

I was the sole voice to both advocate for my resolution and vote for it. Everyone else either voted against it or abstained. I was not disappointed that those same familiar faces opposed my resolution. That was something to be expected. I was disappointed with the fence sitters who vocally supported my resolution in private and opposed it when they saw that the momentum was clearly against my resolution. Some of these fence sitters even joined in the debate and spoke against my resolution. These fence sitters serve as a microcosm of what is wrong with modern politics. We have too many politicians who will sit on the fence and ride whatever political current happens to be passing through. If we want to rejuvenate and revitalize America, we need politicians who are fanatically committed to the Truth and will stop at nothing to fight for it, even if they are the sole placard in the room. We must follow the example of Charlie Kirk and continue the good fight to restore America in the name of Jesus Christ. So help us God.