It’s another bright, sunny morning on campus. Students flock to classrooms, some running later than others. You forgot your headphones, but that’s alright, the birds are singing and the wind gently whistles through the trees. 

All of a sudden, a jarring, unfamiliar voice is barreling through the campus, spewing arguments and talking over their audience — a seemingly angry group of college students who are aggressively refuting the unknown speaker’s rhetoric. 

Every year, political influencers are becoming increasingly more prevalent on college campuses, spreading their rhetoric through low-level forms of argumentation, with the intention of persuading others to change their perspective. However, they are rarely engaging in what could be considered genuine debate, instead attempting to imprint their preplanned agenda onto impressionable minds. 

Political influencers can gain a following on social media through engaging in this style of discourse. Clips where “[a member of one party or the other] gets owned” in the headline receive huge numbers of likes and interactions, where, in reality, they were never being “owned” in the first place — they were just stating their opinion. 

It’s hard to analyze something that is so nuanced, yet also intimate. Even nationwide political issues tend to vary regionally. Every college has its own environment, and when it hosts political speakers, the outcome won’t be consistent. 

Following the shooting of Charlie Kirk, now more than ever, our country needs to be cautious of where to draw the line on what it means to practice freedom of speech on a college campus. It shouldn’t be dangerous for people to get an education, and it shouldn’t be the fault of someone using their right to free speech.  

Situations like these make up-and-coming, right-wing political influencers, such as Riley Gaines and Cam Higby, feel the need to increase their security budget the next time they want to step foot on a U.S. campus.

While politically they will not align with everyone, being fearful about what to say publicly is not a sustainable lifestyle in a country that guarantees free speech. 

Public — and private — colleges in the U.S. have a long history with political influencers coming onto their campuses. Stephen Crowder and Kaitlyn Bennett had their own runs in the spotlight of YouTube virality. Segments on their channels asked students for opinions on certain social justice topics that were especially inflammatory during the time they were posted.

This style of interaction proves to be advantageous for influencers who toe the line of controversy. Crowder’s most popular video sits at 46 million views, which is centered around a discussion-oriented debate where guests try to “change his mind” about his political stance on hot-button issues, such as transgender rights, abortion and gun violence. 

One of Chico State’s professors, Shawn Schwaller, finds these methods to be intentionally targeted toward students who may not have as much information on topics as the speaker would.

“These folks go on to campuses with an agenda,” Schwaller said. “They’re debating students that are very inexperienced with debate.”

Schwaller was placed on the Professor Watchlist, a website run by Turning Point USA, a conservative non-profit organization founded by Charlie Kirk in 2021. 

This watchlist features professors who have posted publicly about their political beliefs, and highlights the parts Turning Point disagrees with.

And while this list is about professors, almost all of the evidence the website uses to back up its statements is gathered from its personal social media accounts or published works that aren’t affiliated with the university that employs them. 

Even though the list may hold no substance to Schwaller’s teaching, according to him, there are still people who take the list seriously, even going as far as to issue threats to his security, especially following Kirk’s sudden passing.

While it can be intimidating, Schwaller also finds the watchlist to be nothing more than a scare tactic issued by those who simply disagree with his beliefs. 

“It’s also a badge of honor — if there’s a far right, multi-million dollar, non-profit organization going after you, then I feel like I might be doing something right.,” Schwaller said. 

A lot of trust is granted to professors, as we rely on them to teach complex concepts to those who may be unfamiliar with any of the course material. While it is up to the professor to provide students with factual information in their classes, it is also the responsibility of the student to interpret that information with their own critical thinking skills and with the absence of political bias in the process. 

The disparagement of the other side of the political aisle is what allows political influencers to gain traction on college campuses, not necessarily the beliefs they stand for. As long as two-party politics continues along this self-destructive path, divisiveness will only continue to spiral into dangerous outcomes, similar to unacceptably violent outcomes like we saw with the murder of Charlie Kirk. 

While it may be a complex, nuanced process, colleges need to take a stand against divisive messaging on their campuses. Or, at least craft an outline that establishes standards to foster meaningful discussions, through coordinating neutral moderators or increasing security so lives are less likely to be at risk.

Marianne Akre can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]