This essay has been long in the making; only now, after the current events taking place at Clemson University, do I feel so obligated to write this piece. How do I begin to describe the current environment on campus? Silenced and fearful. We have entered into a space over the past few years where people may be sanctioned for simple, truthful statements. This is not an overblowing of the situation on my part; this is a large and broad consensus of not only professors, but also the larger student body. What is causing individuals to feel so censored during this time? Obviously, the political climate and actions on the part of the University administration have played a large part in why self-censorship is so high, but I have yet to hear a condemnation of the University student groups further brewing this climate. I hope that, even if my view is not shared in whole by those on campus, that we may all recognize the real and present facts of targeted censorship taking place. It is broadly held that the organizations Clemson College Republicans and Turning Point USA Clemson are taking retaliatory action against students and faculty who do not align with their truth and their ideals. “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.” (Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Part 3, 1951)

I want to be very explicit, the larger issue which I am referring to does not in any way relate to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, rather it relates to the retaliatory efforts in the wake of his murder and even pre-dating it. This censorship has not only targeted differing viewpoints, but also the free expression of real and true fact. What do these right leaning organizations say they are repressing? ”Woke” ideology. This phrase is used as a catch-all term for any sort of ideas that go against the current presidential administration. This can be, but is not limited to, the existence of queer individuals and the labels created by the movement, critical race theory (the idea that systemic racism causes brutal inequalities in social life that should be counteracted), “hate America movements” (protests to the current actions of the presidential administration) and sexual differences existent in society. I also want to make it clear that when I refer to an attack on greater truth, I am specifically referring to the outlandish claims made in part by these organizations that with very little effort can be proven incoherent. These two organizations are actively repressing that these issues exist and that they are not part of an organized campaign to disenfranchise thein Republican party. With the leaders of these organizations stating that they are “at war,” this is obviously anything but tolerant. If anyone wishes to question the validity of this claim, I want you to do two things. First, look at the rhetoric that these two organizations openly put out on their X accounts. A great example of this is the reposting of a two-minute video in which the speaker openly claims that “The only good [the left] can envision is taking something beautiful or innocent down to their level, and when they can’t do it, the next best thing is blood” (Solionath reposted by TPUSA Clemson). This was in reaction to a leaked group chat where members openly proclaimed racist comments and their “love of Nazis.” “They fell for the left’s emotional blackmail. Don’t listen. The left hates you” (TPUSA Clemson). This is their reaction to opposition. I do not believe their words deceive us, it seems apparent that they believe that they are at war. I think this is enough to show the validity of fear individuals at the University have.

The censorship is real and present. CCR actively has taken credit for exposing the social media accounts of professors at Clemson and TPUSA Clemson has reported professors to their parent organization’s overarching watchlist to keep “woke ideology” out of the classroom. A number of professors have also received death threats and threats of rape to family members for speaking up on several occasions. Both organizations have made the opinions of these professors public while it is argued and held that this does nothing to discourage the professor other than silencing them, according to a 2022 article by Brookings. Their idea of a refutation is suppression. They have pinned their mention of these professors to the tops of their accounts on numerous occasions. They have expressed that these people should be silenced. In reaction to Provost Bob Jones stating “I respect your opinions” to fired employees, CCR stated “Provost Jones has GOT to go.” It seems clear to me that there is no reading of this statement that is not a condemnation of free speech.

These opinions and statements of these organizations need to be widely known. Along with these, there are testimonies of these tabling groups harassing persons to the point they had to avoid specific areas on campus, these attacks on free discussion should not stand. I urge anyone who is skeptical of these claims to talk with CCR and TPUSA Clemson when they table. Ask them why they believe that ideas opposite from their own should not even be entertained in the classroom (see TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist) , and why their efforts of suppression are justified. I would also urge you to vehemently fact-check their claims, as with any source of politicized information. Cleansing this University of unwanted peoples and opinions are not actions of an organization for American values they have and continue to draw the friend-enemy distinction. We have seen this play out before. Carl Schmitt, architect of Nazi political thought, states the defining characteristic that fascism relies on is an existential one: “That the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced to is that of friend and enemy.” It should be clear by now that their motive and rhetoric have far surpassed this distinction; they themselves claim war against the opposition. In the fashion of Clemson’s freedom of speech policy, their opinions are free to hold; however, it is the duty of the University population to take a stand on profoundly hateful and suppressing rhetoric. When these organizations are the reason behind firing hearings, campus policy change and fearmongering of students, the University should be compelled to act. Yet, the University continues to make the process for these organizations “very fluid,” while opposing groups such as Clemson College Democrats have their reservations lost or accidentally given away.

This is not a new story. By reducing anyone to the label of “other,” these organizations deserve extreme condemnation. The utter hypocrisy in the allowance of such groups in the wake of blatant violation of University policy is disgusting. Until now, their rhetoric has not been fully explored for fear of retaliation, nor the countless actions on part of the University to enable this antisocial behavior. Does this sound like the actions of a University that prides itself on student experience? I think not.

How then, may we take action to make our voices known when our University administration has made it repeatedly clear that its freedom of speech policy is only applicable when it is in a particular group’s interest? Time and time again, Clemson has folded when CCR and TPUSA Clemson have gone to outside of the University for leverage (both organizations take credit for this via X); how can we trust that our voices will not be silenced as well? This is a valid concern and thus we must have ways to counter it..

First, strength in numbers is vital for our voices to not easily be silenced. Small acts of protest can be seen occasionally around campus, but these voices are only a fraction of the population opposed to this censorship. Strength in numbers first requires strength from courage and I commend those who have made themselves the target of hate due to their opinion being voiced. The only way to bring about real and active change is to speak out. Talk to your peers, speak up in classes and ask questions that should be asked in a place upheld by free speech and expression. [The sad fact that I cannot even speak of this with my real name attached is testimony to the state of speech at our university. If not for the countless warnings I have received to my physical safety, I would strive to attach my name to this letter.]

Second, organizations must come together in coalition. Minority advocacy groups that have been put in place to prevent this fractioning have been dissolved, meaning, it is on the organizations themselves to act cohesively to resist the policy changes and censorship directed at their members.

Third, we must be active. We must, for a time, feel uncomfortable in voicing our right to speak. The rhetoric will come, but rhetoric targeted at an educated crowd is much less effective than that of the oblivious. If people know what is happening on campus and the actions taking place, it will be much harder to dismiss.

Finally, we must stay strong when the opposition comes. We must brave the storm that they call themselves and fight not only for our freedom to express opinion, but also our freedom to the truth; and in the face of the bleakest circumstances, on campus and the nation beyond, we must stand strong if only to protect this fading refuge from contortion of reality.