Throughout his short life, Charlie Kirk enraged many by exposing the hate and hypocrisy of the left in higher education. What is astonishing is that he continues to do it even in death.

As millions mourn his murder around the world, any expressions of sorrow or respect for Kirk are triggering some on the left. Liberals have been arrested for stomping on or burning memorials to Kirk and others have taken to social media to denounce or mock people expressing regrets over the loss. A courthouse memorial was vandalized while a mural to Kirk had to be restored after an attack.

Former Gawker editor Elizabeth Spiers wrote an essay for Nation under the headline: “Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning.”

Some of the loudest voices have come from academia.

University of California Irvine lecturer Larry Tenney went on the liberal safe space site, BlueSky, to rave in all caps: “WE KNOW WHO CHARLIE KIRK WAS…”F**k off America” “F**k off Trump” and “F**k all you motherfuckers, idgag about any of you.” (For the non-profane literate, “idgag” means “I don’t give a f**k”).

What is clear from the diatribe is that Kirk also knew exactly who people like Tenney are. He knew that even his appearance or that of his group on campus would trigger many in academia.

For the speech-intolerant, any invitation to debate issues like abortion or transgender policies is intolerable. You are expected to accept their positions as righteous or face their rage. What was even more annoying was the fact that Kirk was winning the debate, young people trapped in the academic echo chamber were showing up en masse as they did at the rally where he died.

Faculty converted higher education into the current echo chamber and then treated students as a captive audience. When given a choice, many rushed to hear alternative views.

Fordham School of Law Professor John Pfaff joined the chorus of those objecting to expressions of respect or regret. Most tellingly, the sin that disqualified Kirk was that he implemented Professor Watchlist, a list of professors deemed the most intolerant and partisan on campuses, so that students could avoid their classes. Pfaff posted:

“Just a reminder Kirk’s organization established the Professor Watchlist, which even the NYT framed as a threat to academic freedom. I don’t get why ppl keep describing him as a good-faith debater. One can say ‘Kirk should not have been murdered’ (which is true!) without engaging in hagiography.”

In Pfaff’s siloed world, the New York Times is apparently so conservative that it is remarkable that “even the NYT” criticized the list. The comment only served to confirm that the relevant scale of comparison for academics today runs exclusively from the left to the far left.

At the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Anthropology professor Tamar Shirinian. Tamar Shirinian wrote:

“The world is better off without him in it. Even those who are claiming to be sad for his wife and kids….like, his kids are better off living in a world without a disgusting psychopath like him and his wife, well, she’s a sick fuck for marrying him so I dont care about her feelings.”

Syracuse University political science assistant professor Jenn M. Jackson  announced “him dying this ways seems both ironic and in line with his own politics.”

Others warned that anyone expressing sorrow was only self-identifying for future lists of fascists.

Martin Pfeiffer, PH.D candidate at the University of New Mexico, warned, “Charlie Kirk was a vicious, hateful fascist and white supremacist. To say anything else is a lie and, quite frankly, fascist collaboration.”

Across the country, efforts by a few professors to get their colleagues to sign letters expressing condolences or concerns over the murder were derailed by some of the same passive-aggressive ideologues who engaged in pearl-clutching objections over divisive positions.

What is most striking about these academics is the total lack of self-awareness, even as they adopt the very intolerance of historical villains in their classes.

The response of these professors is reminiscent of the Greek tragedy Antigone by Sophocles in 441 BCE. In the story, the two sons of Oedipus fight to the death for the throne of Thebes. The tyrant ruler Creon ordered that his favorite of the brothers, Eteocles,  be buried with honors while banning anyone from mourning or burying the other brother, Polynices.

To be left on the ground unburied and unmourned was considered a great dishonor and sacrilege. It was too much for his sister, Antigone, who defied the tyrant and buried her brother. For that, Antigone was walled up in a cave and committed suicide.

Kirk’s critics will allow him to be buried, of course, but some cannot tolerate mourning his passing any more than they could tolerate his speaking.

I have opposed calls for firing academics making hateful comments outside of their official duties or accounts. Charlie spent his life opposing cancel campaigns and censorship.

However, it is crushingly ironic to see media and faculty suddenly outraged about cancel campaigns after years of ignoring the purging of conservatives from campuses.  Most faculty crying foul today have been entirely silent when conservatives, including Kirk, were targeted in the past.

Faculty have spent decades purging conservatives and libertarians from departments, leaving higher education mired in orthodoxy and intolerance. It is the education version of what Sophocles wrote in Antigone: “A city which belongs to just one man is no true city.” In the same way, a university which belongs to only liberal idelogy is no true university.