Today is the anniversary of the murder of Kirk. In anticipation, Goldman posted a picture of Shirley with the line “Someone can do the funniest thing just before the Kirkiversary.” It was a response to an Instagram post by the Harvard Republican Club promoting a speech by Shirley.
Goldman reportedly has long found the deaths of disfavored people to be a real knee-slapper, allegedly mocking the deaths of Henry Kissinger and others. Indeed, Goldman takes Gallows humor to a particularly dark place in American politics.
After the murder of a UnitedHealthcare CEO in 2024, Goldman allegedly posted a photo of the “Super Mario” character Luigi putting a gun to someone’s head with the statement “Let’s not pretend as if America isn’t the greatest country on earth.”
In another Instagram post, Goldman allegedly wrote, “Lmao abolish ICE. only good ICE agent is a dead one.”
Goldman also teaches at Chapman University and specializes in “social justice rhetoric and community-centered composition.”
It has become common in higher education and on campuses to laugh and even celebrate the murder of Kirk. Recently, socialist Hasan Piker led a sing-a-long with hundreds mocking his death.
Hate-spewing influencers like Jennifer Welch have even justified his assassination. Protesters regularly reenact his murder, and this week at Georgetown and the University of South Carolina students are celebrating “Kirkiversary” with “Kirk Look-a-Like” competitions.
Chapman University has expressed concern over Goldman’s hateful postings, but he is hardly unique. Faculty departments have largely purged their ranks of any conservative, libertarian, or Republican faculty members. According to various surveys, many departments have no Republicans. Forty percent of faculty say they would vote against any Trump supporter, regardless of academic accomplishments or publications. Recently, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) abandoned its long-standing political neutrality and endorsed radical Michigan senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
At the same time, radical faculty members on the left are common across the country and many espouse the same hate-filled and violent rhetoric.
Professors have regularly advocated “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters, and making other outrageous statements. A San Diego University professor celebrated the death of an Israeli soldier who was eaten by a shark.
At the University of Rhode Island, Professor Erik Loomis responded to the murder of a conservative protester by saying that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was given a promotion by the University of Rhode Island after his remarks).
Social media postings present difficult challenges for universities. These are statements often made on private sites and are not part of academic duties. Yet, universities have regularly taken action against faculty members who espouse what they view as prejudicial views based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. These faculty members rationalize or support violence targeting conservatives.
The problem is not that faculty can voice extreme political values in private postings. Those views should be protected. Likewise, the problem is not that faculty pursue far-left views in their academic work. Those views are protected by academic freedom.
The real problem is the virtual absence of any countervailing views today, after faculty have turned our universities into ideological echo chambers. There is a crushing orthodoxy on our campuses that fosters this type of extremist, violent rhetoric. For conservative students, it is common to be taught entirely by faculty who denounce their views and values.
While faculty members continually virtue signal about maintaining inclusive environments, they rarely seem concerned about the hostile environment for anyone who holds right-of-center views on campuses. A faculty member who mocks “land acknowledgments” is intolerable for many faculty, but those mocking the murder of conservatives are merely engaging in “spirited” debate.
The espousal of violent ideations or hateful views against conservatives can cross the line. Even if students are not concerned about their physical safety, they are likely concerned about their academic standing in classes taught by such hateful faculty. If a faculty member finds killing conservatives funny or justified, it is unlikely that they would welcome conservative viewpoints being expressed in classes.
The lack of consistency in dealing with what I have called “rage rhetoric” is an indictment of higher education. Imagine if a faculty member mocked the killing of minority students or Democratic activists. The response would be immediate and final.
However, the humor in killing conservatives is precisely because it is “happening to somebody else.” The most unnerving aspect of this latest controversy is not that Goldman is making jokes about assassinating conservatives, but that many in academia find it uproariously funny.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”