A group calling itself Fearless Debates showed up unannounced at Tennessee State University on September 23 and was escorted off campus after administrators determined the visit was unauthorized. What should have been a chance for conversation instead turned into another predictable campus confrontation, but credit where it’s due: TSU police and staff handled the situation quickly and students maintained their composure under pressure. This incident raises the obvious question conservatives have been asking for years — who gets to speak on campus and who gets shut down by the campus safety playbook.
Eyewitnesses and reporting show the visitors wore Make America Great Again hats and carried signs with blunt messages like “DEI should be illegal” and “deport all illegals now,” calling TSU the first stop on a so-called Fearless Tour aimed at sparking debate. Whether you agree with their tone or not, nothing about openly displaying a political view on public issues should automatically merit being silenced. The country was built on robust, sometimes uncomfortable debate, not on curated speech approved by university administrators.
TSU’s response relied on a standard that requires advance approval and permitting for demonstrations, a rule that is perfectly reasonable when applied evenhandedly but too often becomes a tool for selective enforcement. Conservatives have seen permitting and “safety” rules weaponized to keep dissenting voices off campus while left-leaning activists get special treatment. If universities want to truly protect students, they should apply rules consistently and create real forums for ideas rather than using red tape as a muzzle.
Predictably, civil rights groups and sympathetic outlets labeled the stunt “provocation,” and some framed the encounter as an attack on the HBCU community instead of an invitation to dialogue. That reflex to shut down uncomfortable speech rather than confront it head-on is exactly the problem: labeling debate as provocation is an easy way to avoid answering real questions about DEI, academic standards, and immigration. Students deserve better than to have important policy arguments dismissed as mere theater by the same institutions that claim to champion critical thinking.
There’s a balance to be struck — campuses must be safe, and administrators must be ready to respond when an event threatens security — but safety cannot be a pretext for intellectual quarantine. This episode even prompted TSU to review its access and demonstration policies, which is the right move if it leads to clearer, fairer rules that protect both safety and free expression. Conservatives should press for solutions that allow civil, public debate while giving campuses the tools to keep order without picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas.
If we truly care about liberty and about the future of our country, patriots need to show up where young people are being formed — not to provoke for clicks, but to engage respectfully and forcefully with ideas. Hold university leaders accountable, demand consistent enforcement of policies, and above all, refuse the left’s narrative that disagreement equals harm. America prospers when ideas compete openly, and it’s our duty to keep that tradition alive on every campus in this nation.
