In the land of the free and the home of the brave, there are moments when one can’t help but scratch their head in disbelief. One such moment is unfolding at Utah Valley University (UVU) where a memorial for the late Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative figure, has sparked some serious debate. Instead of recognizing the individual whose life was tragically taken, the chatter is shifting towards a so-called “unity memorial.” With America’s future just south of a $37 trillion debt cliff, one might think that such a memorial should focus on uniting all Americans, regardless of political differences, but alas, this is a classic case of the vocal minority trying to overshadow the silent majority.
Details of this ideological tug-of-war began emerging after Kirk’s untimely death. His supporters, voicing overwhelming sentiment, are adamant that he deserves to be honored by name. They argue that a unity memorial undermines the very fabric of the incident that resulted in his death—a political assassination—while muddying the message behind his fight for free speech and individual liberty. It’s as if they want to take Kirk’s story and turn it into a fuzzy painting of consensus, when in reality, the event was starkly about division and loss of life.
Students on campus have taken to expressing their desires to honor Kirk through discussions, and curiously, it seems that a few voices are louder than others. Out of hundreds of students surveyed, none appeared to favor the proposed unity memorial. It seems that this push for a memorial of togetherness is in direct opposition to what the majority of students feel should be done to remember someone who dedicated their life to advocating for conservative values. Maybe the proponents of this project should take a good look around and listen to what the majority really wants.
The administration’s action—or lack thereof—creates an interesting juxtaposition. Support for honoring Charlie Kirk rests comfortably among committee members, yet they remain mired in indecision, kicking can after can down the road with meetings not scheduled until January. Meanwhile, concerns rise that if the process delays long enough, Kirk’s supporters will lose momentum, leaving the whispers of the loud few to dictate the narrative. Time is not on their side when it comes to accomplishing a heartfelt tribute before the fervor fades into obscurity.
Interestingly enough, there are some creative ideas bouncing around regarding the design of the memorial itself. Suggestions include everything from a statue of Kirk to a bench complete with a Bible and microphone, undoubtedly drawing attention to his fiery debates and speeches. Paradoxically, while some sad folks prioritize a generic call for unity, others have rallied around the idea of a memorial that actually reflects who Kirk was. It’s almost like they’re missing the point of who this memorial is truly for.
As the dust settles on this saga, there are valuable lessons to be learned about honoring legacies and individual truths. While the left is advocating for a watered-down version of history, it is imperative to remember that true unity is built on acknowledging and valuing the differences that exist between us. If unity is genuinely the goal, then let it include all voices, rather than sideline the one who has fallen. After all, ignoring what brought about this situation is akin to pretending there was no storm while the winds still blow. So, as this tale unfolds at UVU, may the wise words of history guide the decision-makers to honor Charlie Kirk as he deserves: with respect, clarity, and democratic robustness.
