By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Oklahoma legislators recently introduced a bill mandating that all public universities construct a “Charlie Kirk Memorial Plaza” with a statue and signage honoring the deceased conservative activist, or face fines. This legislation follows tributes comparing Kirk to civil rights leaders, despite his past criticisms of figures like Martin Luther King Jr. The bill requires legislative approval of the memorial design and includes measures to protect the plaza from vandalism. However, this proposal comes amidst research revealing significant disagreement with Kirk’s views among college students, and criticism from religious leaders who disagree with these comparisons.
Read the original article here
Oklahoma Republicans propose all state colleges must have Charlie Kirk statue, and the sheer audacity of the proposal immediately sets off alarm bells. It’s the kind of headline that makes you do a double-take, a mixture of disbelief and a growing sense of unease. The idea of mandating statues of a specific individual, especially one who is not a public servant or known for significant contributions beyond the realm of political commentary, feels…off. It feels like something out of a satirical news site, not a serious legislative proposal.
This seemingly absurd proposal immediately raises the question of how we got here. There’s a clear sense that this is less about honoring an individual and more about making a statement. The proposed requirement that the statue must be placed in a “prominent area” on every campus adds to this impression. It’s not just about commemorating Charlie Kirk; it’s about forcing his presence, his ideology, onto every student. And the details, like the statue design needing legislative approval, further solidify the idea that this is a political move, not a genuine expression of respect or admiration.
One might wonder why someone like Charlie Kirk, who dropped out of college, would be honored by universities. The irony is almost too much. His background seems to make this even less fitting. This isn’t about acknowledging achievement or service; it’s about using a figure as a symbol. The suggestion of a statue with an empty seat across from him, or depicting him with his wife and children, feels like an attempt to elevate Kirk to a position of symbolic importance, almost a kind of hero worship. It’s worth mentioning that any statue, regardless of its subject, costs the taxpayers money.
This proposal inevitably brings up comparisons to other, more deserving figures who could be honored. The absence of similar proposals for individuals like Martin Luther King Jr. or even figures from Oklahoma’s own history speaks volumes. It’s almost as if the choice of Charlie Kirk is deliberately provocative, a way to signal allegiance and draw a line in the sand.
The reaction to the news is a mix of shock, anger, and a growing sense of absurdity. The word “insane” and “fascist” pops up time and again, reflecting the deep unease that many feel. The idea of equating Kirk to figures like MLK, or even Saint Paul, is seen as a blatant overreach, a deliberate attempt to rewrite history and manipulate public perception. The focus of these lawmakers is misplaced.
The potential for this law to lead to other restrictions and actions is worrying. The call for a statue of Charlie Kirk on college campuses is not an isolated incident, but a continuation of a disturbing trend. The question becomes, what is next? The level of control that those proposing such legislation wish to exert is quite frightening. What other expressions of freedom will they seek to eradicate?
The deeper concern is the direction of our country. The whole notion of the proposed legislation feels like a performance, a display intended to rile people up and test the boundaries of what’s acceptable. It’s a distraction from what could otherwise be the real issues plaguing the state. The suggestion that this is some kind of “loyalty test” is a legitimate one. This proposed law might be a means to an end. It’s about controlling the narrative, suppressing dissent, and pushing a particular political agenda. This type of legislation isn’t just about statues; it’s about the values they represent. It’s about who gets celebrated, who gets silenced, and who gets to decide the future.