By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On September 23, 2025, Tennessee State University (TSU) removed an unauthorized group known as the “Fearless Debaters” from its campus. The group, displaying controversial signage, sought to stage a “debate table” without prior permission, violating university policy. TSU officials emphasized the professionalism of its students during the incident and reaffirmed its commitment to safety. The event highlights broader tensions surrounding free speech and the deliberate targeting of HBCUs, prompting the university to review policies and strengthen security measures.
Read the original article here
Tennessee State Removes Unauthorized MAGA Group After Campus Confrontation – HBCU Buzz is a story that, frankly, doesn’t surprise me. It’s become almost predictable, hasn’t it? The echo of Charlie Kirk, the void left by his departure from the spotlight, it seems to be attracting a particular type of attention. A type of attention that, as we see here, has decided to test the waters at an HBCU. The whole scene is so carefully calibrated to provoke a reaction, almost as if it’s the main goal.
The audacity of it, though, is what truly stands out. These individuals, or “Circle Kirks” as they’re being called, show up unannounced, presenting themselves as “Fearless Debaters” on a self-proclaimed tour of HBCUs. The stated intention, to promote “open debate”, is hard to take seriously when it’s coupled with a clear agenda to contest DEI and immigration issues. It’s a recipe for conflict, and honestly, it feels like they’re looking for it. The fact that they were unauthorized and swiftly escorted off campus by university officials is the only reasonable response, and it’s exactly what should have happened.
It feels important to remember that these groups are likely not interested in genuine dialogue or understanding. They aren’t there to learn or exchange ideas; they want to make a scene. This is not about debate; it’s about trying to push buttons. It’s about causing a stir and then using any reaction, good or bad, to garner attention. They’re not there to discuss complex issues; they are there to defend their own bigotry.
The language and tactics used by these groups are also quite familiar. The reference to “DEI” and “WOKE” as things they dislike, and the way they discuss “TRANS” issues is a familiar playbook. It’s easy to see this as a modern iteration of the same old tired tropes, packaged for a new audience. The whole thing has a stench of insincerity, of people just trying to make a quick buck off the internet, just like the guy they’re clearly trying to emulate. They are simply trying to fill the void that was left, and cash in.
And it’s not hard to imagine why HBCUs might be a target. The deliberate choice to stage this kind of confrontation at a historically Black institution is almost insulting. It’s an attempt to provoke a response from a demographic, that has already suffered so much at the hands of this country, on issues they are already deeply familiar with.
The whole incident is, frankly, exhausting. There is so little trust between the people they are trying to debate and themselves that a real conversation is impossible. The modern style of debate in the age of the internet feels like a losing battle. The point, it seems, is not to have an actual debate, but to generate clicks and outrage. It’s a strategy that thrives on negativity and division.
It’s easy to see the hypocrisy in their attempts to silence those who disagree with them. The irony of those who cry censorship when their views are challenged is hard to miss. The people on the right side of the issue are understandably livid at this show of arrogance. This is about the freedom to be a racist.
What’s clear is that the university was right to act as it did. Giving them publicity, even by using their “name,” feels like playing into their game. The best response is the one that prevents them from getting the reaction they crave. The only way to win is if no one interacts with them.