Charlie Kirk Act Moves Past House Education Committee After Stern Discussions
Charlie Kirk speaking at AmFest 2024 (Courtesy of Turning Point USA)
A bill that some critics argue crosses the barriers of the separation of church and state is one step closer to becoming state law.
House Bill 1476, colloquially known as the Charlie Kirk Act, has drawn staunch support and outrage along party lines due to its namesake, as well as concerns of redundancy and protecting some speech more than others.
The bill’s sponsor, Representative Gino Bulso, R-Brentwood, said it would be put in place to require colleges and universities to do three things: adopt a free speech policy identical to the one the University of Chicago adopted in 2014, adopt a political action and social action policy consistent with the Kalven Report, and refuse to disinvite speakers based on their viewpoints or because faculty members or student groups object to the speaker’s presence.
Tense Discussions
Representative Sam McKenzie, D-Knoxville, argued that the bill legitimizes the late conservative activist’s views and ideologies, including that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “a mistake,” that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was a “DEI hire,” and his promotion of the Great Replacement theory.
McKenzie called the bill an attempt to “legitimize Charlie Kirk’s worldview,” which he purported some people find “racist, harmful, and fundamentally un-American.”
Bulso refuted McKenzie’s claims and defended Kirk’s beliefs about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a matter of policy difference and not racism, citing it as “an expansion of federal reach” at the time. Bulso also said Kirk was “100 percent correct” about Ketanji Brown Jackson being a “DEI hire.”
“The gentleman who appointed her, President Joe Biden, before he ever selected her, said he was going to select a black woman to put on the Supreme Court, and I think all of us here can agree it's inappropriate for any president to appoint anyone who is not the most well qualified jurist in the country for that position, and to limit the pool of potential appointees to the US Supreme Court based on race and gender, is itself a racist act,” Bulso said.
McKenzie responded tersely, calling the statement “totally, totally vile.”
“You look at the resume of every Supreme Court Justice, hers stands out,” McKenzie said. “I don't care what Joe Biden, Donald Trump, or anybody else said. I don't care. I want to say other words, but I'm into this microphone right now, so I won't, but that is ridiculous.”
The legislation now heads to the House Judiciary Committee for a vote next week. The Senate passed that chamber’s version of the bill last week.
This legislation isn’t the only one to carry Charlie Kirk’s name this year. Both chambers passed the Charlie Kirk Heritage Act last month.
