By Rita Cook
Correspondent
Texas Metro News
Credit Senate.Texas.gov
AUSTIN – Last month Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Texas Speaker of the House Dustin Burrows announced the formation of Senate and House Select Committees on Civil Discourse & Freedom of Speech in Higher Education.
The notion is that the select committees will meet jointly to study and issue reports on bias, discourse, and freedom of speech across Texas college campuses.
The idea to form the committees came from the death of Charlie Kirk. A death that is still swirling in contradiction by many who have delved deep into the facts of that day.
While encouraging freedom of speech not only at college campuses, but throughout the state and the nation is a top priority, let us hope it is a bipartisan priority. Let us hope it is well intentioned and not just aimed toward the good of only one side of the aisle or the other.
Indeed, as it was noted when the committee formations were rolled out “The State of Texas has a responsibility to ensure its publicly funded institutions foster open dialogue and do not discriminate against students, faculty, or staff based on their beliefs.”
To that end, Patrick said “The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition. It is the First Amendment because it is the foundation of all our rights. In that list, the free exercise of religion is paramount. Take away a person’s right to free exercise of religion and every other right falls quickly. Charlie Kirk was my friend. He was assassinated for simply expressing his First Amendment rights. The attack on Charlie was an attack on the First Amendment. Those who cheered his murder are also cheering for the death of America. We cannot tolerate either at our institutions of higher learning.”
The attack on a Democrat speaking at a college campus would also be as heinous, wouldn’t it?
Burrows’ comments on the matter were framed toward the “public celebration of his [Kirk’s] murder by some in higher education” and he said this behavior is “appalling and reveals a deeper, systemic problem worth examining.”
Indeed, it does. Let us also remember, no matter the side of the aisle if the person is not inciting violence the person has a right to free speech.
Let us also remember too, free speech when it comes to protesting peacefully.
The recent protest called “No Kings” was a peaceful protest. For some reason though, in this case the red side of the aisle had a problem with this free speech when it was what they termed “democrats” protesting and using their same First Amendment right.
You can’t pick and choose the place and time for peaceful free speech to be allowed versus not allowed.
While I am not saying I agree 100% with the Texas Democrats, I do think it was a bit heavy handed for our Texas Governor Greg Abbott to deploy National Guard and DPS Troopers to the peaceful No Kings Rally protests.
Texas Democratic Party Chairman Kendall Scudder said, “Greg Abbott is doing everything he can to suck up to Donald Trump, including taking a page from Trump’s authoritarian playbook, and intimidating people exercising their First Amendment right.”
Whatever these committees that Patrick and Burrows have concocted to save the First Amendment, all power to it. But it had better be a power that both parties can agree is for “we the people.” If not, it just becomes another overblown, idealistic, diversion that suggests, as Texas House of Representatives Minority Leader Gene Wu mentioned goes against “The Texas we love built on freedom from tyranny, not submission to it.”
Rita Cook is a world traveler and writer/editor who specializes in writing on travel, auto, crime and politics. A correspondent for Texas Metro News, she has published 11 books and has also produced low-budget films.
