Part of GW’s appeal is the ideologically diverse speakers community members bring to campus. The University frequently invites prominent people from both sides of the aisle working in politics, law and international affairs. In recent months, the University has faced backlash from students for permitting groups to bring far-right-wing politicians to campus, like Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has promoted controversial and misleading rhetoric surrounding public health. Many students protested his presence on campus, arguing that the University has a responsibility not to platform people who discredit science and facts. 

Recently, Turning Point USA announced their college tour, with guests White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and CEO of Turning Point Erika Kirk coming in as speakers on Tuesday, April 2. GW, as a higher education institution, has an obligation to promote academic integrity and the truth. This event raises the question of how officials can create space for speakers from diverse backgrounds while also ensuring they don’t amplify voices that have a record of spreading misinformation or harmful rhetoric.

But if GW is going to bring in figures who have a history of spouting inaccurate information, then they should proactively offer fact-checking resources and contextual information in advance. GW could play a more active role in educating students to critically interact with events like this. This would entail sending a campus-wide email before the event that not only tells the students about the speakers but also includes links to reliable, impartial fact-checking resources and credible reporting that puts speakers’ prior statements in context.

Leavitt has a history of making statements that are untrue and hurtful to certain communities, which raises questions about why GW is allowing TPUSA to host an event on campus. For example, she claimed that the United States spent $50 million on condoms for Gaza, which was proven by Reuters to be false. On Jan. 15, during a briefing, a journalist brought up the case of Renee Good, who was tragically killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent back in January. The journalist questioned ICE’s actions and why the agency unjustifiably treated individuals, and instead of engaging with the question, Leavitt claimed the reporter was a “left-wing hack” who “is posing as a journalist.” TPUSA has been known to spread misinformation and hateful rhetoric towards minority groups, make untrue claims about issues, like climate change, and call for an end to dual citizenship. In addition, TPUSA CEO Erika Kirk, the wife of Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated by a 22-year-old man back in September, has been a platform for harmful rhetoric, notably calling anti-ICE protests “demonic.”

This is not an event GW is hosting, but it is a TPUSA event that the University permitted to take place on campus. It is geared towards GW students and, in turn, that is going to be the audience. In this context, the problem is institutional responsibility rather than limiting free speech. I believe GW needs to be more deliberate when these events take place on campus — they have an obligation as a credited institution to ensure that the truth is being said and to have a standard of factually accurate information. Though GW is not actively hosting this event, the University community will be impacted by its contents. When a speaker talks on campus, they are entering a common intellectual space where staff, instructors and students are encouraged to interact critically with ideas. The presence of such speakers has an impact on the larger campus atmosphere and the type of conversation it fosters, regardless of whether the University is the official host. Overall, 56 percent of Americans share political news posts on social media, with more than half not verifying the information beforehand. This shows how misinformation is so easily spread and rampant in today’s society. This concern should extend beyond political affiliation as the core issue is not which party is represented but whether the ideas being platformed contribute to informed, constructive dialogue or undermine it. 

This is where the conversation extends beyond free speech. It becomes about responsibility. Universities should absolutely remain spaces that protect free expression, even when ideas are controversial or unpopular. However, free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It also comes with consequences, especially when speakers have a history of spreading misinformation or engaging with rhetoric that targets and dismisses marginalized communities. I believe censorship is not the solution — it is engagement. I believe the first stage to preparing for moments like these is awareness. This entails listening to communities who have been personally impacted by their rhetoric and fact checking a providing reliable sources. It is essential for us as students to research who is speaking, in addition to GW providing what stances they have previously held, and how these stances might have affected various communities. Without this action, we run the risk of contributing passively to the spreading of false information. But with it, we are more capable of questioning, challenging and having these meaningful conversations. 

In the past, GW has hosted events like “How Science Lost America and how to get it back,” in 2023, which demonstrates a more structured, scholarly approach to politically or societally charged topics by partnering with credible science journals. This even offered students tools ot evaluate sources, question narratives and engage in informed dialogue. Encouraging students to do so even when the event is not directly tied to GW allows students to help keep that culture of truth and intelligent dialogue.

I believe that, as students, if we choose to attend these events, it is important to assess these statements in real time rather than taking them at face value. GW should and has encouraged students to tap into easily accessible and trustworthy fact-checking sources. This can include sharing links to reputable fact-checking organizations and encouraging students to talk to their professors about any questions they might have. A method for ensuring this can be sending out emails before events with these resources, so students can engage with that information. In addition to partnering with academic departments or student organizations to host fact-checking workshops or post-event discussions. This fosters a culture of accountability in an academic setting, in addition to strengthening critical thinking on an individual basis. GW has been known for its active political culture, and because of this, it is essential to encourage students to do so and allow them to exercise those fact-checking abilities in a political setting.

The problem is fundamentally about more than a single speaker or event. It has to do with the type of intellectual atmosphere that institutions, not just GW, decide to foster. If GW is dedicated to both academic integrity and diversity of opinion, it must also be dedicated to making sure that these principles do not compromise responsibility or the truth. You have to separate truth from ideology that is false and can create confusion and conflict. The ultimate goal is to ensure that when students hear different viewpoints, they are prepared to meet them with intelligence and educated engagement. This is how a university meets its actual purpose, which is to serve as a forum of truth and discussion. Free speech is a non-negotiable, but truth matters — especially at a university.