Three things that came to the fore recently: the Charlie Kirk assassination, the miserable test scores of our high school seniors, and a poll showing almost forty percent of Americans prefer Socialism over Capitalism. Linking the three might not seem obvious, but hear me out.

Politics and economics, like nature, abhor a vacuum. If something important is lacking, someone will fill it. College campuses were once devoted to open debate of virtually everything. Adherence to the Socratic Method underlay the great universities of the world. Yet when Charlie Kirk came on the scene, he found that many of the great questions of the day, some of which were deciding our elections, were no longer discussed on campuses. Immigration, economics, abortion, law and order, equality vs. equity, whatever was no longer up for discussion.

Ruling out challenges to the prevailing consensus in our great institutions of learning resulted in faculties and administrations, especially in the humanities, of a single persuasion. This situation prevailed when Kirk tried to fill this void. Willing to debate the issues of the day on any campus, he faced threats, derision, and being shouted down when he tried to ask and answer questions.

Charlie Kirk wasn’t some rabble-rouser; he was just the opposite. He listened and tried to answer each question. As one can gather from this blog, I had many disagreements with Kirk’s positions, but I still wanted to hear what he had to say. At another time, this interaction was the way we progressed. Free exchange broadened our knowledge and understanding.

So, how is it in a land that supposedly values free speech, Charlie Kirk was a novelty who paid for his ideas with his life? Is our educational system at all levels designed to mold young minds or help them reach their full potential?

After spending ever more money and setting up the Department of Education at the natioal level, 45% of our seniors fail to meet the basic math standard. A third can’t read at the standard level. In a world where change is occurring at an increasingly rapid pace, how are we preparing our children for a life of learning?

The jobs we have today may not exist tomorrow. Even if they continue, they will be a lot different. Rote learning alone isn’t enough. Critical thinking enables us to learn how to learn, a skill necessary for preparing for a changing world.

In ancient Athens, Socrates posed questions to his students to challenge their positions and thoughts. This approach forced them to be open to new ideas and concepts. Organizing and researching cogent thoughts and defending them move us forward. This approach reappeared during the Renaissance, advancing our civilization.

Our granddaughter is very involved in debate at her high school. While we’re pleased that debate has broadened her thinking by forcing her to see and defend both sides of an issue, only a comparative few participate in the debate programs. How is critical thinking raised in other students? Of course, being able to read is the starting point.

It is never too early to foster peaceful discourse and openness to new ideas and concepts. Questioning leads to knowledge. We need to develop these traits before college so that students can maximize the benefits of the experience.

Education should, at a minimum, provide the tools to discern the best available information, yet almost 40% of Americans think Socialism is superior to Capitalism. Young people appear to be a key factor in the strength of Socialism and the continued decline in Capitalism’s favorability. This outcome seems counterintuitive. The record shows that people have more opportunities where Capitalism is prevalent, while Socialism has yet to record any notable success. If 40% of Americans felt the Earth was flat, we’d question what was happening. This case isn’t dissimilar.

As young people, by definition, are closer to their formal education, why are their attitudes at odds with the data? What is taught or not taught? What other areas have facts and data that we discard in favor of dogma?

Does fear of reprisal curb questions? Something is amiss on our campuses, and people like Charlie Kirk have traveled to them to expose what is going on. Like turning over a rock, what he and others found in many cases isn’t pretty. Closed-minded conformity rather than open and wide-ranging discussion is prevalent in many of our most prestigious universities.

In the early Renaissance, students hired their own teachers and could dismiss them if they failed to advance their knowledge. If the teacher provided false or useless information, they were toast. Now, students have little or no say. In fact, on some campuses, students of a particular religion and those with certain views were prevented by others from even attending class. The schools failed to uphold their rights.

Since his assassination, Kirk has been reviled by some as divisive and hateful, but they offer little in the way of example. In any case, free speech means exposure to uncomfortable things. Nazis marching in predominantly Jewish Skokie, Illinois, was allowed by the courts because the alternative restriction on our rights was worse.

English Author Evelyn Beatrice Hall had it right when she wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” You may find Charlie Kirk’s views unpalatable, but banning him could result in curtailing our rights and freedoms. Better to hear him and others like him out. We may learn something.

Maybe it’s better to look at Charlie Kirk’s death as a canary in the coal mine. Something is rotten in our educational system from beginning to end. The sooner we take steps to return to open discussion and critical thinking, the better.

Let’s consider ideas such as universal vouchers, which would allow parents to choose the schooling they believe will yield the best results for their children. University boards of directors or regents must ask if their schools are open to discussing all ideas. Open up these discussions before more people like Socrates and Kirk die prematurely for just asking questions that make some uncomfortable.