Charlie Kirk vigil cost Cal Poly $6,000 — a small price to pay for free speech | Opinion

Cal Poly spent just under $6,000 to provide security for an on-campus vigil honoring Charlie Kirk, the Republican activist who was shot dead on Sept. 10, 2025, in Orem, Utah.

That seems more than reasonable. Would we really want to risk the safety of young people in order to save $6,000?

Of course not.

Yet the university has gotten some pushback from locals who don’t believe any public dollars should pay for an event that was both political and religious in nature.

“I object to the spending of our taxpayer dollars to support either party,” one Tribune reader wrote in a letter to the editor.

Naturally, that spun off in other directions.

“Why is the city of SLO allowing public taxpayer dollars to be used to fund the “No Kings” day?” one reader posted in response to the letters.

For the record, the city of San Luis Obispo spent approximately $26,000 on street maintenance and Police and Fire Department staffing associated with the event, according to figures the city provided to The Tribune Editorial Board.

Other costs, including a city permit, traffic management and a stage, sound system and video screen, were covered by event organizers, who spent an estimated $20,000. They also provided 100 volunteers to help manage the event, most of whom had received police training in deescalation.

But why are we bickering over costs?

This should not even be up for debate; the Constitution guarantees us the right to assemble and the right to free speech — and public agencies have a duty to protect us while we exercise those freedoms.

How Kirk memorial at Cal Poly was handled

The memorial held at the Performing Arts Center in late September was sponsored by the Cal Poly chapter of Turning Point USA, a youth organization that promotes conservative values. It raised $15,000 to cover expenses, including a $6,500 facility rental fee.

Allowing the service to be held on campus was not a matter of choice for Cal Poly; public universities are obligated to respect students’ right to free speech and to provide security for their events. Universities that ignore that risk being sued and hit with serious civil penalties.

Case law clearly lays down the rules:

A 1981 U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibited “content-based discrimination,” meaning universities are legally required to give religious groups the same access to campus facilities as any other student organization. That same principle applies to student political groups.

The Supreme Court also ruled that public universities may not prohibit events — no matter how controversial — because they require additional security.

“Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob,” the court wrote in a 1992 case, Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement.

In other words, universities must be even-handed.

They can require a permit, charge a reasonable fee and impose “time, place and manner restrictions,” but they cannot tack on a surcharge for a firebrand like Milo Yiannopoulos, whose 2017 visit cost Cal Poly $46,600 for security. That’s in addition to $39,600 paid by the California State University system.

(If you think that’s expensive, UC Berkeley spent nearly $4 million during one month in 2017 to provide security for controversial events, including an appearance by Yiannopoulos.)

Free speech is not a luxury

The Supreme Court ruling makes sense.

Free speech should not be a luxury affordable only for those who can pay a significant fee to police their events.

That applies not just to universities, but also to other public spaces.

How many “No Kings” protests (or counter-protests) would take place if organizers had to reimburse local governments for security, traffic control and other services, down to the exact penny?

Besides, isn’t it far safer — and more economical — to support an organized event like the Oct. 18 march in downtown SLO than to have angry, uncontrolled mobs taking over the streets, which could very well happen if protesters were priced out of the market, so to speak.

And again, $26,000 was not an unreasonable amount.

If you’re skeptical, compare that to the $120,000 the city spent this year on St. Fratty’s Day enforcement.

A small price to pay

Everyone may not agree with the “No Kings” crowds carrying signs and chanting, or with the Turning Point USA members who venerate Charlie Kirk, but they have a constitutional right to express themselves — and to be safe while they are exercising that freedom.

And what would it say about us as a nation if we refused to provide such protection?

That we can pay police to keep us safe from criminals — but not to protect our constitutional rights?

The Trump administration already is finding plenty of other ways to curtail freedom of expression. Do we really want to impose heavy financial burdens that would make it even more difficult to exercise our constitutional rights?

We don’t believe so; $6,000 — or $26,000 — seems a very small price to pay to ensure we can all have a voice, regardless of who we are or what we want to say.