Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter

If you want to understand the modern American university, don’t look at the course catalog. Look at the posters. On one side of the hall, you’ll see Che Guevara—his brooding face immortalized on a blood-red background, the archetypal rebel without a conscience. On the other, if you’re lucky enough to stumble into the rare conservative dorm, you’ll spot Charlie Kirk—neatly dressed, smiling, and speaking into a microphone. Two men who couldn’t be more different, yet somehow, they’ve become competing icons in campus culture. The irony? The executioner is the hero, and the debater is the villain.

Che, the Campus Rockstar

Che Guevara is sold on campuses as a symbol of defiance against “the system.” Professors cite him with romantic flair. Students plaster his image on walls, T-shirts, and coffee mugs. He’s the Marxist Elvis, forever frozen in youthful rebellion.

But the actual Che is harder to market once you read his words. In his writings, Guevara once sneered, “The negro is indolent and lazy, and spends his money on frivolities.” and dismissed Mexicans as “a band of illiterate Indians.” Try to imagine the national outrage if Charlie Kirk uttered anything remotely similar. We’d have CNN breaking news chyrons and campus-wide vigils.

And then there’s Che’s view of homosexuality. Under his revolutionary watch, gays were sent to labor camps in Cuba, with slogans like “Work will make them men.” Homosexuality, he insisted, was a symptom of bourgeois decadence, unworthy of revolutionary purity. This was not a passing comment—it was policy. If Che were alive today, he’d likely be canceling drag shows with firing squads, not rainbow flags.

Yet in academia, Che gets a hall pass. His racism? “Historical context.” His homophobia? “Complicated times.” Apparently, a stylish beret and a photogenic glare are enough to excuse bigotry and brutality.

Charlie, the Campus Villain

Now compare that to Charlie Kirk, a man whose “crime” was advocating for capitalism, free speech, and borders. Kirk has been accused of everything short of witchcraft for saying things like, “The free-market system is the greatest anti-poverty program ever created.” Dangerous stuff. Or “I’m not against immigration; I’m against illegal immigration.” If he had said that in Havana in the 1960s, Che would have rolled his eyes and reached for his pistol. On today’s campuses, such statements spark protests, disruptions, and “safe space” alerts.

Charlie Kirk has also said, “America is the greatest country ever to exist.” In normal America, that’s a patriotic platitude. In the ivory towers, it’s heresy. For these offenses, Kirk was treated like he was plotting to burn down the student union, when in fact, all he was plotting was another Q&A session with students holding iPhones and protest signs.

Unlike Che, Kirk hasn’t executed political enemies or sent minorities to camps. His words are searchable, quotable, and public. And yet the same institutions that excuse Che’s racist tirades and homophobic policies brand Charlie Kirk as the embodiment of bigotry.

The Narrative Gap

Why the double standard? Because universities thrive on narrative. Che fits the myth: the romantic revolutionary who fought “the man.” Charlie Kirk disrupts the myth: he questioned progressive orthodoxy and dared to say America isn’t evil. Che represents rebellion, even if it was violent, racist, and tyrannical. Kirk represents dissent, even though it’s peaceful, rational, and factual.

This is not merely hypocrisy—it’s willful blindness. Che would have despised the very activists who idolize him today. The same students who celebrate his image as a symbol of freedom would have been condemned by him as bourgeois degenerates. Meanwhile, Charlie Kirk is the one who would actually sit down, take questions, and engage them in debate.

The Real Lesson of the Posters

The poster contrast tells the real story of American academia. The revolutionary executioner is lionized. The conservative speaker is vilified. One gets a coffee mug in the campus bookstore; the other gets a campus-wide protest. And yet, the record is crystal clear: Che Guevara was a racist, a homophobe, and a murderer. Charlie Kirk was guilty of promoting free markets and border security.

If hypocrisy were a varsity sport, American higher education would never lose a game. Students chant slogans against “hate,” while idolizing a man who institutionalized it. They tear down flyers of conservative speakers, while proudly wearing a revolutionary who despised the very freedoms they demand.

Conclusion

Che vs. Charlie is not a contest of ideas. It’s a contest of selective memory. One man’s brutal legacy is airbrushed into mythology, while the other man’s mainstream conservative positions are distorted into caricature. That tells you more about academia than it does about either man.

So, the next time you walk through a dorm hallway and see Che’s face staring down at you, remember you’re looking at a racist, homophobic enforcer of tyranny. And when you see Charlie Kirk, remember: his “dangerous” ideas include capitalism, borders, and free speech.

If America’s universities can’t tell the difference, perhaps it’s time we ask whether they still deserve their reputation as centers of higher learning—or whether they’ve simply become the world’s most expensive funhouse mirrors.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘