Update, Sept. 25 & 26, 2026: David French’s speech at the the BYU Forum on Sept. 24 was refreshingly non-political. It was rather short and light but very upbeat, with some funny stories of teenage pranks. He gave us a nice reminder of the importance of having diverse friendships, the need to not be socially isolated, and the importance of love and kindness. All very nice ideas that could very well have been a pleasant sacrament meeting talk. Unlike his discussion at the University of South Carolina, he did not denounce the extreme cruelty found among some of Trump’s supporters. Unlike many of his recent columns, he did not denounce Trump as an existential threat, say that he must be stopped, argue that pro-lifers should vote for Harris, nor chide those who are opposed to prolonging the war in Ukraine. The words spoken were all completely appropriate and often entertaining.
Bringing a Forum speaker onto the stage at the Marriott Center is a remarkable honor, a very big event seen by most of the student body and by thousands of others watching the broadcast event. When a person whose entire career is about writing is so recognized, that recognition cannot fail to also celebrate the writings of that person. When these writings are highly political, a political statement has been made. When the honor occurs right before an election, the timing makes the political message all the more obvious. The same thing happens with the giving of public awards. Being named, honored, and handed a cash award in a large, highly publicized and broadcast event sends powerful messages in support of what the recipient stands for, even if they only smile and say nothing. Not a word needs to be spoken for political implications to be present.
Sadly, few universities today have any restraint when it comes to political activism. Parents are often shocked to see that their child has been programmed to march for Hamas or other leftist causes, and may have had no idea how pervasive political indoctrination has become at the school that they are giving so much of their income to. BYU should be different, IMO. Parents sending children to BYU typically expect that it will be a place that reinforces virtuous values and helps students maintain or strengthen testimonies, but they generally do not wish it to be a tool that overtly or covertly works to support any political party. So for you who are offended about my concern, please explain how selecting an outspoken Never Trumper for the only Forum slot before the presidential election does not send a political message, no matter how tame and brief the actual remarks were?
Had the speaker been a vocal Trump loyalist such as radio host Mark Levin, concerns about the timing and selection would have been equally legitimate, though it likely would not have been necessary for me to point that out given the outcry from faculty and media that likely would have occurred. If Levin were selected as the Forum speaker and he gave an equally funny and upbeat sermon on something relatively non-political like “Let’s be nice to each other (and try not to exterminate Jews, please),” it would still be fair to ask why he was selected when his voice is so well known as a pro-Trump, anti-Democrat speaker. Those who complained about the decision, especially the timing, would not be wrong just because there were no overt political messages were uttered in the talk. The political messaging would have been done just by inviting the person and handing them a check coupled with thunderous applause. Of course, every speaker may have personal political leanings, so some common sense is needed here. If the person is a celebrity because of their political speech, then political implications cannot be eradicated. Even if BYU leaders felt Levin was the most entertaining, uplifting speaker of all time and had his assurances that he would not touch politics, it would still be imperative that he be invited after the election, not days before, to at last avoid the appearance of improper political messaging.
Again, David French’s spoken words were fine. Perhaps BYU wisely worked with him to require absolutely no political content, but whatever led to this departure from his tone over the past year or so was a welcome relief. But his many well-known written words were not drowned out by a few gentle spoken ones. The question still remains as to why he was selected for a BYU Forum when there are so many thousands of great academics, writers, artists, and thinkers who could have done much more to share knowledge and profound insights from their areas of expertise. Further, honoring a notable icon of anti-Trumpism right before the election is still a move with obvious political implications, especially given its timing. Right before an election, how can an institution choose to publicly honor and recognize a politically vocal writer without sending a message about his writings?
Last Tuesday, my wife and I watched the BYU TV broadcast of a devotional featuring Elder Patrick Kearon, an Apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and his wife, Jennifer. Both were inspiring, intelligent, and thoroughly interesting speakers who positively influenced the many thousands of students attending this event. These weekly Tuesday gatherings at the large Marriott Center, called “devotionals” when there is a Church-related speaker and “forums” when someone notable outside the Church is invited to speak, are an important part of BYU culture and were a vital part of my education there many years ago. To my surprise, however, BYU President Shane Reese announced that the speaker next Tuesday for the first forum of the semester (one of only three forums on BYU’s fall schedule) would be a rather controversial speaker from The New York Times, David French.
BYU students might wish to understand who David French is in order to properly digest and consider his message. Some students and especially some faculty members at BYU might have opportunities to interact with Mr. French and ask questions about his positions and whatever message he chooses to share. But some of you may also wish to ask the simplest question of all: why? Among the thousands of luminaries that could be invited to be a rare forum speaker, why has BYU invited David French, an outspoken political voice, to influence thousands of students in the weeks immediately before a presidential election?
Ah, but what’s the problem? Mr. French seems like a very nice man who describes himself as an “evangelical” and a “conservative,” and speaks out in favor or religious freedom and other good causes, so of course his values must be somewhat aligned with the values of the Church and BYU, right? Parents who have been concerned about woke indoctrination and liberal agendas being pushed upon their kids at BYU by some departments or professors may well be relieved to see a conservative outside speaker coming to campus to influence students. Bravo!
We don’t know what French is going to say in his remarks, but to be a prepared listener, as well as a prepared questioner and thinker, and even a prepared parent or grandparent, we do know what French has said, especially very recently. French has repeatedly expressed great concern about political violence — a concern all of us likely share — but to me it’s an odd kind of concern that only seems to fret about the violence of Trump supporters and the existential threat some of them and certainly Trump pose to our democracy. Not the kind of concern that wonders if we perhaps should be denouncing war and proclaiming peace a little more, or should also be worried about left-wing radicals trying to assassinate demonized political candidates, left-wing groups actually burning buildings down, or a weaponized Department of Justice going after political opponents.
Earlier this week on Sept. 15, just two days after a second assassination attempt on the life of Donald Trump — something that mainstream media outlets told us was his fault for his violent rhetoric — French wrote an article for the New York Times warning that Trump’s opposition to prolonging the bloody war in Ukraine (pro tip for students: war is actually a form of political violence) made him a danger — a danger that apparently needed to be stopped:
Trump’s reluctance to say the plain truth — that a Ukrainian victory is in America’s national interest — demonstrates that he is still a prisoner to his own grievances, and there is no one left who can stop him from doing his worst. (David French, “Why Trump Won’t Say He Wants Ukraine to Win,” New York Times, Sept. 15, 2024)
In my opinion, the extreme language of Trump haters talking about the need to punch him in the face, take him behind the barn, or doing whatever it takes to stop the “existential threat” to “our democracy” itself from a man often compared to Hitler, might be just the kind of thing that can drive some unstable or easily manipulated person into doing what we have seen twice now: attempting to assassinate a former president running again for office. French wrote about Trump shortly after the second assassination attempt, without mentioning the attempted violence, without condemning it, without calling for an end of the use violence to stop Trump. Instead, he worried that “there is no one left who can stop him.” He’s not calling for violence of course, and I believe he is a gentleman trying to be true to his own values who wants to stop Trump in a peaceful way. However, the word “stop” was used earlier in French’s piece to express his goal for the Ukraine war, the need to “stop Putin” to achieve peace. Is it possible that someone might read those words and somehow conclude that Trump needs to be stopped just like Putin needs to be stopped, with violent force?
Could French’s harsh words be viewed as another example of rhetoric that might unintentionally promote violent attitudes? Out of caution, perhaps Mr. French will apologize for any such misunderstanding and denounce left-wing violence as well. Perhaps, as part of his apology, he will call for respect and understanding for diverse views including those of Trump supporters.
French’s entire Sept. 15 article could be a valuable exercise in understanding media bias with many claims that don’t bear scrutiny. If you use a free-speech platform like Twitter, you may have seen part of a town council meeting in Springfield, Ohio and a police report that may undermine some of French’s lambasting of Trump. Whether the incidents involving pets actually happened or not is another question, but the actual reports made by citizens certainly count as evidence of trouble, contrary to what ABC’s “fact-checkers” reported. The concerns expressed were based on real reports, perhaps erroneous in the end, but certainly reflective of the genuine trouble that certainly can come when 20,000 newcomers are brought to a small town unprepared to handle such a flood of people. French and his peers in the media wish to paint concerns about such excesses as racist, but this overlooks the real challenges both for the newcomers and the residents of many towns. For his rather alarmist statements about a genuinely alarming problem with mass immigration, Trump and his remarks are denounced as “dreadful,” “inexcusable,” “dangerous,” “deranged,” suffering from “instability,” etc. No acknowledgement of the real-life problems that many Americans face due to our open borders. It’s just racism and unhinged anger that fuels the concerns of Trump and his bitter flock.
French also says Trump believes in a “fictional conspiracy” about the links between one of the world’s most corrupt nations, Ukraine, and the Biden family. Perhaps he is right, but there is room for reasonable people to be suspicious about the flow of money to and from Ukraine. There is room to question the alleged virtue of dumping over $100 billion into a receipts-free cesspool in the name of upholding “democracy” in a corrupt nation now being run without elections (pro tip: elections used to considered an essential indicator of “democracy”), without freedom of religion or of the press, and without transparency on where all that money goes. Students may wish to ask what exactly is the democracy part of this war that must be fought and funded at all costs? Must we really be determined to fight to the last Ukrainian? For those worried about the financial incentives for war, it may be obvious and concerning that huge profits are being made. Could there be corruption? Or rather, how could there not be? Why can’t we ask about that? (Pro tip: BYU students and professors, armed with the Book of Mormon’s core teachings on war, corruption, freedom, and secret combinations, might have the tools at their disposal to ask better questions, seek better answers, and track the money and the power at stake.) But to French, those doubting the virtue of our endless war in Ukraine are the threat to democracy.
There are a few more recent comments from French that might be good starting points for further conversation. After the Colorado Supreme Court improperly tried to take Trump off the ballot, on Jan. 15, 2024 French endorsed that decision and warned that such action was urgently needed to achieve “stability” and avoid political violence:
There’s no doubt that knocking Trump off the ballot would send shock waves through the American body politic, but why would anyone believe that it’s inherently less destabilizing if Trump runs?
We already know what he does when he loses. For him, counting the votes is only the beginning of the battle. If he loses, he’ll challenge the results, conspire to overturn the election and incite political violence.
And if he wins? Then you have an insurrectionist in command of the most powerful military in the world, who is hellbent on seeking vengeance on his political enemies. Does anything at all sound stabilizing about that? (David French, “Disqualify Trump (or Else),” New York Times, Jan. 15, 2024
His closing paragraph urges that “the court should not overthink its task” bur rather should just go ahead and quickly disqualify Trump. Another interesting topic for students to consider is whether the most momentous and contentious issues of our day should be given careful thought and analysis, or if quick cursory decisions should be made without the risk of “overthinking” (i.e., worrying too much about the legal correctness and consequences of the decision).
One of his most interesting recent publications is a podcast for The New York Times with the intriguing title, “David French on the Pro-Life Case for Kamala Harris,” presented Aug. 19, 2024. He attacks Trump on several issues — here I must admit he shares some of my own concerns — but then suggests that it’s somehow Trump’s fault that abortions increased during his term in office and that because of French’s pro-life views, he feels that he must vote for Kamala Harris. This will make for another valuable conversation that parents, professors and students can have as they discuss how the Senator with one of the most extreme voting records in modern times on social issues, supporting abortion with essentially ZERO restrictions (even voting against the Born Alive Infant Survivors Protection Act in 2019), might appear as a good way support the pro-life movement. Spoiler alert: he does offer an apparent explanation in the podcast. Here’s the reasoning:
Here’s the way I would put it. I think there are ample opportunities for the pro-life movement to work with a Harris administration to enact policies that will make abortion less appealing as an alternative for women. So, for example, I have long supported the Biden administration’s efforts to create an expanded child tax credit. I do think that there are policies that are aimed at improving the lives of young mothers that pro-life people can work with the Harris administration on.
Hmm. How many young, vulnerable lives are going to be saved by adding a tax credit? Maybe some added free baby seats and diapers will bring abortions way down at last? Just like food stamps and bail reforms are bringing down crime in California? That sounds naive to me, but French clears that up in his next line: “I’m not naive.” Sorry, that doesn’t resolve my concern. I’m grateful for past work he has done to defend religious freedom on campuses and to support some aspects of the pro-life cause, but if he is comfortable with Harris’s stance on abortion, I’m deeply puzzled.
Whether French is naive or not is beside the point, though. I hope BYU students and faculty will attend French’s talk and listen with an informed perspective and come away from it free from naive, irrational world views and not be quick to accept someone as trustworthy just because they have a degree from Harvard, the support of The New York Times, and claim to share some of your values.
I hope that French will not push his political views in any overt way in his speech. However, he has not exactly shied away from political messages at other universities, though he has been relatively civil about it. Consider his topic for a discussion at the University of South Carolina on April 20, 2023, as shown in the promotional image below. The discussion for the most part is not really about “Christian Nationalism,” as the title suggests, but he apparently agreed to this title. “Christian Nationalism” is a loaded term that seems to be used as a tool by opponents of Christianity to frighten people about the threat of Christians who oppose globalism (the opposite of nationalism). Though the definition of this pejorative term varies widely, one common aspect is that if you are Christian and patriotic about your own country, and don’t like globalism or the “international order” possibly threatened by Trump that David French mentioned in his Sept. 15 piece, then you are a danger. While I don’t think French even used that term in his discussion, he did speak of the dangers of Trump’s supporters allegedly wanting to blend their religion with that state. And he said, “I have never in my life encountered more vile cruelty than I have encountered from often-Christian Trumpists” (45:10-30 in the video, “David French on Christian Nationalism and the New Right: The 2023 Barnes Symposium,” Univ. of South Carolina, April 2023, YouTube.com). In a world flooded with cruelty, the most severe problem appears to be those deranged Trump supporters. On the other hand, the talk was far from vitriolic, in my view and relatively slow moving, though it still was politically loaded.
For another (evangelical) perspective on “Christian Nationalism,” see Trent hunter, “The Inception of Christian Nationalism,” Christ Over All, 2023.
David French is certainly a well-known writer, part of the many diverse voices in our society, and should be listened to with respect. But when it comes to diversity of thought, it’s fair to recognize that his fierce opposition of Trump and Trump supporters is part of what he stands for, and that the intense rhetoric from him and most of our firmly anti-Trump mainstream media is part of a collective, relatively unified voice that we have been hearing in abundance for the past several years. Will BYU students be exposed to a uniquely new, diverse voice on Tuesday? I hope so, but if he sticks with his recent themes, perhaps not. Consider the diversity of topics he has tackled in his latest columns for the Times, where from Sept. 8 to Sept. 19, five columns in a row involved Trump and the MAGA movement, and most of the rest of the listed columns are anti-Trump or pro-Harris.
The “conservative” and “pro-life” spin French offers may add a touch of diversity to the normal assaults on all things Trump, though these labels may be debatable (perhaps it depends on what your definition of “life” is). Students should be prepared to look past labels and spin, being ready to ask tough questions about what they may hear on Tuesday, especially the toughest question of all: why? Why another noted anti-Trump spokesman right before the elections?
_________
Postscript, Sept. 27, 2024:
As a final note, this Forum event not only strengthened the influence and credibility of an outspoken political voice (who fortunately stayed politically quiet on stage), but also that of his employer, The New York Times. Their historical role in advocating for certain movements and candidates is likely unknown by many students, but is easy to verify. As a few hints of their orientation, consider their actions during the years of terror and famine that Stalin brought to Russia, including the horrific famine in Ukraine known as the Holomodor. Many lives could have been saved and perhaps Stalin’s power could have been greatly weakened if the world knew what was happening, but the Times through the voice of Walter Duranty repeatedly denied reports of famine and praised Stalin’s work, giving crucial aid to Stalin. Duranty would receive a Pulitzer Prize for his compromised coverage. Tens of millions would die from the failure of Marxism in the Soviet Union, but the truth was suppressed for decades.
When Castro was ascending to power in Cuba, Americans were repeatedly assured by the Times that credible reports about Castro being a Communist were just misinformation. Definitely not a Communist, just a youthful “agrarian reformer” who, the Times told us, was actually opposing Communists. It was all a lie that helped Castro gain public and material support. More recently, they were the publishers of the discredited 1619 Project, which built on Marxist Critical Race Theory while rewriting history. During the pandemic, they would support censorship of information about COVID’s origins and promoted draconian lockdowns that went against developed principles of public health and basic science, but vastly expanded the power of would-be tyrants.
On the birthday of Karl Marx in 2018, they ran the editorial, “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!” The professor writing that column urged us to keep “testing [Marx’s] ideas until the kind of society that he struggled to bring about, and that increasing numbers of us now desire, is finally realized.” What happens when that kind of society is realized? We should learn from the tragic trajectories of Cuba, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, China (until they formally abandoned collectivism in 1978 following a daring economic revolution that reinvented basic principles of capitalism), North Korea, Cambodia during its Communist era, and many other tragedies. The ideals of The New York Times, the widely praised voice of the Establishment, should not be casually accepted. If students only hear praise for that organization during their years at BYU, a true liberal education has not yet begun.
He’s a “conservative” who happens to be voting for Kamala Harris. The Harris-Walz ticket is the most left-wing ticket in American history. Walz himself is a crypto-Communist who has spent decades telling people about how great Chinese communism has been. Harris grew up with a Marxist father and her record in the Senate was the most left wing of any senator on record. None of this is in dispute. Anyone who says differently is gaslighting or is a lying liar.
Now why would a “conservative” like French vote for the Harris ticket? Sounds like he’s drunk the same Uniparty koolaid as Dick Cheney.
I actually hope nobody shows up to his address. Rows of empty seats is what French deserves.
So sorry David French is speaking at BYU on September 24. Sadness. I love your article.
The author of this article appears to be suspicious of David French and appears to be sowing that suspicion.
David French actually encourages kindness.
Hopefully the author will feel differently about him after his talk.
Nearly every public figure encourages kindness at times. Glad he did so on the stage. But the harsh rhetoric against Trump supporters that he has used in recent months may not always be perceived as kind. If his persistent message were just all about kindness, I doubt he’d be writing for the New York Times or have even a fraction of the attention he’s been given.
100% the right move by BYU, and I hope David French will speak at General Conference next. I am *appaled* that we have to explain to members of the church, who claim to believe in moral integrity and a divinely inspired American Constitution, that Trump is a cancer. But since we do, let’s shout it out so the people in the back can hear. I have two degrees from BYU and I’ve never been prouder of my alma matter.
If you watch the forum address which Mr. French delivered, I think you will find these concerns unjustified and unfair.
What’s unfair about seeing the impropriety in giving honor and credibility to a vocal political writer and his even more vocal employer right before the election?
Did you actually listen to the speech or not? What are you so afraid of? Why not just post your resounding support for Trump, since that’s the obvious subtext? What are you afraid of, Jeff?
Of course I listened to the speech. Did you not read my Sept. 25 update?
Opposing improper political messaging doesn’t mean someone is driven by fear. If you speak out when someone puts a thumb on the scales when buying a steak, are you filled with fear?