Founding Fathers spirit found in Kaepernick protest,” an opinion piece published by The Hill on Sept. 1, argued that the San Francisco quarterback’s decision to remain seated during the national anthem was an expression of his right to freedom of speech. The essay’s author, Hamilton student Charles Dunst ’18, wrote “This is a defining principle of the United States – the principle he has the right to say whatever he wants, no matter how despicable the public may see it to be. … Kaepernick, due to the First Amendment, is undoubtedly allowed to protest, in the way that he did, without fear of government retribution.”

about Charles Dunst ’18

Major: World Politics

Hometown: New York, N.Y.

Highschool: The Dalton School

more about government

Later in his essay Dunst criticized the Republican Party. “The same party who has embraced a slogan indicating that America is not yet great has still decided it’s reasonable to assail Kaepernick for expressing the same sentiment. The Right, it seems, is willing to vigorously defend theoretical attacks on the Second Amendment while simultaneously ignoring its predecessor.”

In closing, Dunst proclaimed, “While I criticize his action, I am proud to live in a nation where he has the freedom to act however he damn well pleases – without fear of government retribution. His action, while easily decried, exhibits the freedom and rights that make me proud to be an American.”

This is the third opinion piece written by Dunst that The Hill has published in the last two months. The first essay titled “It’s time for #NeverTrump’s childish tantrum to end,” appeared on July 21. The second, titled “Peter Thiel does not make the GOP pro-gay” appeared on July 28.

Help us provide an accessible education, offer innovative resources and programs, and foster intellectual exploration.

Site Search