Politics
College Students on the State of Public Discourse Following Charlie Kirk’s Death
The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has spurred public discourse on political violence and the rhetoric that perpetuates it.
Reactions to Kirk’s death range from anger and grief to indifference and relief, revealing the longstanding chasm in American political ideology. Even more so, the divide between Gen Z men and women. While young people have historically leaned left, more young people than ever are aligning themselves with conservatism, especially men. Part of this shift can be attributed to Kirk and his nonprofit Turning Point USA, where he sought to politically engage young people.
Kirk was honored over the weekend with a memorial service at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., and at an anti-immigrant rally in London.
At the same time, others made light of the MAGA figure’s death or examined his legacy under a critical lens.
DePaul University senior Maya Roman wasn’t familiar with Kirk before his assassination.
Soon after the news broke, she went down an internet rabbit hole researching him, and felt conflicting emotions after learning what he stood for.
“I firmly believe no one in the United States should ever die from gun violence,” Roman said. “At the same time, though, I know what he stood for, the hate that he caused and the harm that he encouraged. So, it’s really hard seeing someone who posed such harmful rhetoric eventually falling victim to the rhetoric that he was so steadfast for.”
Kirk is perhaps best known for his debate videos and the “Prove Me Wrong” mantra of Turning Point USA.
Part of his model was going to college campuses and opening up a dialogue with the students present. At these events, scores of young people would line up for the opportunity to debate Kirk. The caveat: those who disagreed with him go first.
For Illinois State University senior Braiden Gonzalez, that openness to reach across the aisle was what drew him to Kirk’s messaging.
“America is special because we talk,” said Gonzalez, who serves as the vice president of College Republicans at ISU. “If you look around the world, there’s all these laws that impede on people’s freedom of speech. America is just that standout country, and so political violence is the very opposite of the American experience.”
Gonzalez said he and his conservative peers felt inspired to talk more openly about their views, and thought that “maybe this is how we fix America.”
Kirk’s assassination follows a string of politically motivated attacks. Notably, the murders of Minnesota House of Representatives Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman; arson at Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s mansion while he and his family slept inside; and the two assassination attempts against President Donald Trump.
Divisive, incendiary language followed shortly after Kirk was killed.
At a news conference held by local group Chicago Flips Red, member Dennis White had this to say: “You shot Charlie Kirk and killed him. Some of the liberals were happy. Now, this is an act of war. We at war with JB Pritzker; we at war with Brandon Johnson. If we have to fight back against the liberals, then so be it. We will fight until nobody can’t fight no more.”
Trump blamed Kirk’s death on “violent, leftist rhetoric,” and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said that the suspected shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, whose voter registration records show he is unaffiliated, was radicalized and held “leftist ideology.”
The motive of the fatal shooting is still unknown.
Columbia College Chicago senior Sydney Richardson, who serves as the deputy editor of the Columbia Chronicle, said she isn’t surprised by the varying degrees of speculation.
However, she noted her peers on campus are more focused on discussing the rhetoric Kirk championed rather than the attack.
“Part of free speech is that, naturally, people aren’t always going to agree,” Richardson said. “I’ve seen a lot in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing — condemnations of his messages. If we’re saying that Charlie Kirk left behind a legacy of free speech, that is an extension of it — for people to criticize his message after he’s gone.”
