The Kirk Assassination and the Breakdown of Civil Discourse
The conservative activist Charlie Kirk wasn’t just murdered on Wednesday. He was killed for engaging in a fundamentally American activity—public debate. America’s future depends on all of us rejecting such violence and recommitting ourselves to reasoned discourse.
It’s tough to overstate the significance of where Charlie Kirk was, what he was doing, and why the killer’s actions represent a danger to us all. To my knowledge, Mr. Kirk is the first American public figure to be assassinated literally in the act of public dialogue, and this is a key to understanding the cultural meaning of the attack. Kirk did not deliver speeches and denunciations when he visited campuses. On Wednesday, he was taking questions from students, as was his practice. Under the banner “Prove Me Wrong,” he vigorously yet respectfully stated his political views in give-and-take exchanges with all-comers. Such vibrant discussion once defined the campus experience, where the pursuit of truth depends on the free exchange of ideas.
The setting of Kirk’s murder reminds us of an old truth: the dark alternative to persuasion is force. Where discourse breaks down, violence often follows. The alternative to dialogue is not merely quiet retreat into our private lives; it is often war.
In the wake of this horrific assassination, Americans must reclaim our tradition of open, honest, and vigorous debate among those with different views.
That starts by rejecting the twin temptations that inevitably follow in the wake of such a tragedy. We cannot respond by censoring ourselves, fearing that we’ll be targeted by those who disagree with us, violently or otherwise. Nor can we respond by censoring others on the premise that shutting down debate will keep people safe.
Those temptations are perhaps felt most strongly on college campuses, where one-third of students say, according to a recent FIRE survey, that using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable in rare cases. Sadly, FIRE’s survey data on North Carolina institutions shows that our campuses are not immune to this deeply troubling ethos.
We need more speech, not less. We need stronger and better arguments, and we need the courage not only to say our peace, but to listen in peace as others respond.
We need this commitment to civil discourse at every level of society, but in a special way, we need it on campus. At its best, the university, more than anywhere else, is where society’s leaders learn how to think, speak, and act. Universities must help students learn to listen to one another actively, to exchange their different views patiently, and to assail only bad arguments—not people. All this flows, in turn, from an awareness that we do not know all the answers, and that truth is the reward of reasoned argument.
If the rising generation of students is taught, either implicitly or explicitly, to censor themselves or to despise those with different viewpoints, they will act accordingly in the public square after they graduate. But if they’re taught to debate vigorously – with an exchange of arguments and evidence – in pursuit of truth instead of victory at all costs, they’ll take that spirit of free speech and mutual respect into the public square.
What happened on Wednesday shows the danger of the continued decline of civil discourse in America. But notice a sign of hope: The shooter and students horrifically celebrating Mr. Kirk’s murder were a minority. That day and at other times, Mr. Kirk had drawn literally thousands of students hungry for the give-and-take of spirited dialogue, American-style. It is the responsibility of leaders in every sector of American life to cultivate and direct that hunger.
If we have the wisdom to remember this truth and the courage to act on it, then the terrible tragedy of Charlie Kirk’s murder may yet be turned to some national good.
