Today the NY Times published reactions from six different college students from different colleges to the death of Charlie Kirk. What’s interesting is that this isn’t the leftist hate-fest you might imagine the Times would publish. All of these students are on the right (to one degree or another) and all of them seem shocked by what has happened.
From the editor of a student publication at UVA.
My classmates all knew of Charlie Kirk, and if not, they had certainly heard his rhetoric. His campus visits regularly appeared on our social media feeds, creating the illusion of connection that older, “distant” politicians and pundits often lacked. Because of this immediacy, his death felt personal, creating a rupture in what should be one of the safest spaces for dialogue: the college campus…
But now, even those committed to many of the things Mr. Kirk encouraged — conversation, political engagement — are questioning if it is worth the risk. This morning, another writer at The Jefferson Independent confided that they would never again attend a university-sponsored political event. The fear that controversial speech can provoke genuine violence is no longer theoretical for students, but real.
From a student at Stanford who definitely wasn’t a fan of Kirk’s but who nevertheless emotionally impacted by his death.
To be clear, I did not follow Mr. Kirk. I did not usually watch his videos, or listen to his podcast, or attend any of his events. Yes, I am a conservative, but I subscribe to the traditional meaning of that word, which popular influencers of the day have labored to replace with cultural brinkmanship. When Mr. Kirk spoke, I found a lot of what he had to say moronic, or even immoral.
None of that mattered to me when I heard he had been shot. I was distraught. Mr. Kirk was part of the same space that I occupy every day: the mess of American political discourse and activism.
From UW-Madison a conservative who became a fan over time.
When he visited the University of Wisconsin-Madison last year, I was one of the people who argued against him.
But I was wrong about Charlie Kirk.
He was a figure who transcended the ideological differences on the right. He understood something that until recently I didn’t see myself: The conservative movement is fundamentally an alliance. The right is not a single group that believes the same things; it is many disparate groups united by love for God and country.
From a student at Notre Dame who saw Kirk as the guy on the very front of the front line.
Whether he faced vitriolic mockery or glowing approval, he gave us the same attention that he gave to leading politicians who called him their friend. We needed him desperately — conservatives and liberals alike — because he listened to us.
Conservatives lost a fearless spokesman, whose unabashed defense of conservative ideals made enormous headway on left-leaning college campuses. True to his belief that anyone can participate in democracy, college degree or not, Mr. Kirk preached an accessible but undiluted conservative gospel. Liberals, too, lost someone with an authentic desire for discourse across the aisle.
From a student at UT Austin:
Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I saw dozens of social media posts from students from my university saying that Mr. Kirk reaped what he sowed because of his conservative statements. Worse, some students were recorded on video celebrating the murder, with one saying she was “happy” when asked how she felt. Another student replied, “Someone had to do it.”…
The reaction to Mr. Kirk’s murder demonstrates that political violence is not about “both sides” being too heated. Rather, it is the logical conclusion of a worldview that insists that “speech is violence.” And if speech is violence, it’s not hard to imagine that physical violence against conservatives would be a permissible or even virtuous response.
A functional society cannot coexist with this destructive worldview.
Finally, from a lonely conservative student at Amherst.
At Amherst, I am the most vocal conservative voice. As far as I know, I serve as the only Republican in the student government and the sole conservative writer among the student newspaper’s staff. I am a co-founder and co-president of the Amherst College Conservatives. Inspired by Mr. Kirk’s influence in popularizing dialogue among my generation, I also founded a Turning Point USA chapter at Amherst…
Last spring, I received a death threat in response to an article I wrote. My friends at Turning Point USA encouraged me to request the Amherst administration drop all disciplinary action in exchange for a one-on-one dialogue with the student. That request was granted, and I found our conversation informative.
I’m struck by the divide between those last two reactions, one saying essentially that leftist threats aren’t compatible with a functioning society and the other turning a leftist threat into an opportunity for more dialogue.
My own take is that these two posts represent the full range of feelings on the right this week. People are understandably angry and think something has to change as they see leftists posting dance videos (and much worse) about a political assassination. How are you supposed to coexist with people who would celebrate your murder? There’s a real desire to lash out at these people online and in real life, one which I feel myself. The behavior of tens of thousands of these people (at least) is genuinely enraging.
On the other hand, maybe emulating Kirk’s effort to meet people where they are (even if where they are really sucks) is the move that results in more winning and fewer hateful leftists down the line.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
