What Charlie Kirk’s Death Tells Us About the Need For Civil Discourse

America has a problem. A big problem. It's getting more and more difficult to talk with each other.

The problem is so pervasive that it likely led to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA. He was killed on Wednesday, September 10th at Utah Valley University. Although we do not know the exact reasons for this attack, it is safe to assume there was a political or ideological motivation. Kirk was sitting in front of a lively audience when he was shot, fielding questions from a queue of students under a banner that invited people to disagree with him that read "Prove Me Wrong." It’s a sad, sad irony that he was answering a question about mass shootings when he himself was killed. He inspired young Americans to political action and built a movement that changed the course of the 2024 election, and he famously exercised his most basic American right: the ability to speak freely. 

In this political mess we find ourselves in, we have normalized the dehumanization of those we disagree with. We turn opposite viewpoints into monstrous ideas and strip the holder of them of all human dignity and worth. The assassinations of Melissa Hortman and Charlie Kirk are signs of the times, indicative of much of what is wrong with today’s America. Our nation was founded on the ideals of human dignity, on civil discourse, and speaking freely and without censure. Charlie Kirk’s recent death marks a grave shift in our country. It means that America is fraught with discord and malice so corrosive that our very freedom of speech, a pillar of the Constitution, is now life-threatening. 

I am especially alarmed that it happened on a college campus, a place that should serve as one of the few protected spaces in America for civil discourse and viewpoint diversity. President Bush captured it perfectly in a social media post: “The open exchange of opposing ideas should be sacrosanct… Members of other political parties are not our enemies; they are our fellow citizens.” 

I firmly believe that one of the antidotes to this problem is campus initiatives that promote civil dialogue. Programs that aim to train students in the skills necessary to have hard conversations, with the end goal being to teach us all, students and faculty included, to go back to the basics. Universities are training the next generation of leaders in our democracy, and sending them out into the real world without the skills to disagree well is a weighty mistake. We must learn to have open, civil conversations with those who do not agree with us, not for the purpose of convincing them we are right, but with the goal of understanding why they have come to hold the opinions they do.  We must bring dialogue and discourse to campus communities, and most of all, we must welcome disagreement.  The search for solutions to the problems that face our nation begins with understanding. We must learn it is acceptable to challenge or even attack ideas, but it is never acceptable to attack people. The answer to speech that troubles or offends is not physical violence toward the speaker, it is, in fact, more speech. 

In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, our resolve must only grow stronger. We must champion viewpoint diversity and civil discourse and honor the dignity of those with whom we disagree. I can only hope this tragedy serves as a catalyst for our culture moving forward. 

Sarah Hart is the Assistant Director of Think Again UVA.