Turning Tragedy into Dialogue: After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, can America move beyond violence?

Princetonians for Free Speech September 19, 2025 3 min read

Princetonians for Free Speech

The political violence that has ravaged America for too many years has now led to the horrifying assassination on September 10, on the campus of Utah Valley University, of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk, a champion of free speech whose attacks on the left helped win him a big following among young conservatives while infuriating many on the left. He was planning to debate all comers at the campus event, as was his custom.

One might hope that such events could help radicalized Americans on both left and right to come to their senses, at a time when political violence has become epidemic, going back to and beyond the two assassination attempts on President Trump, the politically driven shooting murder in New York City in December of health care executive Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione, the shootings of House Republican Whip Steve Scalise and Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the plot to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, the killings of a Minnesota state legislator and her husband, and of two Israeli Embassy staffers, and many more acts of political violence.

Trump Administration officials, understandably appalled by Charlie Kirk’s murder, reacted in ways more likely to punish hate speech than to abate the political violence it fuels. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau suggested the administration would take visas from people who celebrated Kirk’s death, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that his department was monitoring any military personnel who celebrated or mocked Mr. Kirk’s death. Overall, the administration’s response was partisan and incendiary, failing at any attempt to unite the country at this grave moment.   In contrast, politicians from both parties did say the right thing, notably Republican Governor Spencer Cox, and progressive Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders.

As Kimberley Strassel ‘94 wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “many of those who have hailed Kirk’s success in creating a young conservative movement seem to miss that he did so by reaching out—not lashing out.”

Commentators such as Princeton University’s Professor Robert P. George and former Princeton professor Cornel West, *80, have added perspective.  

“We are at a pivotal moment,” George said in an interview with Fox News Sunday in conversation with his close friend and political opponent.

“Charlie Kirk inspired an awful lot of young people to put their faith in discourse, in debate, in dialogue, robust but civil dialogue, trying to get at the truth of things, advancing your position but listening to the other guy’s argument. … Kirk made that his trademark. … I think a lot of college students today are wondering: ‘Does that really work? Look what happened to Charlie Kirk. Are words enough?’ ...

“And that’s what really worries me. That’s what concerns me. … I hope that we will allow ourselves, young people and older people, to be inspired by Charlie’s example of trying to resolve our differences with civil discourse, not with guns, not with hatred, but with civil discourse.”

Professor West, who maintains a decades-long close friendship with Professor George despite sharply opposing political views, responded, “I am not optimistic, but I am also not a pessimist, I am a prisoner of hope. I come from a great black people who have been hated, terrorized and randomly murdered and still decide to produce love warriors and freedom fighters for everyone.”

Their public friendship was forged in the 1990s when they co-taught a freshman seminar at Princeton. It is now widely seen as a model of civil disagreement. Their 2025 book, Truth Matters: A Dialogue on Fruitful Disagreement in an Age of Division, could not be more timely. 

Their hope will face obstacles. A recent national student survey by FIRE shows a shockingly sharp increase in student acceptance of violence in response to speech among America’s college students in the last five years.  Princeton student support of the use of violence is similar, according to our own recent student survey.

Kirk’s assassin should face justice. The rest of us can do little but work to advance the sort of civil discourse advocated by Professors George and West.


Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.


Also in Princeton Free Speech News & Commentary

The interview that exposed academia’s cluelessness
The interview that exposed academia’s cluelessness

By Megan McArdle July 27, 2026 1 min read

Megan McArdle argues that Carolyn Rouse — Princeton anthropology professor and AAA president — badly botched a Chronicle of Higher Education interview meant to rebut a Vanderbilt/WashU report accusing anthropology of suppressing dissent on politically charged topics. McArdle uses the episode to argue academia has grown accustomed to speaking only to itself, at a moment when public trust in higher ed is collapsing — and that unless it repairs its credibility, financial consequences will follow reputational ones.

Read More
Civic Education Centers Are Booming. The AAUP Wants Them Gone.
Civic Education Centers Are Booming. The AAUP Wants Them Gone.

By Tal Fortgang ‘17 July 14, 2026 6 min read

Faith in higher education continues to plummet, and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)—the nation’s leading organization representing faculty interests and a longstanding voice on academic freedom and university governance—has decided to train its guns on the growing movement to establish civic education centers at public universities. The AAUP’s objections amount to a single, unlovely demand: we get to decide what students learn, and nobody else gets a vote.

Read More
Is Anthropology Hopelessly Politicized?
Is Anthropology Hopelessly Politicized?

Stephanie M. Lee July 14, 2026 1 min read

Six days after the report went online, the AAA fired back with a full-throated defense. “Anthropologists welcome rigorous critique of the discipline,” wrote its president, Carolyn M. Rouse. “What we cannot accept is a sweeping verdict about anthropology’s intellectual culture, scholarly practices, and professional norms built on selective evidence and issued without consultation. 

Read More