Charlie Kirk was a good man

Charlie Kirk, co‑founder of Turning Point USA, was shot dead at a “Prove Me Wrong” event at Utah Valley University earlier today. He had been speaking to students as part of his “American Comeback Tour” when he was shot in the throat. President Trump confirmed Kirk’s death soon after. Kirk had built his reputation by taking conservative arguments directly to campuses and putting the philosophy of civil debate and open discourse into practice. After founding Turning Point USA in 2012, he launched nationwide tours that set up a tent emblazoned with “prove me wrong,” inviting students to challenge his views, and in the process, take a more active part in our national conversation. Whatever you think of his politics, that project itself is an amazing and noble effort. As someone who used to teach debate, and who works as a free speech advocate, I wish there was much more of that kind of open and free exchange of ideas in this country. I wish we had more Charlie Kirks. Instead, we only had one. And now, none. Over the years, these sessions of his often drew hundreds of people. At the University of Florida event in February 2025, more than 250 people watched Kirk spar with audience members on immigration, white privilege, and LGBT rights. He declared, “This is what free speech is all about,” and he was right about that. Attendees who disagreed with him were not kicked out, but moved to the front of the line, and though many regard him as a troll, some students noted with surprise that his debate style was respectful and non‑hostile. Kirk wisely argued that young conservatives should not shy away from debate, and that universities should be marketplaces of ideas. For all these reasons, I have recently come to respect Charlie Kirk, as I wrote earlier today:

Charlie Kirk was just shot in the throat during a public debate. I recently had the chance to watch some of his content for the first time. I had seen it before, of course, but not very in-depth. So I began to watch more. And more. And more. And, to my surprise, I found him incredibly good faith, honest, decent, and fair.

And you may disagree with his politics, that’s fine, but in video after video after video, I saw him engage his opponents, who were often angry toward him, if not openly hateful, with patience and grace, and in a few instances, even getting them to laugh with him. A rare feat.

I am not claiming he has always been this way. I don’t know what his early career looked like in great depth. But he clearly has evolved to present himself as more thoughtful and reflective, even when engaging people whose views he finds abhorrent, and we should all celebrate that.

I do, and I admire this about him, as well as his civility in the face of heated opposition. And his grace. And yet I notice, now in his darkest hour, that his critics want to pretend he was none of these things, although when pressed, they have no facts. Just exasperated sighs over why I happen to disagree and lots of bad vibes about Kirk. I have even seen people laugh upon hearing what happened to him.

I pray Charlie Kirk survives.

He did not survive. But he will be remembered. Ideologically, Kirk fused fiscal conservatism with an overtly Christian worldview. Turning Point USA’s mission statement describes its goal as training students to promote fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government. On his radio show and in his public appearances, he argued that America is a Christian nation. During a 2024 rally, he told a crowd, “This is a Christian state,” and led chants of “Christ is King.” He said Democrats “stand for everything God hates,” framing the 2024 election as a spiritual battle. Kirk opposed abortion, saying it is murder and should be illegal, and embraced dominion theology, referencing the Seven Mountain Mandate that calls for Christians to lead politics, media, business, family, education and the arts. He also opposed same‑sex marriage and transgender‑affirming care. He dismissed gender fluidity as “lies that hurt people,” declared that “pride is a sin,” and noted there are only two genders.

Critics often took issue with both Kirk’s rhetoric and his policy positions. At his Florida debate, he attributed the struggles facing black Americans to “self‑actualized” problems such as absent fathers, rather than systemic racism. Such statements, combined with his combative style, led some opponents to paint him as a provocateur, or even accuse him of stoking racial or cultural animosity. Others said he was a racist, a fascist, a white supremacist, a Nazi. But friends and supporters say his bluntness has been mischaracterized, and that he always remained committed to open debate and free speech, and Christian values of compassion. Indeed, some who initially saw him as extreme say that listening to his full remarks revealed a more nuanced civil libertarian. Reading these comments, I saw myself reflected in them, for as explained above, I recently had the same realization. So it is especially sad to see what has become commonplace these days. Namely, that the response to this horrible tragedy is nothing short of disgusting. We saw it in the wake of October 7, and after the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and after the Trump assassination attempt, and after the Capital Jewish Museum shooting, and after the Daniel Penny case, and after the Minneapolis school shooting, and after the murder of Iryna Karutska. Each time, the killer was celebrated, even sexually idolized, or their violence justified as resistance, or excused as insanity, meanwhile the victims were blamed as colonizers, or financial predators or, when the story could not be shoehorned into such a formula, as with Karutska, it simply ignored. In fact, Charlie Kirk himself recently commented on this phenomenon.

Prophetic words. When the news hit, I saw someone cackle. Two people jumped down my throat when I said I thought he was good faith. One person said, “I don’t think you should be murdered for your opinions but…” and proceeded to cite his opinions. Now, Bluesky is flooded with LOLs. Yet none of these people ever once mentioned his two children, or his wife, their lives now shattered. Even if you happen to hate Charlie Kirk, listen to me when I tell you, this is the kind of shit that radicalizes people. And it came on the heels of the racist silence over Iryna Zarutska’s murder. Kirk’s legacy, more than anything else, will be that he always engaged people who disagreed with him, and made a career out of debating people who thought he was scum, because he cared enough about his understanding of the truth to try to help other people see it too. My thoughts and prayers fall in two places. First for his family. Second, for our nation, and whether we will be able to honor his legacy of open discourse, particularly now that we live in a time when using violence against speakers is becoming more and more accepted. After my debate today over Kirk, one of the people I had been talking to came over and thanked me for sharing some of the things that I had. We didn’t see fully eye to eye on Kirk, but that wasn’t the point. We were able to have the talk, in an open and civil manner, and walk away afterwards, certain in the knowledge that we’d both eagerly strike up another debate over beer some day, and share laughs, because despite our differences, what we have in common runs deeper, and that’s the fabric that we must cling if we wish to hold this country together. I suppose it also comforts me to think that, at least in this one beautiful way, even in the hearts of those who may not think much of Charlie Kirk, his legacy lives on.