Charlie Kirk polarizes opinion among societies

David Sherdil | Lariat

Supporters hail Kirk as a conservative voice for students; his critics argue his language is harmful to marginalized groups.

Since the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk on Sept 10th, it has generated enormous controversy around society, with the big question being whether Charlie Kirk was a positive influence on our culture. Kirk has emerged as one of the leading voices of young conservatives across the country, often drawing packed auditoriums and causing heated protests. His straight-shooting style and unapologetic demeanor won over conservative audiences while also prompting protests from liberal students and activists who assert that his popularity creates dissemination of false information and reinforces political polarization.

Conservative students view Kirk as one of the few national figures who would speak plainly for them. They see him as a free speech advocate on campus, encouraging young conservatives to openly proclaim their values in areas where they might otherwise fear criticism.

Progressive and left-wing student groups are highly critical. They argue that Kirk’s agenda was less about espousing a message of defending free speech and more about advancing a political agenda, and one which, in their opinion, victimizes oppressed groups and feeds social tensions. Kirk’s appearance to such groups is not one of discussion but of harm.

Kirk’s campus appearances nearly always drew both rapt crowds and vociferous protests. On campuses across the country, including on a recent visit to California, huge lines of students waiting to see him speak often face coordinated protests outside. Reporting by Politico has illuminated how his appearances have become flash points for wider controversies over free speech, misinformation, and the role of universities in politics. For his supporters, Kirk’s emphasis on personal responsibility and limited government is a balance to what they see as a left-of-center academy culture. Even when they differ from him on absolutely everything, many say that they value his courage in bringing up difficult issues instead of not bringing them up at all.

Critics, however, refer to the same approach as venturing into danger. They refer to his previous remarks about COVID-19, gender identity, systemic racism, and immigration as examples of speech that they claim goes over the edge between opinion and disinformation, infusing learners with distorted understandings of science, history, and social issues. Kirk himself has doubled down on this controversy, frequently uploading videos of pushback from students on his YouTube channel as evidence of what he defines as hostility to conservative thought. Critics counter that this is merely fueling his base by setting himself up as the victim of “cancel culture,” even as his events draw hundreds of attendees. 

The polarization around Kirk is reflecting a broader tension playing out on campuses nationwide. Free speech controversies, disinformation, and political identity are ever more influencing student life, with figures like Kirk serving as lightning rods for wider culture wars. To his allies, Kirk was a valuable defender of conservative principles and free speech. To his critics, he is an emblem of the risks of deploying controversy in our polarized politics. Ultimately, the Kirk controversy isn’t about him; it’s a reflection of the larger cultural divide in American society over the way we debate, disagree, and figure out what’s true.

Although I’ll concede Charlie Kirk is not perfect, I believe that he has done more good for society than harm. His religious or political beliefs are those that society should be emulating more. With all the hard resistance he endures, I believe each side must accept that no human is owed what has happened to him. To belittle a deceased human being, even a human being who is your greatest critic, is not the way to create a better world.

Comments

comments