‘His Death Felt Personal’: Six Conservative Students on Charlie Kirk

Today’s college conservatives grew up in Charlie Kirk’s Republican Party — watching his “prove me wrong” videos, following his social media campaigns or debating his often-controversial views when he came to campus. Times Opinion turned to some of them to understand how they are grappling with the killing of the campus conservative movement’s ubiquitous star.

We Don’t Want Echo Chambers

By Peter McHugh, editor in chief of The Jefferson Independent, a student-run independent news publication at the University of Virginia

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.

Many of my classmates now fear political engagement. I am a member of several student-led groups dedicated to civil discourse, and I have seen firsthand how many students crave debate and conversation. We do not want echo chambers. We strive for the opposite.

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.

If there’s any answer to the violent silencing of opinions, it must be more, not less, civil discourse. Students will soon drive the decision-making of society. We are America’s future leaders, and universities must remain our most pluralistic spaces, fostering the ideals of argument and empathy while denouncing violence. Students must not let their fear silence them and must not lose the ability to find the common ground that exists in even the most vehement opponent.

A Fatal Incursion

By John R. Puri, an opinions staff writer at The Stanford Daily, the independent, student-run newspaper of Stanford University

Especially since Hamas’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7, colleges have been hotbeds of impassioned, sometimes vicious disagreement. It has not always been pretty, to say the least. Much of the dialogue on campus has been pugilistic and purposefully incendiary. But it all stood on the presumption that we would never actually kill one another for what we said.

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. He could slip into apocalyptic indictments of Democrats and promote reckless conspiracies. In many instances, he should have spoken more judiciously about race.

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. I may not have followed him, but I have plenty of friends who did.

Was he a good influence on everyone who listened to him? I don’t think so.

Did his work elevate the tone of our national conversation? Perhaps not.

But he was in the protected sphere nonetheless, where ideological combatants fight with words, not bullets. It’s the same sphere as all the college newspapers and activist groups inhabit. If one person on one campus was willing to bring a gun to a debate, why not another?

That is the fear that we all must operate under now — not merely a bad grade or lost friends, but maybe a bullet in the neck.

Charlie Kirk Proved Me Wrong

By Benjamin Rothove, editor in chief of The Madison Federalist, a conservative, student-run publication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a co-president of the College Republicans

I had a complicated relationship with Charlie Kirk. I used to think he was somebody who viewed politics as a vehicle for profit and fame, and I disliked that. It seemed to me that he was more interested in tearing institutions down than building better ones. 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. It is working-class people, naturalized citizens, Christians, Jews, parents and college students like me.

Mr. Kirk’s coalition-building won Donald Trump the White House. A majority of young men supported the Republican presidential nominee for the first time in more than two decades in 2024, thanks largely to Mr. Kirk’s efforts. He recognized that young men had been left behind, and he articulated a message of hope that resonated with them. He had an ability to see that people could be Republican voters before they even knew it themselves. That is the goal of his organization — to make the G.O.P. a truly big-tent party.

Mr. Kirk had the radical idea that college students are overwhelmingly progressive not by disposition, but because they are taught to be that way. It is a tragedy that a man who spent his life fighting to give conservatives a voice on college campuses ended up getting murdered on one. But Mr. Kirk has become a martyr for Gen Z conservatives, and the revolution he launched will continue to shape our future.

Debating at the Front of the Line

By Lucy Spence, editor in chief of The Irish Rover, a student publication aimed at “preserving the Catholic identity of Notre Dame”

Charlie Kirk’s message to the crowds that cropped up at his campus events around the country was simple: “Disagreements, come to the front of the line.” Those who loved his message were welcome to speak, but those who hated it got to speak first.

Mr. Kirk had friends in high places who will mourn his death. But the demographic that will miss him most is college students like me. Videos now circulating show Mr. Kirk’s unwearied patience as he sat for hours talking on campuses. 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.

The political rifts in America — so clear on election maps, in churches and in our neighborhoods — are even more marked on college campuses. The repercussions of our divides were hideously apparent on Wednesday.

Now that Mr. Kirk is gone, we owe it to him and one another to keep talking and keep listening. So as he would say, if someone disagrees with you, bring them to the front of the line.

When Speech Is Violence

By Ethan Xu, editor in chief of The Texas Horn, a conservative, student-run publication at the University of Texas at Austin

I’ve learned that there are people on my college campus who would cheer if someone like me, a young person who openly expresses my traditional Christian beliefs and right-wing political views, were murdered.

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 response from most politicians to the tragic news has been to call for unity and condemn political violence. But vague calls for unity and bipartisanship are not good enough. I cannot be in “unity” with people on the left who condone and justify terrorism against Christians and conservatives. There is no “uniting” with the people who want my friends and me dead because we refuse to be silent about our convictions.

In the eyes of leftists on campus, the view that there are only two genders is a call for violence against L.G.B.T.Q. people. If I speak out against abortion, I am a misogynist who wants to take away women’s basic human rights. If I defend President Trump’s calls for mass deportations and securing the border, I am a xenophobe who wants to torture immigrants in concentration camps.

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.

No Longer Alone

By Jeb Allen, staff writer for The Amherst Student, the student-run newspaper of Amherst College

I’m an anti-Trump Republican who has been subjected to harassment for voicing my conservative beliefs at Amherst College. I was horrified by Charlie Kirk’s assassination — not because I agreed with all his views, but because of the message he spread of engaging with those who didn’t share his.

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.

Mr. Kirk’s courage inspired me not only to advocate dialogue on right-wing issues, but also to speak out against him and President Trump when I felt it necessary. Ultimately, it was his example that made me believe my voice was worth raising, even if unpopular among my own party.

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.

Though Mr. Kirk’s legacy is likely to be viewed through a strict partisan lens, I wish more students would recognize the need for Gen Z to step forward with courage and empathy to rebuild civil discourse. And while Mr. Kirk’s tactics might not have been perfect, his courage offers a far better model to emulate than the levels of political hostility that have become too familiar.

The authors are editors of conservative-leaning campus publications or writers of conservative columns in student newspapers.

Source photographs by Maxim Zhuravlev, Andri Tambunan/Agence France-Presse and Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.