Content Warning: This article contains references to gun violence.
Emory University terminated a medical school professor who outwardly cheered on the death of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative activist assassinated on a college campus in broad daylight, on Sept. 18. The celebration of his death by this professor, which was also echoed across the United States, is as corrosive as the assassination itself. This fervor confirms that political violence is not just normalized in the United States — it is being excused and even cheered. Instead of rushing to celebrate Kirk’s death, everyone should be alarmed and condemn this political violence: This is the first step in learning from Kirk’s complicated legacy.
Kirk’s legacy as the co-founder of the conservative student organization Turning Point USA shows the power of direct demonstration and open debate. His rhetoric was exclusionary and vilifying of immigrants, LGBTQ+ communities and those who disagreed with him, but his willingness to meet young people face-to-face energized audiences in a way that cannot be ignored. In the wake of his assassination, as students and professors on our campus celebrated violence rather than engaging in open dialogue, his tactics revealed a harder truth: Engagement, however flawed, is still more democratic than silence or bloodshed.
Kirk’s greatest strength was his presence. He showed up at campus buildings, in auditoriums and on students’ social media feeds. By meeting people where they were, he spread his message of conservative activism. Just like in college life, in politics, students are drawn to those who engage and listen, even as flawed as the rhetoric may be.
Kirk’s debate style embodied the belief that politics should be discussed in person and out in the open, not left to the curated echo chambers of algorithm-driven feeds. His one-on-one campus debates, which circulated widely online, invited confrontation, sharp disagreement and the ability to pivot arguments quickly in response to challengers. Kirk maintained control of heated live exchanges with his relentless confidence, and he used long-form conversations on his podcast to build familiarity among audiences. At live events, he drew students in by pausing for reaction, building tension, and asking leading questions that forced his challengers to defend their reasoning, a tactic that was manipulative but undeniably effective.
Despite using persuasive rhetorical strategies, Kirk’s reliance on anecdotes and rephrased questions often distorted facts, turning dialogue into a performance that looked like engagement but left little room for real dissent.
While these tactics limited genuine dialogue, they nonetheless proved effective in shaping political culture. His methods of direct communication and populist rhetoric influenced the masses and led to a large increase in confidence among young conservatives on college campuses. Kirk’s political strategy’s capacity for mass mobilization demonstrates the immense potential for political influence gone unutilized in the digital era. While we do not want to romanticize his legacy, we must acknowledge the way he built community by showing up and speaking frankly — presence and direct engagement like Kirk’s are powerful tools that need to be redirected toward more constructive ends.
If Kirk’s tactics showed the power of showing up, the reception across our campus and the country to his assassination shows the danger of what happens when violence replaces dialogue. The reaction from various professors, public figures and students demonstrates the disturbing nature of this divisive political era. Posts on X and live comments openly lauding his assassination highlight how easily political violence can be normalized — a response misaligned with our values as students and as members of a democratic society.
Those who call for stronger gun regulations and denounce political violence cannot, without hypocrisy, celebrate Kirk’s assassination. Selective outrage condemning mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., Uvalde, Texas, or Parkland, Fla., that condones the actions of an assassin based on ideology only deepens the vitriol of political violence in America.
Our democracy should be built upon freedom of speech and equitable disagreement without fear of violence. Kirk’s death, which comes amid toxic polarization, makes clear the need to reevaluate the depths of U.S. political fissures. While ideological diversity is a hallmark of democracy, both sides of this growing divide must ultimately reside on the same team, that of the American project: a commitment to free speech, equality, and the rule of law. If we cannot unite around rejecting violence as a tool of politics, then the bedrock of our nation crumbles.
The lesson for Emory students, and for anyone who wants to shape the future, is simple: Political organizing requires presence and purpose. For Emory activists working on causes like voter registration or gun safety legislation, Kirk’s career suggests there is no substitute for the power of face-to-face persuasion. Political mobilization requires communication that steps beyond social media or the safe zone of a private group chat. Kirk’s content should not be our model, but his tactics should be.
We must also reject violence at every turn. At Emory, an institution meant for learning, not violence, we should know better. Our role is not to cheer death but to uphold the difficult and often frustrating work of constructive dialogue. If we cannot do that here, in a community built for inquiry and debate, then there is little hope for the politics future generations will inherit. As Emory’s own vision reminds us, we are called to be an “inquiry-driven, ethically engaged, and diverse community.” As students, we cannot just quote that vision. We have to live by it or we lose the very purpose of being here.
Originally intended for the Editorial Board, this piece reflects the opinion of the following three Editorial Board writers.
If you or someone you know is struggling in the aftermath of gun violence, you can reach Emory’s Counseling and Psychological Services at (404) 727-7450 or https://counseling.emory.edu/ or the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Disaster Distress hotline 24/7 at +1 (800) 985-5990.
— Contact Mira Krichavsky, Niki Rajani and Josh Rosenblut at mira.krichavsky@emory.edu,
niki.rajani@emory.edu and josh.rosenblut@emory.edu
Josh Rosenblut (26BBA) is pursuing a BBA in Organization & Management at the Goizueta Business School and a second major in Political Science. He has wide-ranging experience in political campaign management and consulting, most recently as Deputy Campaign Manager on a congressional race and as a financial communications intern at FGS Global. He previously worked in the Office of Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and as an Associate at North Shore Strategies, where he managed clients, staffed campaigns, and contributed to multiple congressional and state legislative victories. At 18, he became the youngest campaign manager in New York City, leading Linda Lee’s successful City Council race.
Niki Rajani (she/her) (27B) is double majoring in Organization and Management and Philosophy, Politics, and Law. Originally from Naples, Florida, she is an active member of Goizueta Women in Finance and Emory Women in Business. Outside of academics, Niki enjoys traveling and playing the piano.
