The Media’s Duty After Charlie Kirk: Help Rebuild Civil Society National traumas can reveal our best instincts—and our worst. The assassination of Charlie Kirk, who was gunned down while engaging in political debate on a college campus, has done both. Many responded with compassion for his family and calls for greater civility. Others, disturbingly, cheered his murder. As Matthew Continetti of the American Enterprise Institute observed, the shooting “struck at the ties that hold a free society together,” for it was an assault not just on a man but on the practice of open and civil discourse. The Free Press put it bluntly: “The principles we once took for granted in this country…feel endangered in a way they didn’t a decade ago.” What explains the acceptance and celebration of political violence? It would be easy to blame overheated political rhetoric. But something deeper is at work. Surveys show that one in three college students today expresses some support for the use of violence to silence a campus speaker—a 50 percent increase from just a decade ago. This shift reflects more than partisan anger: It signals a corrosive set of ideas, nurtured in classrooms and amplified in public forums, that reject the foundations of Western civilization. These corrosive doctrines—rooted in postmodernism and critical theory—deny any source of morality outside the self, dismiss the intrinsic worth of every human, and reduce politics and law to raw quests for power. In such a worldview, silencing an opponent—even through violence—can seem not only permissible, but virtuous.
