Not So Hot Takes | Those celebrating, laughing at, or making a political point out of Charlie Kirk’s death should be ashamed of themselves.
Photo Credit: Lauren De Young/The Republic
By Emma McClure
On September 10th, Charlie Kirk, a 31 year old conservative political figure and founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), was fatally shot in the neck while addressing students in an event at Utah Valley University. The event was attended by roughly 2,000, including his wife and children, aged one and three. While many rightfully expressed their sorrow regarding the shooting and condemned the violence, many members of the media and Penn students alike have responded disgracefully.
Political violence should be condemned in any and all forms. That should not be a hot take.
It doesn’t matter where the victim falls on the political spectrum or what policies they promote. A society that cheers on political violence, like Kirk’s murder, has lost its humanity. To use this, or any murder, as an opportunity to push an agenda is despicable.
Charlie Kirk was not merely a “Trump ally,” or a “right wing activist,” he was a beloved friend to many, a husband, and a father. Charlie Kirk’s two children will now be raised with only stories and pictures of his life.
During MSNBC’s live coverage of the shooting, Matthew Dowd speculated that Kirk may have been shot by “a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration.” Dowd most certainly knew the absurdity of such a claim—I’m sure everyone brings guns to peaceful civil dialogue events on college campuses and shoots their guest speakers in celebration. The sheer incredulity of the comment leaves the obvious conclusion that Dowd was being facetious to make a political point.
The rest of Dowd’s coverage was no better. Seconds later, Dowd stated that Kirk was a “divisive…figure[] who…constantly [] push[ed] this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups.” Dowd even took his comments further to say, “hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions,” implying that Kirk is to blame for his own assassination. To justify murder of any kind and suggest it is merely ‘karma’ is abhorrent.
This was irresponsible and unfactual news coverage, for which Dowd has been dismissed from MSNBC. The network has already issued an apology for Dowd’s commentary. The problem here is not merely poor reporting, however. Dowd’s comments twisted what occurred into a political talking point about gun control, completely dismissive of the tragic event at hand: a man lost his life, a woman lost her husband, two children lost their father, and countless others lost a cherished friend.
Further, to call Kirk’s messaging hateful demonstrates blatant ignorance of the core of Charlie Kirk’s messaging. Kirk aimed to foster political discussions, openly inviting people to disagree with him and to share their beliefs. In fact, Kirk was at one of his famous “Prove Me Wrong” events at the time of the murder. Kirk’s organization, TPUSA, is dedicated to promoting “traditional American values like patriotism, respect for life, liberty, family, and fiscal responsibility.” Nothing in this is hateful. To blindly label conservative values as such is itself a hateful and intolerant attitude, quite the opposite of the purported tolerance and acceptance those opposed to Kirk’s messaging often preach.
This hateful sentiment is not limited to a few unfortunate members of the media. A friend told me later in the evening that her co-workers celebrated when they learned of Charlie Kirk’s death. Many individuals I encountered were lighthearted about the matter, some even joking that Trump should be next. Others on campus have reported hearing reactions that Kirk deserved to be shot. Many students have taken to Sidechat to crack jokes and justify the political violence. To rejoice in the murder of any fellow human being is an affront to basic humanity. Video footage of the shooting even circulated social media, where some people treated the graphic footage of Kirk collapsing, blood gushing from his neck, as entertainment—there are no words to describe how disturbing this is.
Some students went so far as to justify Kirk’s murder because of his political ideology. Many pointed to his pro-second amendment stances to argue that Charlie Kirk ‘had it coming,’ while more still pointed broadly to Kirk’s political opinions in a remarkable show of apathy. Not to mention, such comments completely miscontextualize Kirk’s stances, conflating pro-second amendment messaging with being pro-murder.
Note that many of these Penn students chose to hide behind their anonymity on Sidechat as they made these reprehensible comments. Behind their online anonymity, students on our campus felt free to disregard their humanity and cheer on the murder of a young man who dared disagree with their political opinions.
Rhetoric like this should not exist. Anonymity is no excuse to celebrate murder. Political differences are no excuse to cheer on an assassination. These users forget their humanity. The views they express are repugnant. Many other users on Sidechat pushed back against these comments, but this does not redeem the indefensible comments celebrating and justifying this act.
I was around a number of individuals who knew Charlie Kirk personally when I learned of the shooting. In that room, Charlie Kirk was not merely an internet personality—somebody you watch a 30 second clip of and laugh at their ‘gotcha moment’ in a campus debate—he was a friend. Can you imagine sitting in a room full of people who had all just learned that their friend had been shot? In that moment, though you might not have known the victim personally, there is an emotional weight—a realization that a human being, a dear friend and family member to many, has lost their life, and many will grieve their loss.
What occurred on September 10th was a tragic act of political violence that robbed a family of a loving father. That is not a political statement. To those on both sides of the aisle who have spoken out to condemn political violence: thank you. To anybody who learned of Kirk’s death and thought first of politics: I urge you to reflect on your perspective and begin looking at others as people before all else. To those who celebrated or joked in response to this shooting: I advise you to put yourself in the shoes of the many individuals who mourned the loss of a friend or family member, regardless of your political beliefs. No race, gender, political party, or identity will ever come before our shared humanity. Those who celebrate, justify, and laugh at Charlie Kirk’s murder would do well to remember this.
Emma McClure is a junior in the College studying Criminology with minors in Legal Studies & History and Political Science. She is also the editor of The Social Ivy. Her email is efmcc@sas.upenn.edu.
