By the time this issue will be published, it will be officially one week since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Co-Founder of Turning Point USA — a well-recognized and influential Conservative political activism group.
Charlie Kirk died doing what brought him all this fame and attention: going to college campuses and debating students on prominent, political issues in our country. His speech was cut short when a shot rang out from across Utah Valley University’s campus.
Kirk was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at Timpanogos Regional Hospital. President Trump announced the news via Truth Social and declared that, “the Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie.”
The general reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death by Oakland University students I had conversations with was reflective of the general discourse surrounding his death. There are people who are martyring his death, mourning it, making fun of it. Some students, even, are bringing a bit of nuance to the conversation.
There seems to be an almost allergic reaction to political-nuance here in this country. It almost seems like Americans (at least those primarily on social media) have this partisan itch to cling to a single side. They dig their heels in and do not let up.
Even those who are unequivocally fighting for what is right, whether it be for civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights, trans rights, rights for people with disabilities, etc. — rights which are largely guaranteed by laws and statues in this country — some of those people’s behavior is at best, reactionary and at worst, repulsive.
People cheering on the death of someone for their speech is bad — this should go without saying. However, people who are using this death to attack a side of politics — which we do not even know the shooter was a part of in the first place — is also reprehensible.
On the right, there are folks — including elected officials — who called for the death penalty and for Democrats to take responsibility for the shooting, despite the fact we had a lack of information about the motive of the perpetrator.
A republican representative from South Carolina, Nancy Mace, said that “Democrats owned what happened today” — mere hours after the suspect was detained by authorities.
If our elected officials are blatantly and irresponsibly jumping to conclusions like this — without regard for any actual evidence collected by law enforcement — then they are doing their constituents a disservice.
There has been an incredibly long and fierce debate over the role of misinformation and disinformation tactics in American politics.
It’s true that disinformation during COVID-19 — specifically about alternative treatments like Ivermectin — was incredibly irresponsible and dangerous. It is also true that misinformation (which unlike disinformation is unknowingly spreading falsehoods) is dangerous because of its ability to spread so quickly through social media. All of this though, is protected speech if it does not innately defame anyone or cause direct damage.
All of this dialogue over speech and what is protected and what is or is not acceptable leaves me with a burning question. What can we, as OU students, do to combat political violence, hate and false information?
My suggestion is that we continue to listen to our peers, faculty, friends and family — and support them while they try to navigate these confusing times. Social media has revolutionized and made us more connected ever, but it also has divided us and made our community more susceptible to divisive rhetoric.
By the time this article is published. It will have been a week since Charlie Kirk has died. However, it is my dream that our campus and our OU community at large comes together and listens to one another and is more unified once this is all over.
Stay strong OU. You got this.
Best wishes,
-Chelsea Bossert
(Editor-in-Chief of The Oakland Post)
