After the assassination of Charlie Kirk last month at Utah Valley University in Orem, many academics across the U.S. took to social media to criticize conservative figures, labeling them as potentially dangerous.
Matthew Reznicek, an associate professor of medical humanities at the University of Minnesota, expressed his views online. He said, “Mr. Kirk and the culture he represented—this culture of whitewashing—has put professors at risk for political violence,” in a post made on September 13 on the left-leaning platform Blue Sky.
Reznicek’s backlash was influenced by an opinion piece in the New York Times titled “Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way,” authored by Ezra Klein. Subsequently, Reznicek disparaged Kirk’s intelligence, stating, “What I remember most about Kirk is how eager he was to debate me, yet how ignorant he showed himself to be.”
Chris Lamb, a professor emeritus of journalism at Indiana University and a self-identified figure on the so-called “professor watchlist,” argued that Kirk and his organization were responsible for inciting violence. He mentioned, “I know professors who have faced harassment and threats because of being on that list. Some have even been attacked physically. While Kirk’s murder is a tragedy, let’s not romanticize him—he was quite the controversial figure.” However, he didn’t offer any proof to back his claims.
Lamb also commented on a documentary titled “Surviving Turning Point USA,” directed by an Arizona scholar that included interviews with various academics on the watchlist. In the documentary, he referred to Turning Point USA as reminiscent of the “Hitler Youth.” None of the interviewed professors could provide any tangible evidence of intimidation or violence linked to the list.
The documentary explores the story of Ken Storey, a former University of Tampa professor who lost his job in 2017 after his social media posts during Hurricane Harvey provoked backlash. He had suggested that Floridians who supported then-President Trump deserved similar consequences.
Lamb remained critical of Kirk in later statements, even as he expressed sadness over his murder. He described Kirk as a propagator of hate, noting, “He was a bigot, confirmed by his own words.” At the same time, he acknowledged Kirk’s family, saying, “He had a wife and two young kids; perhaps that could have pushed him to become a better person in time. We’ll never know.”
Other academics, including Jeremy Littau from Lehigh University, echoed similar sentiments, asserting that their colleagues had faced threats due to Kirk’s influence. Littau mentioned, “We can denounce political violence without overly romanticizing its victims. It’s dangerous to idolize.”
In a more polarized social media response, a professor named Stacey Patton has been vocally critical of Kirk since his death. She claimed that many people didn’t understand who Kirk was, and his story was just starting to be told in the mainstream media. Patton has linked him to a spectrum of historical figures associated with hate and division, offering her insights as a rhetorical framework rather than a literal assertion.
Despite the conflicting perspectives on Kirk, it’s clear that his assassination has reignited conversations about safety, political discourse, and the role of activism in academia. The aftermath and responses highlight the deep divides within the community, and the ongoing debates surrounding political rhetoric and its consequences continue to evolve.
