Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and the State of Argument in America
The shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University underscores a troubling decline in logical discourse across the U.S.
I’ve recently immersed myself in Kirk’s YouTube channel, watching various discussions. He was generally eager to engage with anyone, including liberals.
While sometimes confrontational, he always maintained politeness. His opponents often resorted to dehumanizing tactics, and their arguments sometimes faltered under his persistent questioning. Many ultimately struggled against Kirk simply due to a lack of knowledge.
Understanding Civic Engagement
Why do so many assert their views so confidently without first grasping the underlying evidence? For numerous students challenging Kirk, the answer seems to lie in what’s termed “civic engagement.” This educational philosophy claims that the pinnacle of civic involvement is protest, not debate. But this leads to thoughtless posturing—or worse. The solution? A well-rounded classical education.
In civics, knowledge is crucial but not the only requirement. Civic participation involves understanding not just the mechanics of American history and government, but also their significance. This means fostering habits of logical thinking shaped by experience, where individuals learn to disagree respectfully and adjust their opinions when confronted with new information.
Political discourse—reasoned discussions about what benefits society—enables us to share and refine our views through conversations marked by disagreement. However, civic education divorced from practical skills risks becoming either performative activism or reckless theorizing.
These skills can be nurtured through classical education. Engaging with materials ranging from Aristotle to The Federalist Papers helps students wrestle with foundational questions surrounding justice, rights, and what constitutes a good life. They learn to not only identify what’s right but also how to pursue it amid a shifting landscape.
Yet, genuine growth occurs within seminars and Socratic dialogues, which serve as practical training for civic engagement.
This semester, after a long time away from teaching, I’ve started a moral and political philosophy course with 11th graders who are well-educated from classical schooling. This year’s goal is to instill in them the habits essential for meaningful discussions, with Socratic dialogues held thrice a week and full seminars on the other days.
Effective Seminar Dynamics
A well-conducted seminar requires the teacher to primarily ask questions regarding significant texts—occasional guidance is rare. As in real life, there’s no authority to dictate answers or make choices for others; students must take initiative and navigate the journey collectively.
Such an environment encourages students to express agreement or disagreement while compelling them to confront the text. They examine their viewpoints critically and abandon misconceptions for better understanding.
However, there’s structure. Students recognize that discussions must be anchored in the text, with each comment responding to what’s been said before. Random tangents are not permitted, and everyone respects one another’s space during dialogues.
If we hope to cultivate citizens capable of preserving their liberties, we need to move beyond activist training devoid of comprehension or abstract teachings without hands-on experience.
The remarks shared should stem from arguments grounded in the text. If students lack an interpretation to offer, they can still ask thoughtful questions, which can often advance the conversation just as much as a strong argument.
Disputable points in the seminar room present chances to learn that challenging an argument doesn’t equate to attacking a person’s character. Many teenagers hesitate to disagree with peers, let alone with those in authority. Yet, with time, they build resilience, focusing less on social hierarchies and more on the substance of the discussion.
Most understand that when the text serves as the ultimate adjudicator, clarity and accuracy in interpretation become paramount. Engaging deeply with rich and complex texts necessitates patience, dialogue, and occasional disagreement.
Disagreement should be viewed as a moment of clarification. Our seminar embraces this notion. What matters is not merely superficial civility but rather an openness to reassess and adjust viewpoints informed by rationale and facts, striving towards mutual understanding.
Character Building through Dialogue
In many ways, classroom discussions around Plato, Virgil, Swift, and Shakespeare serve as explorations of practical civics. We shape character through dialogue, learning, and experience, rather than through protest or mere theory, preparing students to both grasp and engage responsibly in societal matters. In a sense, classical education fosters individuals resembling Charlie Kirk.
If we want citizens able to sustain their freedoms, we must not settle for mere activist training without a foundational understanding or theoretical lectures lacking practical application. We should equip our students with both personal and political integrity. This way, they can govern themselves, not merely as activists or spectators, but as responsible citizens.
