Anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s Tragic Death

This week marks a year since Charlie Kirk was tragically killed on a college campus during a debate. At just 31 years old, he was engaged with an audience of around 3,000 at Utah Valley University when a question from a student led to him being shot while he was still speaking.

I’ve been reflecting on that moment for a year now, and what continues to trouble me is the setup—a tent. Charlie had to supply his own stage, microphone, and security just to facilitate an open dialogue on an American campus. You would think every university would have adequate facilities for such an event. The space was available, and so were the responsibilities of the institution.

In 2022, I had the opportunity to sit down with Charlie at Southeastern University. It was just the two of us—no audience, no cameras. We talked about two intertwined topics: the need for reform in American higher education and the type of leaders needed for the future. He was particularly interested in whether universities were genuinely fostering leadership or simply processing students. That had always been his benchmark, and many institutions had failed to meet it long before the tragic events in Orem, Utah.

Erika Kirk’s Call to Action for Conservative Students

The natural inclination on a somber anniversary like this is to revisit the circumstances of his death and the controversies that followed. But, I think it’s more critical to examine why Charlie, with nothing but a folding table and a microphone, emerged as a prominent advocate for open debate in academia. It’s not that he usurped this role from us; rather, we relinquished it.

American universities are meant to be places of robust discussion. The very idea of a liberal arts education is grounded in the belief that truth emerges from confrontation with opposing views. Students learn by defending their beliefs against those who challenge them.

Change in Campus Culture

However, over the past twenty years, we seem to have shifted away from that principle. We’ve established speech regulations, bias reporting systems, and entire departments aimed at shielding students from uncomfortable ideas. A generation has been taught that disagreement equates to harm, and it’s no surprise that many view speakers as threats. Employers have voiced concerns about this for years, pointing to graduates who, despite being qualified, struggle to handle criticism.

What do the students themselves think? A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, involving over 68,000 students across 257 colleges, revealed some eye-opening stats: 36% believed shutting down a campus speaker was sometimes or always justified, and 15% endorsed using violence to prevent a speech. This survey wrapped up just a few months before Charlie’s death. While I won’t suggest that a poll can account for a murder, it certainly sheds light on the climate he encountered—and those who shape that climate are in positions like mine.

Fostering Strong Leaders

At Southeastern University, our identity is unapologetically Christian, and we’re very clear about our beliefs. Perhaps because of that clarity, we don’t shy away from tough conversations. In the past year, we’ve welcomed figures like Karoline Leavitt and Pastor Lucas Miles, and our students engaged with them without needing protection from challenging ideas. They participated, asked difficult questions, and left more insightful than they came.

Our goal here is straightforward. We’re not just trying to graduate students who admire Charlie Kirk; we aim to cultivate a new generation of leaders who can confidently enter challenging environments, articulate their beliefs, and persuade others. A university grounded in strong principles can embrace such discourse. The instinct to cancel speakers often reveals uncertainty about institutional beliefs.

A Call to University Leadership

For university presidents wishing to honor Charlie Kirk this week, a mere statement isn’t enough. Implement genuine free expression policies and uphold them—even if it risks losing a donor. Stop disinviting speakers because of petitions. Encourage students to argue against their own beliefs and assess them on their argumentative skills.

Charlie Kirk’s death didn’t occur in a war zone; it happened on a college campus, in broad daylight, while he was simply holding a microphone and answering a question. This should be one of the safest scenarios in our society. It’s our responsibility to ensure that it becomes so again.

He should never have had to rely on a tent. The venue was available to us. We need to start using it for its intended purpose.