Mollie Shiflett ’26 is a double major in history and linguistics, not that she knows what to do with that. She is captain of Women’s Club Soccer Gold for the College of William and Mary and is an avid fan of most sports — except golf. Email Mollie at mrshiflett@wm.edu.
The views expressed in the article are the author’s own.
This isn’t a rebuttal, really … at least not in the traditional sense. It’s not a debate, I’m not facing off with anyone and I agree with most of the points Hunter Steele White ’27 makes in his piece. We are polarized as a nation. It is far too easy — as it has always been — and far too common, now, for people to turn to political violence or the threat of political violence. However, there are several points I critically disagree with.
White makes the argument that the assassination of Charlie Kirk marks a “watershed moment” in our political landscape. I don’t think it does. The watershed moment, if there was one at all, came when Minnesota state lawmakers were targeted, and in one of the cases, killed in their home. It came when there were plots to kidnap the governor of Michigan, and it came when the U.S. Capitol was stormed Jan. 6. You could even say it came in 2015 when Dylann Roof opened fire on a church in Charleston, S.C..
Kirk was a continuation of this cycle of violence and hatred that we find ourselves in as a country. It wasn’t the beginning and it won’t be the last of political violence unless things change. To the extent that this is a watershed moment, it is a watershed moment for freedom of speech in this country, as teachers in Virginia who have spoken about Kirk’s death in ways that President Trump and his followers have found objectionable on their social media have been threatened with the loss of their teaching licenses.
What has made this moment different is the martyr status that Trump and his followers have conferred on Kirk. Gov. Youngkin ordered the flags to be flown at half staff in the state of Virginia. Trump did the same. Trump did not do the same for Rep. Melissa Hortman, although he said he would have “if he was asked” by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. As if this is something that anyone has ever needed to ask a president to do. The Minnesota governor has no power over that decision. Charlie Kirk was not an elected official. What makes him entitled to treatment that someone who died as a result of the same political violence didn’t get?
White also called Kirk a “peaceful activist.” I guess technically he was. He never committed violence, but his rhetoric was as hateful and violent and painful as a physical blow could be. He called the Civil Rights Act a mistake, and said, in reference to crime rates, that “Blacks go around for fun to target white people.” He has made similar statements regarding Jewish communities. He said that Jewish communities “push hatred against whites.” By no means was he a “peaceful activist.”
White said that Kirk treated people with dignity. When you talk about people like this, with this divisive language, large groups of people who live in the United States, there can be no dignity. It’s derisive fear mongering. I have no idea about Kirk in one-on-one interactions, but a person is the sum of his actions and his words, and Kirk has said plenty. Did he deserve to die for it? Absolutely not, but he shouldn’t be honored … because he only “treats people with dignity” if you overlook evidence.
Do I agree with what happened to Charlie Kirk? Under no circumstances. His views deserve to be derided, but no one deserves to die. But his death should not push us to whitewash who he was and what he said. His death should not be the bellwether for what “our turning point” is. The children in Colorado who died the same day he did are just as much of a possible “turning point.”
There should be no tolerance for political violence; we should be allowed to disagree with each other. But our turning point should not be decided by a man who spread fear and division, who spoke just as often of what we should be afraid of as he ever did of solutions. It feels to me as though, in the service of the larger point he makes, which I agree with, White has painted an incomplete picture of Charlie Kirk, because if you step back and consider it, he is not the example we should be using. He’s not our turning point, what he is is the most recent statistic in a culture of division. So I agree with White, but he should find another person to make his turning point.
