Today, Charlie Kirk was supposed to be here at Dartmouth.
Kirk was scheduled to debate Hasan Piker in an event organized by the Dartmouth Political Union. But on Sept. 10, the 31-year-old right-wing political commentator was shot and killed during a public event at Utah Valley University, leaving behind a wife and two children.
Since Sept. 10, political leaders across the ideological spectrum have condemned Kirk’s murder. It should not need to be said that this was an abominable attack on our liberal democratic system. Yet it must.
Some voices, particularly on social media, have disturbingly celebrated Kirk’s murder, while others have used it to stoke political conflict. This Editorial Board vociferously condemns political violence and those who condone it.
Much has rightly been discussed of Kirk’s career, gun violence in the United States and the legacy Kirk leaves. Rather than rehashing these ongoing debates, we want to emphasize the importance of hosting contentious debates to better understand what other Americans believe — especially on college campuses. It was good and important that the DPU invited Charlie Kirk to debate Hasan Piker.
It’s clear that we need to be more tolerant. Kirk’s assassination is only the most recent in a string of assassinations and assassination attempts across the U.S. over the past few years. From the recent assassination of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman on June 14 to the two assassination attempts on President Donald Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign, violence has grown increasingly prevalent in America’s political culture. To combat this violence, it is imperative to understand how we got here.
Political assassination is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. and its frequency is notable in relation to other Western democracies. In the 20th century, one-third of American presidents faced serious assassination attempts, with two killed and one seriously wounded. Over a dozen Members of Congress have been assassinated, as have numerous civil rights leaders. This grotesque list continues at all other levels of government and throughout all of American history.
The explanation of our present woes rests in our history. America has been a fundamentally tribal country since its creation. From college football to federal politics, it seems that almost every American has a “team” and a favorite “player." This isn’t to say that tribalism is an inherent evil. It is exhilarating to root for the local team, regardless of the venue. But American politics has become too tribal and too disconnected from its original purpose.
People now turn away from those with differing party registration; they cut off friends because of political disagreements; and many people deliberately provoke conflict for the sake of it. Social media has worsened this. Behind a screen, one is able to enrage others, sow division and receive validation in polarized echo chambers without identification or social consequences. Thanks to the enduring tradition of American tribalism and the prominence of social media in American politics, angry hyper-partisanship is the result.
We recognize that there are those in America who foment anger and distrust. They should be challenged, debated and revealed to be practicing politics incorrectly. It is our duty as Americans to be better. But this requires a few responsibilities that underpin good citizenship.
First, we must engage in constructive, but still strong, debate. Kirk debated publicly and shared all of his positions, including his least popular. The silencing of political opponents is a cowardly rejection of and a tacit admission of defeat in the open market of ideas. In a society that has for so long championed the notion of free speech, it is our civic duty as Americans to converse face to face. We encourage you to get off social media and speak with someone with whom you know you disagree. Discuss ideas that may not be comfortable. We are not asking people to change their minds or to hold all beliefs as equal, but to hear your fellow Americans out to understand, at the very least, why they believe what they do.
At Dartmouth, we have a unique opportunity to do just this. We are a microcosm of America — a constructed arena of diverse backgrounds and views. We each have the unique privilege of being in this environment, and it takes each one of us to engage in thoughtful civic practices and carry them with us after graduation. Dartmouth students must be leaders in open discourse.
Second, we must stop treating politics as a game to be won. Politics is an endeavor to lift up our fellow man, build a better society and embrace our nation’s potential. This begins with us — young people — changing how we engage with our political system. Our politics have fallen into a cycle of derision and animosity. Every assassination in our history is a shot against the ideals of the American experiment, and indifference to assassinations allows our system to fall into greater disrepair. We must condemn Kirk’s assassination, bring justice for his family and be better citizens of the United States. Simply put, we must rediscover the core values of our country and channel them to recognize one another once more as fellow Americans.
To paraphrase Orson Welles, that great American storyteller, the spirit moving our country forward is freedom — a spirit in our land which we think can never die. We cannot allow it to.
In spite of fervent disagreement with the “other side,” each American must understand that both Democrats and Republicans are guided by their shared heritage of the American Revolution, and its unfinished promise of building a more perfect Union. They differ in their policy prescriptions, but that does not mean their motivations are corrupt. This is the beauty of this country — that we have the ability to debate and discuss ideas freely. We must not allow our country to join the chained world that yearns for the liberty to speak free from fear.
Today, Charlie Kirk and Hasan Piker, two diametrically opposed commentators, were supposed to debate foundational ideas of youth involvement in politics. Charlie Kirk should have made it to Dartmouth today. He will not be here. It is our duty to change how we approach dialogue, work toward the elimination of tribalism in politics and ultimately ensure that our future is less violent than our past.
The Editorial Board consists of opinion staff columnists, the opinion editors, the executive editors and the editor-in-chief.
