In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the public and media made innumerable observations regarding his devastatingly unfair and angering demise. As I watched the video of this tragic moment, I recalled the memories of Charlie as we both walked the same halls of Harper College in Palatine. I remember his activism as he convinced members of my generation to sign his first petitions for Turning Point USA and persuaded yours truly to sign up for regular updates of this virtually unknown organization in 2013. I can visualize both of us sitting in the same world history course where he spoke out bravely against our professors who would denigrate cornerstone Judeo-Christian ethics and shamelessly criticize Western civilization.
Charlie and I had our differences. Charlie was a Christian, and I am a Jew. He had a distinct, brave and uncompromising style, and I leaned upon the art of compromise to achieve consensus in those halls. I recall a handful of occasions when Charlie and I engaged in spirited debates, but we both were always respectful and even found common ground.
He was a kind, honest and true soul. If I could express one thing to Charlie today, it would be pure gratitude. For always maintaining civility, but even more for planting a seed of truth within me that would lead to my eventual change of political philosophy as my blindfold and my shackles of servitude to a false and dangerous Democratic ideology were removed.
I witnessed the concerted effort of academia to indoctrinate youths at not only Harper but also Indiana University. And subsequently Washington, D.C., in the wake of the Oct. 7 attack in Israel as I lived in the nation’s capital.
The moment that cowardly assassin fired his bullet, I will remember one thing. Even as the bullet hit Charlie, he never relinquished his ironclad grip on that microphone. In fact, Charlie held on even tighter.
I call on my fellow Americans to follow Charlie’s lead. Do not submit to fear, and do not be silent, but hold on to your microphone and never let go. For God, family and country, may we never cease to use our voices in the advancement of our patriotic call to duty.
May Charlie Kirk’s memory be a blessing for America.
— Henry Wilson, Barrington
Legacy of scapegoating
The Tribune Editorial Board writes that “we are all lessened by Kirk’s death” (“Kirk’s legacy should be a new American commitment to free speech and debate,” Sept. 12). As a trans woman from Illinois, I cannot agree. What lessened me — and so many others — was hearing Charlie Kirk call people like me predators, deny our humanity and cheer efforts to erase us from public life.
No one should be murdered for their politics. Violence is never the answer. But neither should we erase the memory of the harm Kirk inflicted. To say we are “all lessened” asks the very people he targeted to mourn a man who never mourned for us.
The editorial also casts assassins as “mentally ill,” sidestepping the politics of this moment. Violence doesn’t come from nowhere — it grows in a climate where leaders frame opponents as enemies. Kirk thrived on turning communities like mine into scapegoats. Civility talk cannot mask that.
Yes, democracy dies if people fear being shot for their words. But democracy also dies when leaders use their words to strip others of dignity, health care and basic rights.
Condemn the shooter, absolutely. But don’t canonize Kirk as if his only legacy was free speech. For those of us he dehumanized, the danger isn’t just one man with a gun — it’s the movements that turn Kirk’s words into law.
— Anna Louise Bellettiere-Kuyper, Homer Glen
Kirk’s idea of ‘debate’
The editorial regarding Charlie Kirk’s legacy paints too rosy a picture of a man whose main goal in life was relentless antagonism of undergraduates and their professors. His horrific murder was inexcusable. The issue with the editorial is that it frames his contribution to the cultural conversation as “debate.” This is a charitable interpretation of his campus visits.
There is no form of debate in which keeping a running watch list of allegedly left-wing professors would be an appropriate strategy. Claiming that a discredited, racist conspiracy “is not a theory, it’s a reality” demonstrates an intellectual incuriosity that has nothing to do with finding a reasonable answer through discussion. Likewise, believing that the United States is “a Christian state” is a woefully uninformed position.
These are just a few of Kirk’s beliefs. They are intentionally inflammatory. They do not stand up to scrutiny. Notably, the editorial does not directly quote nor hyperlink to any of the many public appearances where Kirk used these words. The use of paraphrase throughout the editorial elides the harm of Kirk’s words, as well as their consequences for populations of minorities.
Truly, that harm is the true legacy of Kirk. He thought a better argument was the result of snappy one-liners and a firm grasp of what he considered to be facts. Those strategies may win a debate and convince listeners that the speaker is correct for having won. The truth, let alone the most reasonable answer, remains elusive in such a setting.
Kirk excelled not at debate or argumentation, but in dispute-creating talk. His words were loud; his ideas, quiet.
— Rob Drewry, Wilmette
Trump’s responsibility
The editorial on the impact of our politicians’ rhetoric on the rise of political violence is spot-on. For better or worse, our politicians are our leaders and set the tone for all of us. Words matter. The rise of virulent vitriol coming out of our politicians and other political operatives does nothing to advance the well-being of our country or its citizens and clearly contributes to the current state of violence (not just political) we are subject to daily.
However, the editorial board has once again given President Donald Trump a pass on his own words by suggesting his personal relationship with Charlie Kirk should give him an out to being a responsible leader. Trump is not just a leader in our country; he is the leader of our country. As such, he sets the tone for all his followers as well as his opponents.
All of us, including the editorial board, should expect him to be a leader who sets a positive, healing tone at just such trying times as now. Trump is failing us all.
— Tom Barriball, Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico
The dangers of speech
Several months ago, I sat on a panel about women’s safety in a violent world. What struck me wasn’t just the danger women face, but also how dangerous it has become to speak politically at all.
In light of Charlie Kirk’s recent assassination, I said out loud what my husband and I had both feared: No matter how kind or inclusive I try to be, my political speech makes me a target. And I’ve made peace with that reality.
Speech is dangerous. Kirk knew this, too. His words transformed conservative politics, but they also piled tinder at the nation’s feet. When rhetoric demeans others, suggests their exclusion or paints them as enemies, it makes violence not only imaginable but also acceptable. And when the spark comes — whether by one’s own hand or another’s — we should not be surprised when the fire spreads.
I grieve for Kirk’s family. His death should never have happened. But here’s the paradox: His rhetoric helped create a culture in which menace thrives just below the surface. His murder is both a personal tragedy and a crime against democracy.
The phrase “this isn’t who we are” rings hollow now. The harder truth is that this is who we’ve allowed ourselves to become.
If democracy is to survive, we must draw boundaries around rhetoric that corrodes trust and fuels violence. Free speech is essential — but freedom is not a license to endanger others.
Our nation depends not just on who speaks, but how.
— Jen McMillin, founder, SunshineStrategies.org
Utah governor’s grace
How fortunate the people of Utah are to have a man like Spencer Cox as their governor. After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, he spoke from the heart and at no time placed blame except on the shooter — just the shooter.
Our governor should take note. He has the White House in his sights and is very divisive. Let’s have more politicians like Cox.
— Sue Atkenson, Frankfort
Deserving of critical label
Just read the article about Charlie Kirk (“Friends recall Kirk as man who ‘inspired millions,’” Sept. 12). It describes him as a “brazen Christian” conservative who expressed “incendiary comments, which often incorporated racist, misogynistic and homophobic language.” I don’t believe that Kirk ever called anyone a racist, bigot, fascist or Nazi.
If the Tribune is going label people this way, it should begin with Mayor Brandon Johnson, Gov. JB Pritzker and most of the Democratic leadership. If the Tribune wants to point out people who spread hate and misinformation, it should start with them.
— Loren Monsess, Waterman, Illinois
Universal condemnation
I strongly disagreed with just about everything Charlie Kirk ever said, though I’m shocked and saddened that a young father like him could be taken from his wife and kids. We don’t yet know what motivated his killer, though it’s a safe bet the guy was mentally unhinged.
Take a close look at how our political leaders have responded to these types of incidents in recent years. I’m not talking about internet trolls; I mean those elected to high office. They should universally condemn all acts of political violence. If they don’t, there’s something wrong with them.
This includes Kirk’s murder and the two assassination attempts on President Donald Trump, as well as the assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, the assassination attempt on Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Schapiro, the plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband — and an armed mob attacking police officers and storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
— Mike Mosser, Chicago
Are they paying attention?
My head is ready to explode.
Every day, something new. On Sept. 10, it was more than one. There was the murder of Charlie Kirk, who was exercising his right to speak. Following this, equally horrific and garnering less attention, came news of yet another school shooting, in Colorado; this, while we are still reeling from the Catholic school shooting in Minneapolis.
In Wednesday’s Tribune, there was a news brief about the arrest of a 13-year-old Washington state boy allegedly with an arsenal of weapons in his home, a fascination with mass shootings and evidence of threats.
Not so long ago, it felt as though we were on a path to a better future for all Americans. There was more talk and more effort to develop ways to acknowledge, even address, indiscriminate hate and fear of “the other.” To paraphrase “Ethics of our Fathers,” we did not expect to finish the work, but we were accepting the responsibility to start it. We were acknowledging racism and anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim and anti-LGBTQ+ hate, beginning to put into place initiatives to combat irrational hate and paying attention to inequities.
The current administration has taken only a few months to attempt to erase history and decimate the departments of health, education and welfare. People like me can write letters, make phone calls and protest in the streets, but few people who wield any power seem willing to organize, to stand up and follow the adage, “If you see something, do something.”
I recently participated in a discussion of the book “The Escape Artist: The Man Who Broke Out of Auschwitz to Warn the World” by Jonathan Freedland. Teenager Rudolf Vrba memorized facts and figures to include in a co-authored report that was filled with descriptions of the horrors he witnessed. Copies were distributed to world leaders, including Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Although it was too late to prevent the death of millions of people, millions more could have been saved — had those in power believed the report.
My question is this: Whether it’s gun violence; racism; anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-LGBTQ hate; cavalier attitudes toward the environment; the dragging of people off our streets to imprison them without due process; or the many other serious threats to our democracy, do our leaders on both sides of the aisle refuse to believe we are all headed for disaster?
— Barbara Turner, Darien
His stances don’t align
Charlie Kirk’s murder is a tragedy. May he rest in peace and his memory be a blessing.
He founded Turning Point USA in part to “promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.”
Ironically, President Donald Trump doesn’t stand for any of those.
— Michael M. Bates, Tinley Park