On September 16th, 2025, the James Madison Program hosted a panel discussion in response to Mr. Charlie Kirk’s assassination with Professors Greg Conti and Frances Lee. Professor Robert George organized the panel to discuss Kirk and the implications for civil discourse and free speech more broadly. The event was a success. The lecture hall was mostly filled, everyone was respectful, and insightful questions were asked of the panelists.
One main takeaway from the event was just how huge Kirk’s reach was. Kirk’s primary target demographic was young college-age students in the process of forming their political beliefs and participating in our nation’s democracy for the first time. However, the three panelists (all Ivy League professors, the opposite of what one might think would be Charlie Kirk followers!) reported quite personal reactions to Kirk’s death. In fact, Professor George knew Mr. Kirk, and Professor Conti’s wife followed Kirk closely. What stood out was the respect indicated by these academics: not blind agreement with his tactics or positions, but a recognition that Kirk forced others to think, argue, and engage. Kirk’s influence, earning honest critique and great admiration from unexpected quarters, speaks to a rare kind of leadership and enormous impact.
The panelists expressed their concern over shifting generational attitudes towards political violence.. While politicians across the spectrum, with only a few exceptions on the left, condemned Mr. Kirk’s murder as a tragic moment for our nation, the same clarity was not reflected among ordinary Americans. Exact survey results were debated by the panel and a professor attending the event, but it was clear that a disturbingly large portion of Americans do not unequivocally condemn political violence in the abstract. Most troubling was the generational and political element of the polls. Young liberals, who often pride themselves on “tolerance” and “inclusivity,” appeared most willing by far to justify political violence when it suited their causes. That contradiction reveals a dangerous hypocrisy: liberals accuse prominent conservatives of “not caring about democracy” while undermining democracy themselves in practice and belief. If this trend continues unchecked, it threatens not only the civility of our politics but the stability of our republic itself. The responsibility falls on all of us to confront and challenge this mindset directly before it becomes normalized.
Some liberals, not all, attempted to defame Kirk by posting quotation fragments or otherwise implying that he “had it coming”. The notion that any human deserves to die because of harbored beliefs and cultivating a platform to voice them is dangerous. Along those lines, some conservatives want to “crack down on the left’s rhetoric”, and a few have implied “just” retaliation. It is hypocritical to match hatred with hatred. It is paramount that we all take the high road as a nation and condemn violence and champion free speech.
The beliefs of Gen Z are both troubling and hopeful. While some studies boast conflicting statistics, it is generally perceived that a small but still-significant minority of Gen Z approves of violence as an acceptable means of communication. Although even a small number is too high, it is important to remember that we are more united across ideological boundaries than it may seem.
Ultimately, we can’t force someone to believe something. If we want to champion free speech, it’s up to us to model it, religiously practice it, and condemn its threats. We cannot advance as a society if we are divided. We must cherish disagreement, but remain unified by our shared values as Americans. It is time to remember and resurrect these values. There is reason for hope, as the overwhelming majority of Americans intend to do so – a point underscored at this event – even if there are a few potholes to fix along the way.
Image Credit: “Bobst Hall” — Wikimedia Commons
Copyright © 2026 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.