Political Violence Is Not A Punchline

Charlie Kirk speaking at a Turning Point conference. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore, B&W.

Charlie Kirk, right-wing commentator and father of two, was shot and killed Wednesday while speaking to a crowd of college students. Only two days earlier, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released its 2026 report about free speech on America’s college campuses. 

Together, Kirk’s assassination and FIRE’s report paint a dire picture of the status of free speech and discourse on college campuses across America. 

Within minutes of the shooting, the Claremont Colleges student body took to Fizz – an anonymous, Consortium-exclusive social media forum – to share their reactions to the assassination. The app swiftly devolved into a cesspool of ugliness, hatred, and perverse delight.

“Dems need to sharpen their aim and hit the range more often,” said one anonymous commenter. Another poster joked about taking a “piss” on a hypothetical campus memorial for Charlie Kirk. Others compared Kirk to Adolf Hitler and called his death “poetic justice” and “gods [sic] plan.”

“Fuck around and find out,” read yet another anonymous post, which was followed by a repost of the music video for “No One Mourns the Wicked” and an invite to “Come celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death at Smokeforce tonight! Gravity bong will be present!”

One student was concerned with the practical implications of the assassination, deeming it an inefficient choice of target: “Killing Trump, Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, Stephen Miller, and Smotrich is way more effective than killing a political pundit which only creates matyrdom [sic] for the facists [sic].”

A memorial vigil was held on campus the next day, which drew a few dozen attendees. Outraged students turned once again to Fizz.

“KKK meetup,” an anonymous student captioned a photo of the vigil. Another poster joked that vigil attendees should “wear white” and “wear hoods.” Both comments received several hundred upvotes, the Fizz equivalent of likes. “Get a better pic I want their faces,” an anonymous person commented.

It’s worth pointing out that these students took their rejoicing and self-congratulation to an anonymous social media platform rather than to their public Instagrams or LinkedIns. Ironically, the same people who are lauding violence as a commensurate response to speech have elected to hide their own words under the veil of anonymity. 

Kirk was a controversial figure. Many supported the political and cultural movement he spearheaded. Others, including the majority of Claremont students and faculty, found his politics and rhetoric abhorrent and inflammatory. Even those who disagree with Kirk, however, should be able to recognize that he shared and debated his beliefs honestly and openly. The same could not be said of the many Consortium students who zealously celebrated Kirk’s death on an anonymous forum, safe from the eyes of future employers, family, and acquaintances.

Obviously, not every student at the Claremont Colleges enjoys dancing on gravestones, or wants to see their political adversaries killed — a handful of anonymous posters condemned the assassination, often coupling their statements with a denunciation of Kirk’s politics. In all likelihood, the students who were disturbingly thrilled by news of the assassination make up a minority of the student body. 

Nonetheless, this minority appears to be a sizable one. The recent results of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s (FIRE) 2026 free speech report indicate that large swaths of the Claremont Colleges’ student body believe “Using violence to stop a campus speech” is acceptable in some cases. 

A staggering 41% of surveyed Pomona students affirmed that using violence to protest a speaker was acceptable “always,” “sometimes,” or “rarely,” with an underwhelming 59% condemning it in all circumstances. The other Consortium schools fared little better. 28% of students at Claremont McKenna, 22% at Scripps, 30% at Harvey Mudd, and 33% at Pitzer thought the use of violence to protest against a speaker could be justified at times.

The Claremont Colleges were not the only schools with alarming responses to FIRE’s free speech survey: 34% of the 68,510 students surveyed nationwide expressed some degree of support for the use of violence in protest of a speaker.

Campus surveys, including FIRE’s, should be taken with a grain of salt – they operate with a limited methodology and pull from a small sample size of students. Even so, FIRE’s data is a single thread in a much larger tapestry – one that identifies America’s ivory tower as a citadel of intolerance and ideological bellicosity.

Wednesday’s assassination was only the latest convulsion in what has been a period of heightened political violence in America. The home of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro being set on fire while he and his family slept inside; the successful and attempted assassinations of Minnesota lawmakers Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman, United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and President Donald Trump; the countless threats that were defused before they could come to bloody fruition — all deserving of censure and each damaging to our democracy. 

As former Congresswoman, Scripps alumna, and assassination attempt survivor Gabby Giffords put it, “Attacks against political or ideological opponents are cowardly and un-American, and must be universally condemned… The responsibility to protect our public servants, political figures, and all Americans is not partisan. It’s patriotic—and long overdue.”

Giffords is right – things don’t have to be this way.

We can begin here, at the Claremont Colleges. Our community can entertain dissenting views, welcome debate, and build a better campus culture brick by brick, conversation by conversation. We can create an environment where controversial topics are not solely adjudicated in the comments section of an Instagram post, or discussed in hushed tones with a few trusted friends.

College students – and faculty – will not be disabused of their impulses towards intolerance and smashmouth discourse overnight. If we want Kirk’s assassination to be an outlier, not an augury, everyone with a stake in higher education must redouble their efforts to uphold peaceful norms on campus. 

The many students who gloated over Kirk’s death would not wish to see the torchbearers of their own political beliefs gunned down. Even those who despise Kirk and everything he stood for should mourn the damage his assassination will do to America’s fragile architecture of free speech and civil discourse. There can be no picking and choosing in the world of free expression. It’s free speech for all, or free speech for none.

-----

The current members of the Claremont Independent's editorial board are Kendall White (Editor in Chief, PO '27), Greta Long (Interim Editor, CMC '28), and Emilio Bankier (Senior Staff Writer).