Charlie Kirk

I received the news of Charlie Kirk’s murder while traveling last night to California. Mr. Kirk and I had little in common, except that we both believed that it was vital in a democracy to speak to those whose views were different from one’s own. By all accounts, he was exceptionally good at this and had an eagerness to engage with a wide range of people, especially young people. That’s why it’s particularly painful for me to hear about anyone condoning his assassination or failing to express basic human sympathy for those who feel Mr. Kirk’s loss acutely. We must not allow our political passions to get in the way of either moral revulsion at this assassination or basic sympathy for those who are suffering because of it.

Several commentators have been pointing out that political violence has been on the rise in this country over the last few years. Whatever the ideological motivation, these assaults are profoundly pernicious for our democracy, our everyday lives. In thinking about these issues, I usually turn to the philosopher Eric Weil’s ideas on the antithesis of violence and education. Weil taught that violence was an ever-present threat for all of us who attempt to resolve our differences through dialogue. We in education choose conversation as an alternative to violence. When we choose conversation, when we engage with others as Mr. Kirk did, we are protecting against the chaos and non-meaning of violence. A safe-enough space for learning and meaning depends on that choice. Those who choose violence destroy the possibility of learning and meaning. Mr. Kirk’s murder on a college campus is an assault on all of us in education.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination fills me with sadness, and I can scarcely imagine the pain that his family and friends are feeling now. May his memory be a blessing.