Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s death on Sep. 10 occupied headlines for weeks, sparking a variety of responses that highlight the increasingly hostile political atmosphere. Reactions were posted on social media, flags were lowered, and the name Charlie Kirk came up at lunch tables and hallways across North. Students and teachers at North seemed to have similar reactions to Kirk’s death, with many agreeing that it was a tragedy, despite any personal disagreements with Kirk’s views.
According to senior Shaelyn Shields, an officer of Next Gen Voices, America’s emphasis on freedom of expression made Kirk’s murder especially shocking to her.
“I don’t think anyone should die because of their political beliefs, especially in America,” said Shields. “It just shouldn’t have happened.” She added that she noticed people posting Instagram stories condemning the nature of his death.
Junior Ian Carlson, a member of North’s History Team, also thought Kirk’s death was wrong.
“A lot of people, and myself, agree that the killing was not justified,” said Carlson. “It’s freedom of speech. Regardless of true, false, right, or left.”
Despite the seeming consensus that Kirk’s death was wrong, some students have noticed that their teachers have tried to avoid discussing Kirk’s death in-depth, according to Carlson. AP Comparative Government teacher Sabine Razzaqui said that she did not discuss Kirk’s death at length in her class.
“I would feel very uncomfortable having that discussion in the class,” she said. “People are losing their jobs for an opinion that does not condemn Charles Kirk’s death.”
Carlson added, “I think the teachers have been good at keeping their opinions private.”
According to Close-Up teacher Katheryn Codd, she did not dive deeply into the incident because she believed the topic was too sensitive. She added that she felt uncomfortable asking students about their reactions, especially since not many of her classes seemed to want to discuss the matter.
For instance, comedian and television host Jimmy Kimmel’s show was temporarily taken off the air for expressing unpopular opinions about Kirk’s death. Specifically, he commented on the political views of Kirk’s killer, stating that the Trump administration was attempting to characterize him as a liberal to “score political points.” His show is back on, but according to Fox News, viewership has since plummeted.
McPherson said that the cancellation of Kimmel’s show led to an increased suppression of opinions, particularly on the left.
“Liberals are really nervous about talking about Charlie Kirk’s death,” he said. “They feel like they can’t really express their points, because they’re worried, especially now.”
Beyond free speech limitations, Kirk’s death reveals the concerning growth of political polarization in the U.S.
“I think it shows how more normalized violence is becoming,” said junior Sai Cao. “The fact that it even happened shows the fact that guns are so accessible.”
Codd added that Kirk’s death is not the only example of politically motivated attacks in the past year. She said, “I think it’s really important to not forget about the two Minnesota lawmakers who were targeted this summer, and there’s been assassination attacks on Trump.”
Codd said she attributes the increasing violence in part to political rhetoric. “Some of that includes a lot of very aggressive language that Trump uses himself,” she said.
In an analysis of President Trump’s speeches over the course of his political career, political scientists found that since his 2015 campaign, he has increasingly used words and phrases related to crime and military conflict. The analysis revealed that in 2024, President Trump’s use of violent language was approximately equal to authoritarian figures such as Kim Jong Un and Fidel Castro.
“I’m curious how using that language—reading that language—affects, in particular, younger people’s brains and how they respond to people they don’t agree with,” said Codd. “How does that for some people lead or encourage them to become violent?”
According to Georgetown security studies professor Daniel L. Byman, incendiary political remarks can influence real-world violence because leaders’ remarks are often magnified by news outlets and social media. This, in turn, reinforces the audience’s pre-existing beliefs and can embolden them to act, he wrote. For instance, following anti-Muslim sentiments posted by President Trump in 2016, there was a 32% increase in hate crimes against Muslims, highlighting the correlation between such language and violence.
“I think violence in America or anywhere is problematic,” said Razzaqui. “So, hearing that we’re getting to the point where political discussions or politicians aren’t safe from a comparative government perspective is really democracy backsliding.”
According to McPherson, he also fears the precedent that political violence sets.
“Even though we may disagree with what these people do, or what they preach, when we allow lone gunmen to take democracy into their own hands, it doesn’t become democracy,” McPherson said. “It becomes anarchy.”
As the country’s political landscape becomes increasingly polarized, Codd hopes to make her class a place where students can explore their political beliefs without the pressure to pick a side.
“There are a lot of kids who are still trying to figure out what they believe–if they agree with their parents, or their friends, or they don’t,” she said. “I want to give them the space to do that.”
