An administrative law judge has ruled that an Iowa school teacher committed job-related misconduct when he posted negative Facebook comments about conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Matthew Kargol worked for the Oskaloosa Community School District as an art teacher and coach until he was fired in September 2025. Kargol then filed for unemployment benefits and the district resisted, which led to a recent hearing before Administrative Law Judge David Steen.

In his written factual findings of the case, Steen reported that on Sept. 10, 2025, Kargol had posted a comment to Facebook stating, “1 Nazi down.” That comment was posted within hours of authorities confirming Kirk had been shot and killed that day while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

When another Facebook user commented, “What a s—-y thing to say,” Kargol allegedly replied, “Yep, he was part of the problem, a Nazi.”

Steen reported that Kargol posted his comments around 5 p.m. and then deleted them within an hour. By 6 p.m., the district began fielding a number of telephone calls and text messages from members of the public, Steen found.

According to Steen’s findings, the district’s leadership team met that evening and included Kargol via telephone conference call. District leaders asked Kargol to resign, and he declined, after which the district officials said they were concerned for his safety due to the public’s reaction to his comments.

The district placed Kargol on administrative leave that evening, Steen found. The next day, district officials fielded roughly 1,500 telephone calls and received 280 voicemail messages regarding Kargol’s posts.

“These calls required the employer to redirect staff and other resources from their normal duties,” Steen stated in his ruling. “The employer also requested additional law enforcement presence at school facilities due to the possibility of physical threats, which some of the messages alluded to. The employer continued to receive numerous communications from the public for days after the post was removed.”

On Sept. 16, 2025, Superintendent Mike Fisher submitted a written recommendation to the school board to fire Kargol, with the two primary reasons cited as a disruption to the learning environment and a violation of the district’s code of ethics. Upon Fisher’s recommendation, the board fired Kargol on Sept. 17, 2025.

According to Steen’s findings, the district calculated the cost of its response to the situation was $14,332.10 – and amount that includes the wages of the regular staff who handled the phone calls and other communications.

As for the ethics-policy violation, Steen noted that the policy states that employees “are representatives of the district at all times and must model appropriate character, both on and off the worksite. This applies to material posted with personal devices and on personal websites and/or social media accounts.”

The policy goes on to say that social media posts “which diminish the professionalism” of the district may result in disciplinary action, including termination, if it is found to be disruptive to the educational environment.

The district, Steen noted, also has a policy on “employee expression” that states “the First Amendment protects a public employee’s speech when the employee is speaking as an individual citizen on a matter of public concern,” but that “even so, employee expression that has an adverse impact on district operations and/or negatively impacts an employee’s ability to perform their job for the district may still result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.”

Based on the policies and Kargol’s conduct, Steen concluded the district fired Kargol for job-related misconduct that disqualified him from collecting unemployment benefits.

The issue before him, Steen observed, wasn’t whether the district made a correct decision in firing Kargol, but whether Kargol is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits under Iowa law.

In ruling against Kargol on that issue, Steen noted Kargol was aware of district policies regarding social media use as well as work rules that specifically state employees are considered representatives of the school district at all times.

Kargol’s posts, Steen ruled, “reflected negatively on the employer and were against the employer’s interests.” The posts also “caused substantial disruption to the learning environment, causing staff at all levels to need to redirect focus and resources on the public’s response for days after the incident,” Steen stated.

Kargol’s federal lawsuit against the school district, alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to expression, is still working its way through the courts.

In that lawsuit, Kargol argues that in comments made last fall, Fisher made clear that his condemnation of Kargol’s Facebook posts “was rooted in his personal beliefs, not in evidence of disruption. Speaking as ‘a man of faith,’ Fisher expressed disappointment in the state of society and disapproval of Mr. Kargol’s expression. By invoking his personal religious identity in condemning Mr. Kargol’s speech, Fisher confirmed that his reaction was based on his own values and ideology, not on legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

The district has denied any wrongdoing in that case. A trial date has yet to be scheduled.

have been filed against their former employers by Iowa educators, a public defender and a paramedic, all of whom allege they were fired or sanctioned for online comments posted in the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s death.

Earlier this week, and its executive director, alleging they improperly solicited complaints related to anti-Kirk social media posts.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.

Texas has launched a partnership with Turning Point USA to create chapters of the right-wing organization on every high school campus in the state.

Gov. , Lt. Gov. and Turning Point USA Senior Director Josh Thifault revealed the initiative during a news conference at the Governor’s Mansion on Monday. They did not outline any plans that would require schools to initiate the clubs, but Abbott said that he expects “meaningful disciplinary action” to take place against “any stoppage of TPUSA in the great state of Texas.”

“Let me be clear: Any school that stands in the way of a Club America program in their school should be reported immediately to the Texas Education Agency,” the governor said, referring to the name of the high school clubs.

The announcement comes after Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath, who stood behind Abbott at Monday’s gathering, privately met with Thifault in early November to discuss expanding the organization’s presence in the state’s schools, which was by The Texas Tribune. Four days after that meeting, Patrick said he would $1 million in campaign funds to help bring the project to fruition.

Turning Point USA was founded by Charlie Kirk, the late right-wing activist who was often praised by conservatives as a champion of free speech and criticized for comments that many other Americans found hateful toward LGBTQ+ communities, non-Christians, people of color and women. Kirk was killed in early September while speaking on a college campus in Utah.

Following Kirk’s death, Abbott and Morath accused some teachers of posting social media remarks promoting violence and mocking the conservative activist. The state has since begun investigating submitted to the education agency about educators’ alleged comments — a move that considering teachers’ First Amendment protections. The agency has typically conducted such investigations for violations like threats or abuse.

Kirk’s organization has traditionally operated on college campuses, promoting itself as a hub for young people committed to conservative values. The group is also known for having created a so-called professor watchlist, which allows users to search for educators perceived as supporting and promoting liberal viewpoints in the classroom. Turning Point’s work has at times caused tension, particularly among who have because of the negative spotlight placed on them by the organization.

The group’s “Club America” chapters, meanwhile, operate in high schools. The clubs aim to “build strong networks, spearhead impactful initiatives, help students register to vote, and inspire meaningful conversations about the foundations of a free society,” according to .

Turning Point organizers say they have received about starting local chapters since Kirk’s death, while claiming that some students wanting to launch chapters have faced pushback from their schools’ administrators.

Republican officials in Oklahoma and Florida have also announced partnerships with Turning Point to expand the organization’s presence. Those partnerships rely on interested students to initiate the clubs, while Turning Point provides them with organizational support.

Oklahoma’s former right-wing superintendent, Ryan Walters, had to go after the accreditation of schools that refused to welcome the conservative group.

Petitions calling for of the school chapters have also emerged, with some students and parents the national organization for what they describe as “racist, homophobic, and sexist hate speech on college campuses across America.” The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group that tracks extremism, Turning Point as an organization with a strategy of sowing fear “that white Christian supremacy is under attack by nefarious actors, including immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights activists.”

Texas’ partnership with Turning Point marks the latest attempt by Republican officials to push education further to the right, after years of them accusing public schools of indoctrinating students with left-leaning beliefs about race and gender. The state, for example, has passed laws schools to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms — an effort currently facing — and on how educators teach America’s history of slavery and racism.

Abbott on Monday sought to distance Turning Point from any particular political party, comparing it to organizations like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes currently present in many public schools.

“This is about values,” Abbott said. “This is about constitutional principles. This is about a restoration of who we are as a country.”

The governor acknowledged that it is highly unlikely he would endorse a similar initiative for more progressive, left-leaning causes, but added that “it would not be illegal” for them to exist in public schools. Abbott signed earlier this year, a sweeping state law that with an LGBTQ+ focus.

Existing partnerships between Turning Point and other states have already about the constitutionality of state governments using their resources to promote political causes in public schools, with legal experts saying it’s unclear whether the initiatives cross any lines but that they do warrant further observation.

Abbott and Patrick said Monday that Texas already has more than 500 high schools with Club America chapters. Thifault said Turning Point’s goal is to have 20,000 chapters in high schools across the nation.

The president of the Texas American Federation of Teachers, Zeph Capo, recently told the Tribune that groups with a divisive political presence like Turning Point may have a place on college campuses. But he does not think that they belong in high schools, where students are more impressionable.

Disclosure: Southern Poverty Law Center has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete .

This first appeared on .

Larry Bushart Jr. was just freed from a Tennessee jail cell after spending more than a month behind bars — .

The high-profile arrest of the 61-year-old retiree and former cop — which made waves in free speech circles — has all the hallmarks of  in 2025: 

• A chronically online progressive turns to Facebook to troll his MAGA neighbors about President Donald Trump’s seemingly lopsided response to school shootings compared to the murder of right-wing pundit Charlie Kirk
  
• An elected, overzealous county sheriff intent on shutting him up
  
• A debate over the limits of the First Amendment — and the president’s broader efforts to silence his critics

 also calls attention to a series of recent Tennessee laws that carry harsh punishments for making school shooting threats and place police officers on campus threat assessment teams working to ferret out students with violent plans before anyone gets hurt. 

In Bushart’s case, the sheriff maintained that his post referring to the president’s reaction to a 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa, constituted a threat “of mass violence at a school,” apparently the local Perry County High School. The rules that ensnared Bushart have also . His is likely to be next, Bushart’s lawyer told The Washington Post.

In the news

Updates in Trump’s immigration crackdown: Federal immigration officers chased a Chicago teacher into the lobby of a private preschool Wednesday and dragged her out as parents watched her cry “tengo papeles!” or “I have papers.” The incident is perhaps the most significant immigration enforcement act in a school to date. | 

• Proposed federal rules would allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement to collect iris scans, fingerprints and other biometric data on all immigrants — including, for the first time, children under 14 years old — and store it for the duration of each individual person’s “lifecycle.” |  

• On the same day Cornell University notified an international student that his immigration status had been revoked, Google alerted him that federal authorities had subpoenaed his personal emails. Now, the institution won’t say whether federal authorities had tapped into university “emails to track [students] as well.” | 

• In California, federal immigration officers shot a U.S. citizen from behind as he warned the agents that students would soon gather in the area to catch a school bus. The government says the shots were “defensive.” | 

• ‘Deportation isn’t a costume’: A Maine middle school principal is facing pushback for a federal immigration officer Halloween costume, complete with a bulletproof vest that read “ICE.” | 

• In Chicago communities that have seen the most significant increase in immigration enforcement, school enrollment has plunged. |

• Also in Chicago, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to hand over use-of-force records and body camera footage after trick-or-treaters were “tear-gassed on their way to celebrate Halloween.” |

A bipartisan bill seeks to bar minors from using AI chatbots as petrified parents testified their children used the tools with dire consequences — including suicide. Some warn the change could stifle the potential of chatbots for career or mental health counseling services. | 

• A Kentucky mom filed a federal lawsuit against online gaming communities Discord and Roblox alleging the companies jeopardized children’s safety in the name of profit. After her 13-year-old daughter died by suicide last year, the mom said, she found the girl had a second life online that idolized school shooters. | 
  
•  announced it will bar minors from its chatbots, acknowledging safety concerns about how “teens do, and should, interact with this new technology.” | 

A jury awarded $10 million to former Virginia teacher Abby Zwerner on Thursday, two years after she was shot by her 6-year-old student. Zwerner accused her former assistant principal of ignoring repeated warnings that the first grader had a gun. The  to nearly four years in prison for felony child neglect and federal weapons charges. | 

‘Creepy, unsettling’: This family spent a week with Grem, a stuffed animal with artificial intelligence designed to “learn” children’ s personalities and hold educational conversations. | 

A judge ordered the Trump administration to release federal funds to California school districts after it sought to revoke nearly $165 million in mental health grants as part of a broader crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion.  The grants funded hundreds of school social workers and counselors. | 

In 95% of schools, active-shooter drills are now a routine part of campus life. Here’s how states are trying to make them less traumatic. | 

A lawsuit against a Pennsylvania school district alleges educators failed to keep students safe after a 12-year-old girl was attacked by a classmate with a metal Stanley drinking cup. | 

‘Inviting government overreach and abuse’: The Education Department was slapped with two lawsuits over new Public Service Loan Forgiveness rules that could bar student borrowers from the program who end up working for the president’s political opponents, including organizations that serve immigrant students and LGBTQ+ youth. | 

ICYMI @The74

Emotional Support

Matilda plots her escape.

The 61-year-old retiree and former cop — who had a penchant for posting provocative progressive memes that made him stand out in his deeply conservative community southwest of Nashville — was to shoot up a local school. 

The evidence, which the county’s elected sheriff used to hold Bushart in a cell on a $2 million bond until last week, is a meme accusing President Donald Trump of dismissing the lives lost in a 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa, while pushing punishment for critics of slain right-wing pundit Charlie Kirk.

The charges were dropped and Bushart was released from the Perry County Jail in Linden, Tennessee, only after Sheriff Nick Weems acknowledged in a TV interview that Weems initially claimed that Bushart’s post set off “mass hysteria” that he was plotting a shooting at the local Perry County High School. 

The high-profile arrest appears to be part of a broader crackdown by Republican lawmakers — including the Trump administration — on Americans whose social media posts about Kirk’s killing they found to be offensive. Among them are in violation of the First Amendment for online posts about Kirk’s Sept. 10 death. Bushart’s case is an extreme example, civil rights advocates said, and may be the only one where someone has wound up in handcuffs. He

“This guy should never have been arrested in the first place, but the second that there was real scrutiny of the meme that he posted — and it was very apparent that he was not in any way suggesting that he intended to commit a school shooting or anything like that — he should have been released immediately,” said Brian Hauss, an American Civil Liberties Union senior staff attorney who focuses on free speech issues and called Bushart’s arrest “an absolute travesty.” 

Bushart’s arrest calls attention to applying strict penalties for school shooting threats and mandating police officer involvement in campus threat assessments intended to ferret out students with violent plans before they act. The bipartisan laws, passed in the wake of the 2023 mass school shooting at a Christian elementary school in Nashville, have led to a wave of student arrests and have similarly become the subject of . 

The state’s new and “incredibly broad” laws can be used as a “convenient tool,” Hauss said, for law enforcement officials with “political grudges to settle.” 

Weems, himself an avid Facebook user who warned after Kirk’s death that “evil could be standing right beside you in the grocery store,” didn’t respond to interview requests. Neither did Bushart nor the local school district. 

While Bushart’s school days are long behind him, his case is a prime example of why police shouldn’t be “part of the broader role of educators” in scrutinizing students’ behaviors to distinguish an “off-the-cuff remark of a frustrated student” from a threat of violence, said Dan Losen, a senior director at the National Center for Youth Law who has spent more than two decades researching school discipline policies and the so-called school-to-prison pipeline.  

“Once the police are involved, they’re entrenched,” Losen said, adding that officers can make arrests even without the support of educators on threat assessment teams. While law enforcement should be called in threatening circumstances, he said there’s a greater risk for “law enforcement to abuse their authority” if they’re regularly asked to evaluate student conduct through a policing mindset. 

“They can, at any point, decide that a student is a threat,” Losen said. “They can go after people that they don’t like — they can go after their kids.”

Losen said he initially saw value in school-based threat assessments as “a clear process” to evaluate students’ conduct and react appropriately. In recent years, however, he’s come to believe the research supporting the model lacks rigor and that it’s led to a surge in unjust suspensions and arrests —

‘I don’t care, I want him arrested’

In states across the country, police officers have become routinely involved in evaluating students’ behaviors and motives as members of formal campus-based behavioral threat assessment teams. School-based threat assessments have become mainstream, particularly in the aftermath of the 2018 mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Schools nationally have assembled teams of teachers, mental health officials, police and other campus adults to identify students who pose safety threats and intervene with counseling and other services — and sometimes arrests — before anyone commits violence. 

Such teams are used in 85% of schools across the U.S., by the nonprofit Learning Policy Institute. Forty-five states have policies that establish the teams in public schools, the report states, and 20 have laws requiring them. 

District leaders have also turned to technology for school safety, using artificial intelligence-powered surveillance tools to scan social media websites in search of posts that could spell danger. 

Threat assessments have prompted concerns from civil rights groups that the method could misidentify struggling students as future gunmen and unnecessarily push them into the juvenile justice system. School shootings are statistically rare yet student behaviors that are often factors in threat assessments — like alcohol use and a history of mental health issues — are exceedingly common.

In 2023, Tennessee lawmakers passed rules requiring every school to have threat assessment teams that included police officers. That same year, lawmakers established mandatory yearlong expulsions for students who make violent threats against schools. In 2024, lawmakers increased the penalty for threats against schools from a misdemeanor to a felony. Georgia and New Mexico have since . 

The changes have led to , according to reporting by The Tennessean. Last year, 518 students statewide were arrested under the new law, 71 of them between the ages of 7 and 11. Some of the arrests were preceded, the outlet reported, by ill-advised jokes and statements erroneously perceived as threats. 

In one case, a high school student was arrested for allegedly making a “Hitler salute” and, despite a lack of evidence, the principal said “I don’t care, I want him arrested.” The teen was reportedly taken into custody, strip-searched and placed in solitary confinement at the local juvenile jail. 

When speech becomes a ‘true threat’

The rate of school shootings has surged in recent years, yet early interventions have received credit for saving lives in several instances. 

In September, the nonprofit Sandy Hook Promise — which was formed in the wake of the 2012 mass school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 20 first graders and six school staffers dead — boasted of .

A high school student reported to the Say Something Anonymous Reporting System “detailed threats on social media,” to shoot up a local school complete with images of ammunition, a mapped-out attack plan and access to a gun, according to the nonprofit, which notified a local school district response team. The student who made the alleged threats was ultimately detained by the police. 

Sandy Hook Promise claims the incident is the 19th planned school shooting they’ve prevented since 2018. School shootings are , a majority of whom leak their violent plans to people around them in advance, offering officials a window to act. 

Mo Canady, the executive director of the nonprofit National Association of School Resource Officers, said the police play a critical role in assessing school threats and preventing campus violence. Canady acknowledged that social media, in particular, “is not an easy environment to navigate” when trying to decipher whether someone’s speech constitutes a threat.

But the focus needs to be placed on keeping campuses safe, he said, rather than “being hyperfocused on, ‘Oh my gosh, am I violating someone’s First Amendment rights?” 

“People have a right to say what they want to say, but there are also consequences at times to what they say,” Canady said. “From a behavioral threat assessment standpoint, I don’t think there’s ever an intent there to try to squish anyone’s First Amendment rights. That’s not what this is about.”

In its new report on school-based threat assessments, the Learning Policy Institute concluded that the approach appears effective in preventing violence at schools where it’s implemented with high fidelity and where educators receive instruction from expert trainers. In the absence of adequate staff and training, educators often turn to suspensions, expulsions and arrests to handle students who are viewed as problematic. 

Poorly designed assessments have led to concerns they “may target and potentially traumatize the most vulnerable students, including through the exclusion and criminalization of historically marginalized students.” 

It also called for additional research into threat assessments, noting that much of the existing evidence supporting them comes from a team of University of Virginia researchers who developed a model used in schools nationwide. In one 2021 study, resulted in low student disciplinary rates and didn’t exhibit racial disparities in outcomes. 

Psychologist Dewey Cornell, the principal author of the university’s Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines, declined an interview request, but argued that First Amendment implications were rare.

“Free speech objections to threat assessment don’t come up very often in school threat settings,” Cornell wrote The 74 in an email. “There is case law on how threats are excluded from free speech protections.” 

The Supreme Court has set a high bar for what constitutes a “true threat,” and the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank, said Bushart’s Facebook post fell . In a 1969 Supreme Court opinion, the group noted, the nation’s top court “made it crystal clear that only true threats are exempt from the freedom of speech — not hyperbole and political bombast.”

 In 2023, the Supreme Court further strengthened First Amendment protections, finding someone can only make a “true threat” if they knowingly disregard a “substantial risk” that their speech would cause harm. 

In Bushart’s case, it doesn’t matter whether the sheriff’s actions were the result of a misunderstanding about the intent behind the Facebook post or an effort to censor speech he found objectionable, the ACLU’s Hauss said. The monthlong confinement violated the Tennessee citizen’s constitutional rights. 

Hauss said he understands “the very serious security concerns when it comes to school shootings.” But campus safety matters, he said, “should not be left up to people who can’t distinguish political speech from threats of violence.”

The Texas Education Agency investigation into teachers’ social media comments after Charlie Kirk’s killing has legal experts and public education advocates troubled by what they say amounts to a “witch hunt” that shows a lack of regard for educators’ free speech rights.

The agency said earlier this month that it was concerning teachers accused of making inappropriate remarks about the famous right-wing activist who was recently shot and killed at a college campus event in Utah.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

The announcement came shortly after Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath sent a letter to superintendents criticizing content he found “reprehensible and inappropriate” and promising to refer such posts to his agency’s investigative unit with a recommendation that the instructors have their teaching licenses suspended. Gov. Greg Abbott the move, accusing the teachers of calling for or inciting violence. The state has since released information on the increasing number of complaints but not their specific content.

From lawyers to restaurant employees, people throughout the country have faced for making statements about Kirk’s killing. In Texas, many school districts have responded to complaints with statements what administrators have described as hateful rhetoric and or employees whose comments they felt violated their local codes of conduct.

Legal experts and public education advocates say the state’s reaction to remarks about Kirk — who often and many hateful, inappropriate and reprehensible — is an attack on teachers’ right to express their opinions on matters of public significance, even if their employer finds them distasteful.

“What’s especially troubling is the political pressure surrounding these investigations and the demands coming from the highest officials in the state that teachers face investigation and punishment for their comments about a public figure,” said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Public school employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they take the job, Terr said. When teachers speak in their personal capacity, even on school grounds but outside their official duties, they retain their right to free speech, he said.

In his letter to district superintendents criticizing teachers’ remarks, Morath said the social media comments under scrutiny could have violated and that his agency would review them to determine “whether sanctionable conduct has occurred.”

The state’s code of ethics lays out how teachers should behave within the workplace and sets standards for how they should interact with colleagues, students, parents and the school community. Physically harming a child or knowingly making false statements about another employee, for example, would clearly violate the code.

The code also calls on educators to display “good moral character,” meaning behaviors that indicate “honesty, accountability, trustworthiness, reliability and integrity,” and to not engage in “moral turpitude,” like fraud, theft or violence.

Generally, two processes can play out when a district or the state thinks an educator has violated that policy.

State law allows local school boards to fire or suspend a teacher at any time for “good cause” as determined by that body. After an educator receives notice of a district’s proposal to fire or suspend them, they can request that a state-appointed examiner conduct an investigation. The school board does not have to follow the investigator’s final recommendations. Teachers can then appeal the board’s decision to the education commissioner.

Meanwhile, when the state education agency receives about a teacher, it conducts a preliminary investigation to determine if further action is necessary. The next step is a formal investigation — when the state places a “warning” on the educator’s teaching certificate — which determines what disciplinary action the state may take. That could include revoking the instructor’s teaching license.

But legal experts say that if the state wants to take disciplinary action against an educator for speaking in their personal capacity, it needs to consider whether the teacher’s comments caused a significant disruption to the workplace or their ability to do their job. Courts rely on examining those factors and weighing whether a public employee was disciplined for speaking on a matter of public concern or a private grievance. The former could violate First Amendment protections.

Abbott recently to a social media post showing a teacher who, in response to Kirk’s killing, allegedly called his death “karma.” According to the post, the educator had also shared a graphic showing controversial comments from Kirk throughout his career. The governor criticized the post, saying, “Assassination is not Karma,” and that the state had added the teacher’s remarks to its investigation.

However, the post may not rise to the level of endorsing or promoting violence, said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at the free expression advocacy organization PEN America, who also noted that the state would have to meet “a very high bar” to prove that claim in court. Widespread complaints or outrage, Brinkley said, likely do not constitute a workplace disruption that would justify disciplinary action against a teacher.

Experts say the state’s implementation of policies or actions that cause employees to refrain from speaking on public matters out of caution could also the Constitution.

“We’re seeing so much pressure from lawmakers in Texas and around the country to crack down on this speech,” Brinkley said. “Even if the disruption may be coming from private citizens’ complaints, it’s also part of this larger climate of intimidation. So I think it’s tricky territory for the First Amendment, but I don’t think that we can deny the significance of all of this public pressure as well.”

The state education agency did not respond to questions from the Tribune about its investigation, including how it planned to factor in teachers’ First Amendment protections. Abbott’s office referred the Tribune to recent remarks from the governor, in which he said Texas “must send a signal that celebrating the assassination of a free speech advocate is wrong in a civil society.”

Zeph Capo, president of the Texas American Federation of Teachers, said he is worried that the governor, the education commissioner and state lawmakers are “whipping this frenzy up,” blurring the line between genuine complaints from Texans and those seeking to score political points through what he described as a “witch hunt.”

Across the state’s more than 9,000 public school campuses, Capo said, teachers have varying beliefs. If he looked hard enough, he asserted that he could find comments posted by educators that others would disagree with or find unflattering, such as during conversations about mass school shootings or the Second Amendment.

“Firing them,” he said, “is not really the thing that should be done.”

This article originally appeared in at . The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Shortly after starting my career as an assistant professor, my dean received a troublesome email from a former public school superintendent. The influential educational leader was demanding my dismissal. My sin — I advocated for pension reform. Fortunately, I had a dean who understood what academic freedom was, and, though I did not yet have tenure, said I was free to make arguments, conduct research, write and talk about academic issues even when those arguments challenged the dominant paradigm. 

There were no grounds for firing me simply because I believed — and could demonstrate — that the state’s teacher pension system was underfunded and unfair.

Academic freedom is granted to professors by their employers not as a matter of right, but as a good practice for facilitating the advancement of knowledge. It is necessary for the pursuit of truth. And tenure, formalized job protections for academics, can serve a valuable purpose. Yet, too many teachers and professors seem to have lost the plot. They see academic freedom as license to say whatever they like without repercussions. They fail to recognize that rights also confer responsibilities.

First and foremost, as those entrusted with educating the next generation, teachers and professors have an obligation to conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the positions they hold. They must steward the trust of parents and society by honoring the fact that education is not their private playground, but a public responsibility. Academic freedom does not mean K-12 teachers can close the classroom door and teach whatever they like.

Nor does it mean that a college professor can inject ideas into the classrooms that are not called for by the course description or syllabus. Imagine if a physics professor decided to lecture on gender ideology instead of Newton’s laws, or claimed that gravity was merely a social construct. Educators are not entitled to use required courses as platforms for whatever ideas strike their fancy. Their content must align with the approved curriculum and the professional standards of their discipline. To abuse the classroom in such ways is not an exercise of freedom, but a betrayal of a sacred trust.

Second, educators at all levels must be committed to the pursuit of truth and open dialogue. This means that both students and professors must be free to ask difficult, even unsettling, questions. In his book No Adult Left Behind: How Politics Hijacks Education Policy and Hurts Kids, political scientist Vladimir Kogan asked, “Is the loss of democratic control sometimes necessary to do what is right for kids?” In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner famously asked whether legalized abortion contributed to the decline in crime during the 1990s. These are controversial questions — but they are legitimate. They can and should be investigated and debated. Too many educators today, however, are not interested in the pursuit of truth; they are interested in propagating only their truth. When education becomes a vehicle for ideology rather than inquiry, it ceases to be education at all.

Finally, teachers and professors have a responsibility to form the character of their students. This requires cultivating habits of intellectual humility, honesty and respect for human dignity. When educators glorify acts of violence or trivialize evil, particularly while in the classroom, they betray this calling and corrode the moral foundations upon which genuine education rests. Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, an of and college professors reveled in his murder, making vile comments online. When rightly challenged on these disgusting statements, they used their rights as a shield. They claimed they were protected by academic freedom or the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees. And maybe they are. That may be up to the courts to decide.

Regardless, in posting such comments, they forgot their responsibilities as educators. Teachers and professors, like all citizens, have free speech — they can publish articles, write blogs or stand on a streetcorner and say what they want. But academic freedom does not entitle them to a paycheck, especially from a government institution. Nor does it entitle them to conscript students into hearing their personal views in courses those students are required to take. Educators who celebrate murder have demonstrated they do not have the moral framework for the positions they hold.

Our rights as citizens have corresponding responsibilities. We have the right to vote, so we have the responsibility to educate ourselves on the issues and candidates. We have the right to religious freedom; therefore, we must honor the freedom of others to believe or not believe differently. We have the right to free speech, so we have the responsibility to avoid deliberate falsehoods, slander or reckless speech that undermines civil discourse. This same framework extends to those entrusted with the title of teacher or professor, especially those who serve in public institutions.

Preserving the integrity of schools and universities means recovering a proper understanding of the responsibilities that come with the rights of educators. Academic freedom is indispensable, but it was never meant to be a license for recklessness, indoctrination or moral corruption. 

It is a trust extended to those tasked with forming minds and shaping citizens. When teachers and professors embrace that trust with seriousness — seeking truth, modeling virtue and respecting the boundaries of their calling — education flourishes. When they abandon it, both students and society pay the price.

Right-wing political operative Charlie Kirk was discussing one of the most divisive topics in contemporary U.S. politics — school shootings — when a bullet pierced his neck. 

Before he was gunned down on a Utah college campus, the 31-year-old activist built a reputation as a free-speech absolutist whose provocative, pull-no-punches commentary made him an icon for many young conservatives and a villain to liberal college students who sought to shut him up.

Now, it’s his critics who find themselves on the receiving end of censorship as the Trump administration endorses a doxxing campaign against people who’ve engaged in online “hate speech” and educators face consequences at work for critical social media posts. For students, it’s a fraught environment that offers new First Amendment risks, experts told me this week.

“Somebody silenced Charlie Kirk, and that person probably wanted less speech,” said Adam Goldstein, the vice president of strategic initiatives at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “So if our reaction to that is to start silencing each other, then we’re doing the work of assassins for them.”

Authorities have accused 22-year-old Tyler Robinson of murdering Kirk for his “political expression.” Prosecutors released a series of text messages Tuesday between Robinson and his roommate and romantic partner in which the suspected killer said he had enough of Kirk’s “hatred,” and that “some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

In the news

A teenager who shot two students at a suburban Denver High school on the same day as Kirk’s murder had “a deep fascination with mass shooters” and TikTok accounts “filled with white supremacist symbolism.” | 

• On the morning of the Evergreen High School attack, the school-based police officer was away from campus responding to a nearby car crash.��

The Uvalde, Texas, school district canceled classes for four days this week after it became the target of a ransomware attack. The district suffered a 2022 school shooting that left 19 elementary schoolers and two teachers dead. Campus security infrastructure, including surveillance cameras, were compromised by the cyberattack, the district said. | 

California reformed its student discipline regime — including a ban on suspensions for willful defiance — in a bid to combat racial and socioeconomic disparities. It hasn’t worked. | 

From ‘homework helper’ to ‘suicide coach’: Parents testified at an emotionally raw Senate hearing Tuesday that their children were driven to suicide by artificial intelligence chatbots, including ChatGPT and Character.AI. Among those who testified are parents suing tech companies alleging their children’s use of chatbots led to harm or death. | 

• Florida mother Megan Garcia’s lawsuit alleges the Character.AI chatbot formed an abusive relationship with her 14-year-old son, Sewell, that drove him to suicide. | 
• “No parent should have to give their own child’s eulogy,” she told lawmakers. “After losing Sewell, I have spoken with parents across the country who have discovered their children have been groomed, manipulated and harmed by AI chatbots. This is not a rare or isolated case.” | 
• In May, a federal judge rejected Character.AI’s arguments that its chatbots are protected by the First Amendment. | 
• On the same day as the hearing, OpenAI announced it would add an age prediction feature to its chatbots and tailor responses for younger audiences. | 
• Why parents should talk to their kids about the risks of AI. | 

A new Pew Research Center poll shows overwhelming public support for international students at U.S. colleges and universities, even as they get entangled in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. | 

New laws in 31 states and the District of Columbia restrict students’ cellphone use at school, according to a new analysis by the National Association of State Boards of Education. Yet the group argues the policies “may not address the full range of harms to student safety and mental health arising from risky online behaviors — or equip students with the digital literacy skills they need.” | 

New in Trump’s immigration crackdown: A New York school superintendent flew to Texas and tried to give a cap, gown and diploma to an undocumented student who was detained just weeks before his high school graduation. | 

• ‘Immense fear and terror’: How the militarized surge of law enforcement in Washington, D.C., has taken a toll on the city’s kids. | 
• A Maine congresswoman has called on immigration agents to give a “full accounting” of its decision to arrest a father after he dropped off his child at school. | 
• A man shot and killed by ICE agents during a traffic stop last week dropped his children off at school moments before his death. | 

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has put a hold on new state social studies standards that parents, educators and faith leaders allege impose Christian beliefs on students in violation of the First Amendment. | 

The Green Bay, Wisconsin, school district will require middle and high schoolers to use clear backpacks after a student was arrested for bringing a gun to class. | 

ICYMI @The74

Emotional Support

Everybody say meow to Taittinger, the new cat around the house.

Just not too loudly or she’ll scurry under the bed.

The 31-year-old activist, who was shot dead last week while debating before an audience of 3,000 at a Utah college campus, had built a reputation as a provocateur. In campus debates and to millions of online followers, Kirk’s populist crusade to on hotbed issues like immigration, transgender rights and gun control made him a brash, pull-no-punches icon for many young conservatives and a villain to who sought to shut him up. 

Kirk’s killing has reignited debates around another divisive issue — one that was central to his political identity — and that experts say could now face major upheaval: campus free speech. 

First Amendment experts told The 74 Kirk being gunned down — a gruesome moment that was videotaped and — was “the ultimate form of cancel culture.” It then resulted in swift, widespread censorship and promised retribution. 

President Donald Trump, who counted Kirk as both a close friend and key political ally, said he intends to go after left-wing groups, labeling them as . Under threat by the Federal Communications Commission, indefinitely after the late night host claimed the Trump administration was “desperately trying” to characterize Kirk’s alleged killer “as anything other than one of them.” 

It was teachers who were among the first to be singled out for their comments on Kirk’s death. 

In Virginia, an educator was reportedly post that said “I hope he suffered through all of it.” In Texas, for suggesting Kirk’s death was the “consequences of his actions.” In Iowa, a teacher was for posting online “1 Nazi down.” South Carolina GOP Rep. Nancy Mace called on the Education Department from any school district that refuses to fire educators who “glorify or justify political violence.” 

At the same time, students face a heightened risk of backlash for engaging in fraught, hyperpartisan discourse, including for constitutionally protected free speech, said First Amendment attorney Adam Goldstein. 

“Somebody silenced Charlie Kirk and that person probably wanted less speech,” said Goldstein, the vice president of strategic initiatives at the , a nonprofit that advocates for student speech rights. “So if our reaction to that is to start silencing each other, then we’re doing the work of assassins for them.” 

Authorities have Kirk for his “political expression.” Prosecutors released a series of text messages Tuesday between Robinson and his roommate and romantic partner in which the suspected killer said he had enough of Kirk’s “hatred,” and that “some hate can’t be negotiated out.” 

Goldstein said censoring political dialogue — even if it’s lewd or offensive — is the wrong approach to Kirk’s slaying, which is part of a broader rise in political violence in the U.S. Such a climate, roughly two-thirds of Americans , is the result of harsh political rhetoric. In an act of political violence in June, a man impersonating a police officer her husband and their golden retriever Gilbert.

Though a complete picture of the factors that led to Kirk’s killing remains unknown, research by Goldstein’s group, known as FIRE, points to a — and an embrace of violence to cancel those they disagree with. a teenager, who was and held neo-Nazi views, shot two students at a suburban Denver high school before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. 

A third of college students support violence to stop someone from speaking on campus “at least in rare cases,” according to a new FIRE survey released just a day before Kirk’s death. A quarter said they often self-censor around their peers to avoid potential backlash. 

The results showed a growing acceptance among students — including those who identify as Republicans — to shout at speakers in a bid to shut them up, to block their classmates from attending public speeches and to resort to censorship-driven violence. 

But it’s often left-wing activists who have been a key motivator for Kirk, who founded his youth-driven group in 2012. Through countless visits to college campuses, he forcefully made room for opposing viewpoints, many of them considered racist, anti-LGBTQ and misogynist.��

At the high school level, shows overwhelming support among students for free speech rights — but the situation becomes complicated with subjects they deem “offensive” or “threatening.”

While students generally have First Amendment rights at school, those freedoms end when their speech to the educational environment. Educators are held to a similar standard. First Amendment scholar Clay Calvert said endorsements of violence could cross that line. 

“People have a right to criticize his views, but that’s different than celebrating his death,” said Calvert, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “If you’re criticizing his views, as a student you’re more likely to be protected because it’s political speech. 

“If you’re celebrating his death,” Calvert said, “that’s less likely to be protected.” 

Students reject ‘threatening’ speech

Kirk was perhaps best known as an online personality whose hard-right political commentary routinely drew hecklers and calls for colleges to rescind his planned visits. It’s a campus climate  

He questioned the , claimed that “Islam is,” and stated that immigrants crossing into the U.S. from the southern border were part of a to eliminate white rural Americans.

While promoting those views, and married father of two was a staunch supporter of free speech. 

“When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence,” Kirk said in uploaded to social media. “That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.”

As Kirk tested the free speech boundaries on campuses, data suggest college students have grown increasingly hostile to their peers with opposing viewpoints, according to that’s gauged students’ support for the First Amendment since 2004. 

In 2024, 27% of survey respondents said their campuses should “protect students by prohibiting speech they may find offensive or biased,” up from 22% in 2021. Three-fifths, or 60%, of students reported a campus culture where people were prevented from sharing their beliefs because others might find their opinions offensive. That’s an increase from 54% in 2016. 

At the high school level, the Knight Foundation survey data show, the campus speech rights of people with unpopular opinions. The data have remained relatively consistent between 2004 and 2022, the most recent year in which the survey was conducted. In 2022, 89% of surveyed high schoolers said people “should be allowed to express unpopular opinions,” up from a low of 76% in 2007.

Support among high school students  fell drastically, however, for speech they deemed “offensive” or “threatening.” Among the high school respondents in 2022, 40% said people should be able to say whatever they want even if it’s offensive and 28% said threatening speech should be allowed.

Another survey of college students, , found an overwhelming majority of young people feel heard on campus. 

About three-quarters of those seeking their bachelor’s degree reported “excellent” or “good” efforts by their institutions to promote free speech, results that held consistent across the political spectrum. Students who identify as Republicans were just 1 percentage point more likely than their Democratic counterparts to report “poor” speech rights on campus. 

‘Witch hunt’

Following Kirk’s death, the Trump administration to search out, identify and harass his social media critics. Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to “absolutely target” people who engage in “hate speech.” Such expressions are and Bondi walked back her comments after she faced criticism from observers across the political spectrum. 

In Texas, the state education department announced this week it was reviewing at least over online comments about Kirk’s assasination.  The reviews came after Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath said the agency would and encouraged the public to file complaints. 

“While the exercise of free speech is a fundamental right we are all blessed to share, it does not give carte blanche authority to celebrate or sow violence against those that share differing beliefs and perspectives,” Morath wrote in the letter last week. 

The Texas American Federation of Teachers has condemned the investigations, which the group called a “political witch hunt.” Union President Zeph Capo said the letter amounted to “a statewide directive to hunt down and fire educators for opinions shared on their personal social media accounts.” 

“It’s no surprise that, here in Texas, the purge of civil servants starts with teachers,” Capo said in a statement. “If you value your freedom, now is the time to speak up and defend the rights of all Texans to exercise their constitutional right to have an opinion on matters of civil discourse.” 

Colleges have faced similar scrutiny. The American Association of University Professors, a nonprofit trade association for college educators, said it was alarmed by “the rash of recent administrative actions to discipline faculty, staff and student speech.” In Trump’s second term, higher education —  and — has been among the president’s top targets. 

“At a moment when higher education is threatened by forces that seek to destroy it and its role in a democratic society,” the group said in a statement, “the anticipatory obedience shown by this rush to judgment must be avoided.” 

In , Calvert of the University of Florida notes that the First Amendment protects educators against censorship by their public school employers — “but those rights are not absolute.” At play is an educator’s interest in speaking as a private citizen versus school leaders’ “interest in an efficient, disruption-free workplace.” 

If a teacher revels in Kirk’s death on social media, he told The 74, “that’s clearly going to disrupt that educational environment and interfere with it.” 

“In this case, it’s a public school trying to teach students effectively and you can imagine if you were a Kirk supporter, you’d say, ‘I can’t take this class from this professor or this teacher, he or she has posted online celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death,’” Calvert said.  

Goldstein of FIRE challenged Bondi’s early assertions that hate speech was criminal, noting the concept is “something we made up to describe a bunch of words we don’t like,” but lacks a legal definition. While he’s seen gleeful online commentary about Kirk’s killing, he said he hasn’t come across any that breach the free-speech threshold of being or  

“Much of what I’ve seen I would characterize as unkind, mocking, maybe uncharitable in the moment,” he said, but not calls for violence “that are likely to be received by an audience willing to do it.” In fact, he said the First Amendment was specifically designed to protect the rights of citizens to hold unpopular beliefs. 

“As far as I know, no one in history has ever tried to stop you from talking about how much you like puppies because everybody likes puppies and there’s no reason to censor that,” Goldstein said. “Speech that we hate is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment is concerned with protecting.” 

Yet, with the government’s endorsement of censorship in the wake of Kirk’s death comes a tinge of irony. Prior to being killed reportedly for his beliefs, Kirk held an absolutist position on the First Amendment. 

“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech.

And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.

Keep America free.” 

A Texas State University student’s enrollment ended after a video was posted showing him mocking conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s death, the latest in a series of removals across Texas campuses prompted by comments made about the killing.

The video, Tuesday morning on X, shows the student in a crowd slapping his neck several times, calling himself Kirk and at one point climbing the base of a statue and stating “my name is Charlie Kirk” before falling over. Kirk died after being shot in the neck on Sept. 10 during an event he was hosting at Utah Valley University.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

The video sparked responses condemning the student’s mocking of Kirk, including from Gov. , who reshared the video and demanded Texas State University take action against the student.

“Expel this student immediately,” Abbott said in a social media on X. “Mocking assassination must have consequences.”

Six hours after Abbott’s request, Texas State University announced the person in the video had been identified and “was no longer a student” at the university, according to a from Texas State University President Kelly Damphousse. It was not immediately clear whether the student was expelled or voluntarily withdrew. In Damphousse’s statement, he called the video “disturbing” and condemned the student’s behavior.

“I will not tolerate behavior that mocks, trivializes, or promotes violence on our campuses,” Damphousse said.

The name of the student was not released by Damphousse in his statement, and said that federal law prevents the school from commenting on individual student conduct matters. Texas State University spokespeople did not immediately respond to questions about what policies may have been broken or what specific behavior from the student had triggered officials to act.

The end of the student’s enrollment is a convergence between two recent phenomena gripping Texas education: widespread conservative backlash against those who mock or criticize Kirk in the days since his killing, and viral videos of those in higher education leading to their removal from campus. Faculty and advocacy groups have expressed repeated that the wave of removals and firings for statements and actions by students and faculty amount to First Amendment violations and a clampdown on free speech.

A student at Texas Tech University was arrested for misdemeanor assault on Sept. 12 after a video of her demeaning Kirk and arguing with another student was shared on social media, including by Abbott.

And in K-12 schools, at least two teachers in Texas have been fired for online comments they made about Kirk and two have resigned. The Texas Education Agency said it has received it will investigate related to comments made about Kirk. Texas American Federation of Teachers president Zeph Capo condemned the investigations as a politically motivated “witch hunt.”

Comments made by those in higher education to matters unrelated to Kirk’s death have also prompted online criticism and calls for removals. On Sept. 10, Texas State University Professor Thomas Alter for comments he made during an online social conference that was unknowingly recorded and posted on social media.

And at Texas A&M University on Sept. 9, Professor Melissa McCoul was and the College of Arts and Sciences dean and a department head were removed from their positions. The firing and removals came after a video of a student confronting McCoul in her children’s literature course over gender identity content was posted online.

The shockwave of backlash on multiple fronts across the state, led and at times spurred by conservative lawmakers, comes as Texas universities are turning to more frequently to take on administrative roles at state institutions. Three state Republican lawmakers have been selected as chancellors of some of Texas’ largest university systems this year.

Republican lawmakers have also led efforts to restrict when and how students can protest on campus, claiming the new guidelines will help to avoid unsafe behavior seen at pro-Palestinian protests last year. restricts sound amplifying devices to be used in a disruptive manner and prohibits protests between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.

The restrictions in SB 2972 come five years after the Texas Legislature passed a bill in 2019 that aimed to bolster free speech protections on campus. was also authored and favored by Republicans, which created sanctions for students who interfere with others’ free speech and protects student organizations’ ability to invite speakers on campus.

Amid the public outcry, Damphousse pushed back on claims that the student’s actions in the video reflects on the university or its community as a whole in an email sent to Texas State University students. He also asked for “measured response and dialogue” amid the anxiety on campus.

“Just as the behavior in the video was reprehensible, attempts to spread the blame onto innocent students are also unacceptable,” Damphousse said. “The actions of one person do not reflect our entire community or the individuals in it.”

This article originally appeared in at .

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

There’s been a massive effort to understand why Gen Z shifted right in the 2024 election. Part of that movement was thanks to Charlie Kirk and his work to engage young people — on and offline.

Whether it was his college tours or the campus debate videos he brought to the forefront of social media, he changed the way young people think about, consume and engage in political discourse.

Over the past few years, as I’ve conducted Gen Z listening sessions across the country, I’ve watched as has become a priority issue for young people, particularly on the right. The emphasis on that issue alone helped President Donald Trump make inroads with young voters in 2024, with Kirk as its biggest cheerleader. Just a few years ago, being a conservative was not welcomed on many liberal college campuses. That has changed.

Even on campuses he never visited, Kirk, via his massive social media profile and the resonance of his videos online, was at the center of bringing MAGA to the mainstream. Scroll TikTok or Instagram with a right-leaning college student for five minutes, and you’re likely to see one of those debate-style videos pop into their feed. Since the news broke of the attack on his life last week, I’ve heard from many young leaders — both liberal and conservative — who are distraught and shook up. The reality is that Kirk changed the game for Gen Z political involvement. Even for those who disagreed with his politics, his focus on young voters inevitably shifted how young people were considered and included in the conversation.

Like many of you, I’ve followed Kirk for years. Whether you aligned with his policy viewpoints or not, his influence on the conversation is undeniable. And, for young people, he was the face of the next generation for leadership in the conservative party.

Kirk’s assassination was the latest in , including the political assassination in Minnesota that took the life of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, and left state Sen. John Hoffman wounded. One of the most common fears I hear from young people across the country and the political spectrum is that political division has gone too far. Last week’s shooting also coincided with a tragic school shooting in Colorado. The grave irony of all these forces coinciding — gun violence, political violence and campus violence — cannot be ignored.

In all my conversations with young people, one thing is clear: they are scared.

Gen Z perspectives 

After Wednesday’s tragedy, I reached out to students and young people I’ve met through listening sessions with , as well as leaders of youth organizations that veer right of center. Others reached out via social media to comment. Here’s some of what they shared.

California college student Lucy Cox: “He was the leader of the Republican Party and the conservative movement right now especially for young people. He’s probably more famous than Trump for college students. He had divisive politics, but he never went about it in a divisive way. He’s been a part of my college experience for as long as I’ve been here. He felt like somebody I knew. His personality was so pervasive. It feels very odd that I’m never going to watch a new Charlie Kirk video again.”

Jesse Wilson, a 30-year-old in Missouri: “From the first time I saw him, it was on the ‘Whatever’ podcast, I’ve watched that for a long long long time. Just immediately, the way he carried himself and respected the people he was talking to regardless of who they were, their walk of life, how they treated him. Immediately I just thought, ‘Man, there’s just something different about him.’ He was willing to engage. It was the care, he didn’t want to just shut somebody down. He was like, ‘These are my points, and this is what I’m about,’ and it seemed like there was a willingness to engage and meet people where they’re at. I found it really heartwarming. And we need it. That’s what’s going to make a difference.”

Ebo Entsuah, a 31-year-old from Florida: “Charlie had a reach most political influencers couldn’t even imagine. I didn’t agree with him on a number of things, but there’s no mistaking that he held the ear of an entire generation. When someone like that is taken from the world, the impact multiplies.”

Danielle Butcher Franz, CEO of The American Conservation Coalition: “Charlie changed my life. The first time I ever went to D.C. was because of him. He invited me to join TPUSA at CPAC so I bought a flight and skipped class. When we finally met in person he grinned and said, ‘Are you Republican Sass?’ (My Twitter at the time) and gave me a big thumbs-up. I owe so much of my career to him. Most of my closest friends came into my life through him or at his events. Because of Charlie, I met my husband. We worked with him back when TPUSA was still run out of a garage. Charlie’s early support helped ACC grow when no one else took us seriously. He welcomed me with open arms to speak at one of his conferences to 300+ young people when ACC was barely weeks old. I keep looking around me and thinking about how none of it would be here if I hadn’t met Charlie.”

A 26-year-old woman who asked to remain anonymous: “I would be naive to not admit that my career trajectory and path would not have been possible without Charlie Kirk. He forged a path in making a career with steadfast opinions, engaging with a generation that had never been so open-minded and free, slanting their politics the exact opposite of his own. He made politics accessible. He made conservatism accessible. But damn, he made CIVICS accessible. He dared us to engage. To take the bait. To react. He was controversial because he was good at what he was doing. Good at articulating his beliefs with such conviction to dare the other side to express. He died engaging with the other side. In good or bad faith is one’s own to decide, but he was engaging. In a time where the polarization is never more clear. So I will continue to dare to engage with those I agree and those I disagree with. But it’s heartbreaking. It feels like we’ve lost any common belonging. There has not been an event in modern political history that has impacted me this much. Maybe it hits too close to home.”

Disillusioned by a divided America 

Over the summer, I wrote about . Of all generations, according to Gallup data, Gen Z’s American pride is the lowest, at just 41%. At the time, I wrote that this is not just about the constant chaos which has become so normalized for our generation. It’s more than that. It’s a complete disillusionment with U.S. politics for a generation that has grown up amid hyperpolarization and a scathing political climate. What happened last week adds a whole layer.

Beyond the shooting, there is the way in which this unfolded online. There’s a legitimate conversation to be had about people’s reactions to Kirk’s death and an unwillingness to condemn violence.

As a 19-year-old college student told me: “This reveals a big problem that I see with a lot of members in Gen Z — that they tend to see things in black and white and fail to realize that several things can be true at once.”

There’s also the need for a discussion about the speed at which the incredibly graphic video of violence circulated — and the fact that it is now seared into the minds of the many, many young people who watched it.

We live in a country where gun violence is pervasive. When we zoom out and look toward the future, there are inevitable consequences of this carnage.

Since The Up and Up started holding listening sessions in fall 2022, young people have shared that civil discourse and political violence are two of their primary concerns. One of the most telling trends are the responses to two of our most frequently asked questions: “What is your biggest fear for the country, and what is your biggest hope for the country?” 

Consistently, the fear has something to do with violence and division, while the hope is unity.

I think we all could learn from the shared statement issued by the Young Democrats and Young Republicans of Connecticut before Trump announced Kirk’s death, in which they came together to “reject all forms of political violence” in a way we rarely, if ever, see elected officials do.