“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” — Mahatma Gandhi
The assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk last Wednesday at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, has inevitably become a topic of discourse here at the College. On Friday, a student cut down the American flag, which was flying at half-staff following a gubernatorial order and a White House proclamation to lower the flag until last Sunday in the wake of Kirk’s murder.
It’s not unreasonable that many students at the College find no sympathy with Kirk as a political figure due to his positions and advocacy. But the removal of the lowered flag conveys implicit acceptance of the brutal and grotesque political violence that took Kirk’s life. The flag’s removal should be rejected for the safety of all students on campus and for the United States to be a stable democratic society free from political violence.
I’d like to first preface by stating my personal disagreement with Kirk’s politics. My disagreement is far from mild. I believe that his speech, actions, and silence over the past 13 years contributed to the incitement of widespread political violence in the United States. This includes but is not limited to the political assassinations of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and the attempted assassinations of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband. His abhorrent rhetoric advocated for husbands holding supremacy over wives, public executions, stoning gay and trans people, and the Great Replacement Theory, just to name a few. It is my belief that Kirk contributed negatively to American society and should be recognized as such, not recast as a martyr of free speech.
It is possible, however, to believe these things while simultaneously believing that murder is always, in every situation, inherently an immoral act. Taking the life of a human being without their consent is a fundamental violation of personal autonomy and the concept of a free, democratic, and egalitarian society. It is possible to believe that Kirk contributed negatively to American society while acknowledging the immorality of murder and recognizing that actions like Kirk’s assasination exacerbate the chaos and violence of this moment.
The acceptance of violence against political opponents undermines the democratic process in which political disputes must be resolved via the ballot and not the bullet. If institutional democratic processes are not effective, there are other, preferable avenues for change that do not directly jump to political violence.
The de facto acceptance of political violence, which is what I believe the removal of the flag constitutes, bulldozes those preferable methods of achieving change and instead undermines the safety of all Americans. By accepting political murder as legitimated by one’s personal opposition to the victim, one is abandoning any supposed principles of justice, equality, or democracy. Instead, one embraces a tyranny of fear, a society ruled by paranoia, and a nation showered with lead.
As an elite liberal arts college, the College and its community have a responsibility to foster attitudes and perspectives that will contribute to the creation of a truly democratic society. That can mean a variety of things to a variety of people at this school, but the key part is recognizing how the opinions you express shape the world around you. Opinions and statements don’t exist in vacuums — they interact with your community and society in unique ways that have real implications.
When expressing views about Kirk, and especially when taking radical action in relation to the flag, it is paramount for students to be mindful of how those actions are perceived and contribute to the world around them.
I understand the underlying motivations for those who think that the flag should not be at half-staff for Kirk. Considering that the school shooting at Evergreen High School in Colorado that occurred the same day received no recognition from the White House, some may feel that the lowering of the flag is venerating this single man rather than mourning the tragedies that have become commonplace at American schools.
Opposing the half-staff flag, however, walks a fine line between criticizing Kirk and his beliefs and outwardly accepting the political violence against him.
Regarding the possibility of flying the flag full-staff, being one of the only — if not the only — higher education institutions acting against the directive would lead to negative attention to the College from the federal government. If the College is to protect both the education and safety of its 2,000 students, it should attempt as much as possible to avoid sticking out alone against the administration without any solidarity from other higher-ed institutions.
Not to say that opposing the administration is wrong. Rather, it is essential for the safety of our students that the College does so with the collective strength of academia to avoid putting the education of its students in jeopardy.
While the presidential directive wrongfully ignored the school shooting in Colorado, I believe that, regardless of the reason given by the White House, lowering the flag for Kirk’s murder serves as a recognition by the College of a nation in distress in this pivotal moment of unprecedented violence and turmoil.
The lowering of the flag, then, should not be taken as an offensive act. Instead, we should recognize the magnitude of Kirk’s murder, as well as the murder of Melissa Hortman and all victims of political violence. We must condemn political violence in all its forms to move forward and survive as a stable, free, and democratic society.
Sayer Theiss ’29 is from Mount Vernon, Wash.
