Last week, America was shaken by the assassination of Charlie Kirk during a campus event. This has forced a reckoning over how we talk about free speech and civility in our educational institutions.

Millions watched in horror as a man’s life was taken in real time, a brutal image that seared itself into the nation’s collective memory. Regardless of their political leanings, for many Americans, the moment wasn’t just shocking; it was mentally and emotionally destabilizing, raising questions about whether even the most basic freedoms can be exercised without fear. And while leaders and citizens alike struggle to process the political implications, the deeper cultural wound is clear: we are normalizing violence as a response to words.

Shocking Data

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to defending free speech and civil liberties on college campuses. Partnering with College Pulse, FIRE conducts one of the largest annual surveys of student attitudes, capturing how young people think about free expression, tolerance, and even the role of force in silencing speech.

On September 10th, the same day as Charlie Kirk’s death, FIRE released its most recent survey, and its findings cast a sharp light on a disturbing trend: a growing willingness among college students to see violence as an acceptable response to speech that offends them. 

The two events, survey results and an assassination, are obviously not causally linked, but together they are warning signals about where our culture of campus disagreement may be headed.

What the Survey Tells Us

The FIRE/College Pulse survey, which gathered responses from more than 68,000 students at 257 colleges, shows that roughly one in three students believes that violence may be justified to stop a campus speech under some circumstances. 

Here are some more specific findings:

• About 2% said violence is always acceptable in such situations.  
• 13% said “sometimes acceptable,” and 19% “rarely acceptable.” 
• A majority still says violence is never acceptable, but that majority is shrinking.  
• The tolerance for violence is mirrored by other worrying measures: more students think it’s acceptable to shout down a speaker (“heckler’s veto”) or physically block others from attending an event. 

Moreover, these shifts are not isolated to one ideological group; acceptance of violence has risen across liberal, conservative, and independent student identities. The trend is social, cultural, and widespread. 

The Argument Magazine notes that “…deeper and more consequential implications are at play here as well. The preferences expressed by these students undermine principles that are not just foundational, but fundamental to higher education: open debate, free inquiry, and exposure to differing viewpoints. They are also the pillars of American civil society that are increasingly falling out of favor.”

The Significance in Light of Kirk’s Assassination

 

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

-Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk was speaking on a campus when his voice was silenced by physical violence. Whether or not any of his critics condoned such an act, his death dramatizes the ultimate consequence of tolerating violence—even rhetorically—in response to speech.

What once seemed hypothetical has now become horrific reality. A survey question like “Is it acceptable in some cases to use violence to stop speech?” may appear abstract, but when a speaker is murdered, the distance between theory and reality collapses. The unimaginable suddenly becomes tangible.

Even if students say violence is only “rarely acceptable,” that sentiment still lowers the barrier to real-world aggression. When force becomes imaginable—even in rare cases—speech suppression can creep from theory into action. Shouting down speakers or blocking access may seem minor, but each act of tolerated disruption erodes the principle that speech should be met with more speech, not suppression. Over time, this erosion can make violent responses feel less shocking, even conceivable.

Universities are meant to be incubators of free inquiry and tolerance for disagreement. Yet when a significant portion of students believes violence can be justified, those foundational ideals are under direct threat. This is not merely about policy or codes of conduct; it is about the cultural norms we allow to take root. As Kirk’s death demonstrates, the consequences of those norms can extend far beyond the classroom.

What Might Be Fueling the Trend

 

Several cultural forces appear to be driving this trend. The rise of identity politics has encouraged students to see themselves as members of competing groups rather than as individuals. When disagreements are treated as attacks on identity, opponents are easily dehumanized, and hostility escalates.

This is compounded by a rhetoric of moral urgency. Speech that is framed as inherently dangerous or harmful can make physical retaliation seem like self-defense. What was once debate now feels existential, lowering the threshold for aggressive responses.

Frustration with traditional forms of protest also contributes. Students who feel petitions, counter-events, or demonstrations are ineffective may conclude that only force will make them heard. Social media amplifies this mindset, rewarding outrage and extremism while drowning out moderation. The loudest, most aggressive voices rise to the top, shaping perceptions of what is acceptable behavior.

Campus leadership plays a defining role. When administrators or faculty tolerate or even praise shouting down speakers or blocking entrances, they unintentionally normalize coercion. Small acts of disruption shift the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, and escalation to violence appears to be condoned, even encouraged.

What Can Be Done

To address this culture of violence, real or potential, colleges, students, and communities can take practical steps focused on culture, education, and shared norms:

• Recommit to free speech and civility codes. Universities should make it clear, in both policy and practice, that verbal or physical suppression of speech is unacceptable. Boundaries for protest, events, and security should be defined so that all speech can occur without fear of intimidation. Colleges and universities should be held accountable when they fail to uphold these standards. Parents, donors, and the broader community play a key role in applying pressure for meaningful change. 
• Civic education. Workshops, classes, and speaker series should teach students how to engage respectfully with opposing views, understand logical argumentation, and respond thoughtfully to ideas they may find offensive. Free speech protects all voices, not just the ones we agree with. 
• Clear consequences. Disruption, threats, or violence should be met with consistent enforcement. If rules prohibit blockading or “heckler’s veto” tactics, violations must have tangible consequences. 
• Promote forums for dialogue. Structured spaces where students can raise concerns about speech, content, or triggers with peers, faculty, and administrators can reduce misunderstandings and the sense that silencing is the only effective response. 
• Support mental health and social cohesion. Feelings of fear, alienation, or marginalization can push students toward extreme reactions. Campuses should cultivate opportunities for students to see each other as individuals rather than monolithic groups. 
• Lead by example. Administrators, professors, and student leaders must model non-violent, constructive responses when confronted with speech that offends or challenges them. Sometimes this means sitting through a disagreeable speech while responding with counter-speech, reflection, or organized critique rather than disruption or silencing.

Conclusion

FIRE clearly articulates the problem we face with American universities today. “Free speech is under continuous threat at many of America’s colleges, pushed aside in favor of politics, comfort, or simply a desire to avoid controversy. As a result, speech codes dictating what may or may not be said, ‘free speech zones’ confining speech to tiny areas of campus, and administrative attempts to punish or repress campus free speech on a case-by-case basis have become all too common.”

Their most recent survey revealed that a startling number of college students already believe violence can be justified to stop speech under certain circumstances. The assassination of Charlie Kirk, though tragic and extreme, brings that statistic into painful perspective. We aren’t looking at abstract numbers; they reflect a culture in which disagreement increasingly feels like a threat, and suppression of speech is seen as a legitimate tool.

These attitudes are diametrically opposed to the foundations of American liberty. A free society cannot survive if disagreement is met with intimidation or violence. Cultures are shaped by what we tolerate and reward: if shouting down a speaker becomes normalized, if blocking access is celebrated, if threats go unchallenged, then violence moves from “rarely acceptable” to inevitable.

We owe it to ourselves, our universities, our children, and our American way of life to push back; not with censorship, but with courage, dialogue, and conviction. We need more public engagement and dialogue around ideas in formats that give voice to every voice. This was modeled by Charlie Kirk.

We must defend a culture where words, not weapons, shape our future.