September 15, 2025
The tragic death of political activist Charlie Kirk underscores the urgent need for universities to prioritize meaningful dialogue over commercialized debates, as highlighted by Cherian George.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has starkly illuminated the growing animosity between conservative and progressive factions, as well as the clash between advocates of free speech and those opposing hate speech. However, it also reveals a more subtle contrast: the difference between a marketplace of commodified opinions and environments that nurture genuine deliberation and dialogue. The former has become prevalent in our political landscape, while the latter is what educational institutions must strive to develop.
In his immediate reaction to Kirk’s death, columnist Ezra Klein emphasized the marketplace ethos, stating, “Kirk was engaging in politics the right way by showing up on campuses and engaging with anyone willing to converse.” He noted that Kirk believed in winning arguments through dialogue.
While Klein’s acknowledgment of an ideological adversary may stem from liberal political ideals, it overlooks the economic dynamics that transformed Kirk into a cultural figure. A recent article in a prominent publication pointed out that Kirk quickly learned how to attract financial support from Republican donors by promising to challenge the dominance of liberalism on college campuses. As students began to adopt illiberal concepts like ‘deplatforming’ conservative speakers, Kirk’s appeal to donors grew stronger. Since 2018, he has traveled with a film crew to document the perceived absurdities of his opponents, many of whom are still too young to legally drink.
Initially, Kirk aimed to win over the hearts and minds of those he encountered. However, his approach has shifted towards converting these interactions into content designed to win online support.
The circumstances surrounding Kirk’s death have prompted discussions about the importance of addressing differences through dialogue rather than violence. Yet, the fact that Kirk refrained from resorting to lethal measures does not qualify him as a model for civil discourse. Regardless of one’s perspective on whether he was a purveyor of hate, his methods of persuasion are not what universities should endorse. Engaging with differing viewpoints should not be a performance aimed at garnering attention; rather, it should focus on finding common ground and recognizing our shared humanity.
When Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes introduced the concept of a ‘market’ to advocate for free competition in ideas, he intended it as a metaphor. In contrast, Kirk operated within a literal marketplace where verbal exchanges are commodified and monetized. In this environment, students who accept invitations to debate are not treated as partners in a sincere dialogue but rather as caricatures to be defeated, reinforcing a divisive ‘us versus them’ mentality that benefits marketing strategies.
Educators must abandon any naive belief that figures like Kirk exemplify good-faith engagement in public discourse. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, to commercialize the exchange of ideas. The prevalent format of television news has long transformed discussions about current events into a form of unscripted entertainment, prioritizing guests and hosts based on their potential for conflict. Social media algorithms exacerbate polarization, generating commercial gains for platform owners.
Such distorted portrayals of differing opinions are so widespread that they can lead to self-fulfilling misperceptions. When individuals perceive others as unreasonable and lacking empathy, they are likely to respond in kind, withholding trust and cooperation. This poses a significant threat to the future of democracy.
In recent years, I have been researching groups worldwide committed to breaking this cycle of distrust. My upcoming book, “Fighting Polarisation: Shared Communicative Spaces in Divided Democracies,” explores these efforts across various sectors, from co-governance initiatives in New Zealand to interfaith dialogues in India and citizens’ assemblies in Ireland.
My exploration begins on American campuses. Among all the sectors I studied, universities possess the greatest potential to shape their members’ communicative environments. For years, various organizations have been working to create opportunities for dialogue and deliberation across differences on campuses. Many of these initiatives have been independently validated by social scientists for their effectiveness. While they may not change students’ firmly held beliefs, they do reduce affective polarization—the tendency to view those with opposing views as adversaries—and foster mutual respect. Some programs are developed internally, while others are facilitated by specialized external organizations. Additionally, informal student-led initiatives, such as Breaking Bread gatherings at the University of Pennsylvania, have emerged, where students from differing backgrounds seek to understand one another while supporting their peers’ right to protest.
While methodologies may vary, these initiatives share common features. They primarily rely on face-to-face communication, allowing individuals to be seen as complex human beings rather than mere labels. They emphasize the importance of giving everyone a chance to speak while also cultivating deep listening skills. The goal of exchanging opposing views is not to win arguments but to foster mutual understanding. As a student organizer noted, the most effective way to be heard is through empathy and respect, rather than through a perfectly crafted argument. Experienced mediators, whether professional facilitators or knowledgeable peers, guide conversations, modeling how to frame questions as invitations to share rather than traps for scoring points. Even organizations that facilitate debates use these events as starting points for conversation rather than as competitions to declare a winner.
In essence, these campus initiatives represent everything that Kirk’s organization does not. There are valid reasons why they remain less recognized. Media outlets tend to focus on conflict, as it captures attention, making them less likely to report on efforts aimed at fostering understanding. Furthermore, the emphasis on inclusive dialogue often results in smaller gatherings, which grow through replication rather than large crowds, making them less newsworthy than a charismatic speaker filling a stadium.
Those engaged in counter-polarization efforts, whether on campuses or in other sectors, are unlikely to seek fame. They understand that the pursuit of celebrity is part of the problem, reducing ordinary citizens to passive observers while larger-than-life figures distort human relationships. As a prominent academic noted, we have lost a sense of collective agency by delegating our responsibilities to others, often to those who are the least responsible.
Even if campus dialogue and deliberation cannot compete for media attention or market influence, universities must prioritize them. These initiatives are not a replacement for more contentious political actions, including necessary protests in the face of injustice. However, even in a society that appears deeply divided, we must not overlook the simultaneous need to bridge these divides. While the work may be slow and unglamorous, such efforts represent democracy’s best hope against the corrosive forces of polarization and hatred.