In a recent New York Times opinion essay, liberal columnist Ezra Klein referred to Charlie Kirk as, “practicing politics the right way.” Do you agree with this assertion? Why or why not?

Kirk’s intentional cultivation of disagreements succeeded in fostering productive dialogue; in his life, he "practiced politics the right way.” On his college campus visits, he hosted games like “Prove Me Wrong,” structured specifically to spark conversation Students sat across the table from Kirk, accountable and engaged, rather than hiding behind an online mask of anonymity., These interactions encouraged critical thinking, evidence-based argumentation, and meaningful discussion— qualities central to productive dialogue. In these ways, Kirk successfully practiced politics the right way.

Kirk found much of his success in short social media clips; how does this medium affect Kirk’s message?

Using short social media clips allowed Kirk to reach a broad audience, drawing more people into political conversations. Social media’s algorithmic nature ensures Kirk’s content is accessible anytime and anywhere, regardless of one’s typical political engagement. Since his in-person events primarily involved young people, posting these interactions drew more of them in, increasing participation among a population not known for being politically active. Connecting this to my previous point, in addition to intentional disagreements, a diverse, expansive crowd is crucial for productive dialogues. Through spreading his short social media clips, Kirk was able to gather such a body of people, again validating his practices as a politician.

Kirk was both commended and criticized for concentrating much of his activism on college campuses. How does Kirk’s focus on campuses shape his legacy?

The fact that Kirk frequently appeared on college campuses contributed a complicated legacy. His influential program Turning Point USA (TPUSA) lingers on campuses, continuing to encourage conversations among students. By hosting large scale events on campus that fostered dialogue, he also helped students of shared beliefs find each other; these communities he united last on the campuses. Secondly, he reinforced colleges’ involvement in the struggle for America’s future. His decision to implicate education into politics means that he has a polarized reputation. Some may praise him for encouraging political engagement among the youth—after all, they are known as “the future of our country”—while others may criticize him for overcomplicating education with the issues of our days.  

How are your opinions on Kirk affected by going to Concord Academy, a school often described as politically homogenous?

I agree that Concord Academy is, to a large extent, politically homogenous. In my experience, this can lead to the domination of a mainstream belief over discussions and, thus, people’s thinking. Especially for people like me who are just getting into politics, beliefs can start to feel like they are right or wrong.

For example, when I first got to know Charlie Kirk at the news of his death, my initial focus was how “wrong” he was; the idea that protecting the Second Amendment (gun ownership) meant accepting the cost of some gun deaths, as Kirk suggested, stood out to me; or, similarly, how he had firmly opposed abortion.

I had to step out of my current “bubble” to realize that this was part of a natural defense mechanism I felt because I have been surrounded by people with opposing views to those of Kirk. I felt offended, so I immediately resorted to criticism, reducing Kirk to what he believed. Only after setting aside my own prejudice that I was able to face Kirk as a human being, acknowledging both his flaws and his achievements, which included his ability to unite a remarkable number of people and cultivate meaningful dialogue among them.

After reading the other author’s opinion on Kirk, how has your position changed or grew?

Jeppson offers great insight about Kirk’s involvement in politics, making firm arguments about his influence on the public sphere. Her criticism of Kirk’s tactics—how they seem to neglect nuances, sow division and delegitimize conservative ideas—strikes me as valid. Reading her analysis made me realize that I had been a little too optimistic in my process of researching and writing my article: I was single-mindedly trying to get my point across, so, without realizing it, I prioritized sources that agreed with me, letting my beliefs stay rigid. After engaging with Jeppson’s article, my position has been slightly swayed, though the grounds I previously established still hold weight. I feel myself shifting to a middle ground—between agreement and disagreement, approval and condemnation of Kirk. This reaction made me grasp the complexity of dialogue; indeed, looking back at past conversations I have had, I was often positioned in the “gray zone.” This reminded me to focus not on the outcome of dialogues, but the growth; to feel comfortable validating perspectives totally different from mine; to stay reflective and critical, even when I am strongly expressing my views, such as in writing an article like this.